[B][FONT=Times][SIZE=7][COLOR=green]
All teleological arguments for God- design, from reason, probability and fine-tuning assume what one should first illustrate that matters had to happen as they did, producing us. Had other events happened randomly, neither we nor any other inteligent being arrived as Jerry Coyne notes in " Seeing and Believing"[ Goole his name,please.] and the penultimate issue of Skeptic magazine note.
David Hume's dysteological [ bad teleology] notes that we see imperfections, presenting no omni-max God. I dare theists to present a valid argument without resorting to their failed theodicies and faith. One theist suggests that an omni-max god would have reason to give fluorishes as for the imperfections whilst a limited one would only make a perfect world [ See the thread the problem of Heaven to see why one cannot use theodicy to argue for those imperfections.].
The teleonomic/atelic argument argues that, because the weight of evidence presents no cosmic teleology -no goals or preconceived outcomes, to present God as the Designer would be to contradict non-planning natural selection, the anti-chance agency of Nature as the actual agency for evolutionary changes. And that evokes Malebranche's's ocasssionalism where he asserts that when we hit the eight ball, God hits it himself, in effect.
The argument from pareidolia is that theists see design whilst there are only the patterns in Nature like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla.
And the presumption of naturalism and the igtheistic [ignostic ] -Ockham further supports these two naturalist [ positive atheist] arguments.Please repsond to those two threads.
Anon I 'll reveal how cosmological arguments also beg the question.
Now theists can have ways to revise their arguments without begging any questions, but I am waiting patiently for that.
QUOTE (TheFairy+Apr 29 2009, 11:40 AM)
maybe he's a shemale 
OMG OMG OMG the thought of god being a transvestite! that is WRONG!
Almost as bad as GAY MARRIAGE! you realize that just the thought of that has doomed you to heck, yes? you are going to burn..... burn baby burn....
disco inferno...
off on yet another tangent.
MM
OMG OMG OMG the thought of god being a transvestite! that is WRONG!
Almost as bad as GAY MARRIAGE! you realize that just the thought of that has doomed you to heck, yes? you are going to burn..... burn baby burn....
disco inferno...
off on yet another tangent.
MM
Miracles, as Hume's corollary to the presumption of naturalism explicates, are natural manifestations rather than manifestations of supernatural.
History ignores rightly God as the Saviour of Jewry. And the Shoa confirms that!
Aquinas begs the cosmological question doubly: he assumes that by taking away the First Cause, one thereby takes away all intermediate causes and he assumes the Necessary Being in his contingency argument when one first has to argue for it rather than guess and make a it must be for it as theologians are ever wont to do.
He doth not beg the question as William Lane Craig doth do in the Kalam; he observes that it is ever from day to day whiles the latter begs the question of a starting point.
Science, as Victor Stenger affirms, belies Him!
And since thus these arguments fail to instantiate Him as a being, they affirm ignosticism- no there there!
Yea, there are more claims to consider, and we can further discuss the ones above. As one philosopher states, these claims are so entertaining!
Fallibilism demands scruitny.
History ignores rightly God as the Saviour of Jewry. And the Shoa confirms that!
Aquinas begs the cosmological question doubly: he assumes that by taking away the First Cause, one thereby takes away all intermediate causes and he assumes the Necessary Being in his contingency argument when one first has to argue for it rather than guess and make a it must be for it as theologians are ever wont to do.
He doth not beg the question as William Lane Craig doth do in the Kalam; he observes that it is ever from day to day whiles the latter begs the question of a starting point.
Science, as Victor Stenger affirms, belies Him!
And since thus these arguments fail to instantiate Him as a being, they affirm ignosticism- no there there!
Yea, there are more claims to consider, and we can further discuss the ones above. As one philosopher states, these claims are so entertaining!
Fallibilism demands scruitny.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Aug 9 2009, 02:45 PM)
Miracles, as Hume's corollary to the presumption of naturalism explicates, are natural manifestations rather than manifestations of supernatural.
Maybe. But there's that other possibility too...
Maybe. But there's that other possibility too...
nopEda, please show that rather than beg the question as Alister McGrath tries to keelhaul us naturalists for not following other venues of knowledge when he hasn't and cannot show them. We advocate using reason, so we can use other venues than science but all of them are natural. Again, where's the beef/
Any charlatan can do such miracles as reported about that fanatic Yeshua!
As Existence is all, there can be no transcendent being! There is nothing outside itself then when to come.
Cause, time, event and explanations presuppose previous ones.
Again as Antony Gerard Newton Flew notes in his ' God a Critical Enquiry that Aquinas does not make a temporal order but rather explanation. The temporal form is the Kalam, which [ without naming it ] [b]ecause every event must have a cause, and the precession of causes could not go back forever. This disgraceful argument is outstanding among fallacies: not merely does the conclusion not follow from the premises; it actually contradicts one of them, while they contradict each other."
As noted @ the ignostic-Ockham thread, He is useless as any kind of explanation , including the personal ones that Craig and Swinburne want.
T'is a great shame that Gerald Schroeder mislead him about the biology involved. Flew was not up on his knowledge of scientific developments concerning the origin of life [See Talk Origins for the latest findings.]. He found out that Schroeder had mislead him but nevertheless he became a deist. See Richard Carrier's account about his dementia and belief @ FRDB and also his essay there on
proving a negative,please.]
Under my three monikers , this is my 200th post here.
Any charlatan can do such miracles as reported about that fanatic Yeshua!
As Existence is all, there can be no transcendent being! There is nothing outside itself then when to come.
Cause, time, event and explanations presuppose previous ones.
Again as Antony Gerard Newton Flew notes in his ' God a Critical Enquiry that Aquinas does not make a temporal order but rather explanation. The temporal form is the Kalam, which [ without naming it ] [b]ecause every event must have a cause, and the precession of causes could not go back forever. This disgraceful argument is outstanding among fallacies: not merely does the conclusion not follow from the premises; it actually contradicts one of them, while they contradict each other."
As noted @ the ignostic-Ockham thread, He is useless as any kind of explanation , including the personal ones that Craig and Swinburne want.
T'is a great shame that Gerald Schroeder mislead him about the biology involved. Flew was not up on his knowledge of scientific developments concerning the origin of life [See Talk Origins for the latest findings.]. He found out that Schroeder had mislead him but nevertheless he became a deist. See Richard Carrier's account about his dementia and belief @ FRDB and also his essay there on
proving a negative,please.]
Under my three monikers , this is my 200th post here.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Aug 9 2009, 11:38 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda pointed out+)
there's that other possibility too...
We humanists with our covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism- declare that our rights stem form our level of consciousness, rather than as theists with their argument from God for our rights that either they stem from Him and so are inalienable or else from the state and so are revocable. Our argument is in line with the UN and "my cousin" Morgan's Canon.
The latter I use to support the Great Ape Project to grant to the other great apes more 'rights." And don't forget the lesser ones.
I find then that I can support both abortion and the protection of other animals!
[B]
nopEda, please show that
I guess I can't show that God might exist any more than you can show that he does not. Wow, it looks like there are still two possibilities instead of just the one you want people to put their faith in. Do you have any idea why you want to oppose the fact?
I guess I can't show that God might exist any more than you can show that he does not. Wow, it looks like there are still two possibilities instead of just the one you want people to put their faith in. Do you have any idea why you want to oppose the fact?
skepticgriggsy
What a 'bitchy' style you have. It's like "argue with me if you dare".
This is hardly how to get reasoned thought. But , I'll bite.
God is severally represented by a much greater human experience than 'theists'. It's rather funny to see so much effort goes into rebuffing biblical belief . Probably only because the believers in God are 'locally' believers in the biblical texts. I was also very much impressed by the number of 'big words' you used to present your arguments. WOW, you must really be smart!!..
I was fortunate enough to have been brought up with a reasonable mix of moral teaching, (based on biblical teachings) and hypocrisy,(also as seen via biblical teaching). So I can easily pick bones out of the bible and those who follow it as rote. However, several years ago I began to challenge the direction that the teachings expected us to believe, DESPITE much written telling believers not to do so.
It became apparent (to me) that the church was much caught up in the 'spooky' aspect of the biblical teachings as well as regarding the moral teachings as 'flexible' depending on where you chose to read. Generally, the church was reading Paul, who was much caught up in super spirituality.
When this lead to actions in the church which Jesus specifically warned against, I left the church to it's own devices. You will certainly label me as a theist, stained by ideas of God because of this experience, however, I can see in you a pattern which must have marked who you are today by your style of conversation.
Even though I wasn't content with the church explanation of reality, neither have I been satisfied by sciences version of the same. Funnily enough, science is using similar methodology to the church despite claiming otherwise. There is soo much of science which is taught as fact, which has not been proven. At some stage , someone will prove it false or incorrect, but until it is , it is taught as fact.
If You look at the great change in thinking that surrounds relativity, dna,black holes, You could easily say that everybody who thought before was a crackpot. But you don't because you believe they were searching for the truth. Where is it that you draw the line?. I find you attitude truly offensive. Not because it involves religion, because as I said, I don't think they are any where near right, but because you denigrate a huge part of the thinking evolution that humanity has gone through to further you own bent ideals.
i saw nothing to suggest that you have the least bit of desirable personality that would interest me in further conversation. So this is just me saying what a turd I think you are.
Cheers
Iseason
What a 'bitchy' style you have. It's like "argue with me if you dare".
This is hardly how to get reasoned thought. But , I'll bite.
God is severally represented by a much greater human experience than 'theists'. It's rather funny to see so much effort goes into rebuffing biblical belief . Probably only because the believers in God are 'locally' believers in the biblical texts. I was also very much impressed by the number of 'big words' you used to present your arguments. WOW, you must really be smart!!..
I was fortunate enough to have been brought up with a reasonable mix of moral teaching, (based on biblical teachings) and hypocrisy,(also as seen via biblical teaching). So I can easily pick bones out of the bible and those who follow it as rote. However, several years ago I began to challenge the direction that the teachings expected us to believe, DESPITE much written telling believers not to do so.
It became apparent (to me) that the church was much caught up in the 'spooky' aspect of the biblical teachings as well as regarding the moral teachings as 'flexible' depending on where you chose to read. Generally, the church was reading Paul, who was much caught up in super spirituality.
When this lead to actions in the church which Jesus specifically warned against, I left the church to it's own devices. You will certainly label me as a theist, stained by ideas of God because of this experience, however, I can see in you a pattern which must have marked who you are today by your style of conversation.
Even though I wasn't content with the church explanation of reality, neither have I been satisfied by sciences version of the same. Funnily enough, science is using similar methodology to the church despite claiming otherwise. There is soo much of science which is taught as fact, which has not been proven. At some stage , someone will prove it false or incorrect, but until it is , it is taught as fact.
If You look at the great change in thinking that surrounds relativity, dna,black holes, You could easily say that everybody who thought before was a crackpot. But you don't because you believe they were searching for the truth. Where is it that you draw the line?. I find you attitude truly offensive. Not because it involves religion, because as I said, I don't think they are any where near right, but because you denigrate a huge part of the thinking evolution that humanity has gone through to further you own bent ideals.
i saw nothing to suggest that you have the least bit of desirable personality that would interest me in further conversation. So this is just me saying what a turd I think you are.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Aug 10 2009, 09:35 AM)
skepticgriggsy
Even though I wasn't content with the church explanation of reality, neither have I been satisfied by sciences version of the same. Funnily enough, science is using similar methodology to the church despite claiming otherwise. There is soo much of science which is taught as fact, which has not been proven. At some stage , someone will prove it false or incorrect, but until it is , it is taught as fact.
Cheers
Iseason
I think how science it taught needs to be looked at.
It needs to be emphasized that people don't have all the answers.
I think that fact needs to be taught and retaught.
Even though I wasn't content with the church explanation of reality, neither have I been satisfied by sciences version of the same. Funnily enough, science is using similar methodology to the church despite claiming otherwise. There is soo much of science which is taught as fact, which has not been proven. At some stage , someone will prove it false or incorrect, but until it is , it is taught as fact.
Cheers
Iseason
I think how science it taught needs to be looked at.
It needs to be emphasized that people don't have all the answers.
I think that fact needs to be taught and retaught.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 10 2009, 09:57 AM)
I think how science it taught needs to be looked at.
Different people learn in different ways, and have different strong and weak points. I do better at understanding things like mathematical equations and different processes, which means I do worse with things like remembering particular names and dates... That spills over into different areas of our lives, and things we learn. Because of that I did better at music theory than at sight singing and ear training. I noticed that the people who were better with names and dates did better in history and English classes than math classes, and also at sight singing and ear training than they did at theory. Most people in general that I discussed it with seemed to do better with English and history than with math, and they did better with singing etc than at theory. In general the drummers I discussed it with did better in math and theory than history and singing, but the wind and string people did better at the other things and there were a lot more of those people than drummers...
If the general population does better with names and dates than with the concepts, that might explain why they teach poor kids in school what the elements are BEFORE they even teach them the structure of an atom. To me that seems like a stupid way to go about it, but that's the way I've been told it is done.
Different people learn in different ways, and have different strong and weak points. I do better at understanding things like mathematical equations and different processes, which means I do worse with things like remembering particular names and dates... That spills over into different areas of our lives, and things we learn. Because of that I did better at music theory than at sight singing and ear training. I noticed that the people who were better with names and dates did better in history and English classes than math classes, and also at sight singing and ear training than they did at theory. Most people in general that I discussed it with seemed to do better with English and history than with math, and they did better with singing etc than at theory. In general the drummers I discussed it with did better in math and theory than history and singing, but the wind and string people did better at the other things and there were a lot more of those people than drummers...
If the general population does better with names and dates than with the concepts, that might explain why they teach poor kids in school what the elements are BEFORE they even teach them the structure of an atom. To me that seems like a stupid way to go about it, but that's the way I've been told it is done.
WHat I meant was they seem to be teaching by saying this is what we believe and then this is why.
That is not how science is done. It's not conclusion first. It's obervations first. But a lot of people think that evidence is sorted to fit the theory but it's done the other way around.
But when it's taught the conclusion has been reached. The students might get the timeline out of order.
That is not how science is done. It's not conclusion first. It's obervations first. But a lot of people think that evidence is sorted to fit the theory but it's done the other way around.
But when it's taught the conclusion has been reached. The students might get the timeline out of order.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 10 2009, 10:57 PM)
I think how science it taught needs to be looked at.
It needs to be emphasized that people don't have all the answers.
I think that fact needs to be taught and retaught.
Hi Buttershug
For once , I have no truck with your statement. This is precisely what I meant. Often , because I refer to the arguments between religion and science, I am expected to prefer religion over science. This could not be more wrong.
There are two areas that get me riled.
1. The need for people who promote science as better than religion and to degrade religion DESPITE the fact that science evolved from this process.
2. The chosen point where current thinking decided that the review of scientific process begins.
I probably need to explain the latter.
Generally science reviews "whole concepts", such as relativity,Quantum, Stella , big bang and so on. However science (as far as I have been able to see) doesn't worry that the measuring sticks they are using are themselves flawed. relativity is a prime example.
Relativity only works when you 'assume' that other concepts occur at the same time.....all the time. If any of these were shown to be incorrect, then relativity falls down.
Certainly using the current measuring process works for relativity. These are time and space and motion.However each of these is entirely reliant on each other to exist.
no space =no time or motion
no time =no space or motion
no motion =no time or space
This means there is only one methodology that can be used to prove relativity....Which is relativity itself. I don't see how a theory can be it's own proof.
Along side this I see that our concept of dimensions is flawed. Since we use this when referring to relativity, it is relevant with a theory proving itself.
There is no such physical thing as one dimension in reality. The theoretical "dot" can only occur in three dimensional space. It must have length, height AND depth to exist at all. In the same way as you cannot have less than three dimensions, you cannot have less than time,space and motion in order to measure relativity.
Although relativity measures time , motion and space, it also assumes them to be separate entities that DON'T require a separate theory to explain them. This makes time "something". It makes motion"a form of energy". And space "a totally independent medium that time and motion live in".
If I am critical of science, it is because this set of concepts falls short of asking the question of what energy is. It simply answers "what energy does". Although this provides us with innumerable utilitarian uses for the energy we measure, it relegates what we cannot measure to the too hard basket. Or in fact places it into the two easy basket. A prime example of this is infinity...Just make the universe infinite...Don't worry that we also said energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Cheers
Iseason
It needs to be emphasized that people don't have all the answers.
I think that fact needs to be taught and retaught.
Hi Buttershug
For once , I have no truck with your statement. This is precisely what I meant. Often , because I refer to the arguments between religion and science, I am expected to prefer religion over science. This could not be more wrong.
There are two areas that get me riled.
1. The need for people who promote science as better than religion and to degrade religion DESPITE the fact that science evolved from this process.
2. The chosen point where current thinking decided that the review of scientific process begins.
I probably need to explain the latter.
Generally science reviews "whole concepts", such as relativity,Quantum, Stella , big bang and so on. However science (as far as I have been able to see) doesn't worry that the measuring sticks they are using are themselves flawed. relativity is a prime example.
Relativity only works when you 'assume' that other concepts occur at the same time.....all the time. If any of these were shown to be incorrect, then relativity falls down.
Certainly using the current measuring process works for relativity. These are time and space and motion.However each of these is entirely reliant on each other to exist.
no space =no time or motion
no time =no space or motion
no motion =no time or space
This means there is only one methodology that can be used to prove relativity....Which is relativity itself. I don't see how a theory can be it's own proof.
Along side this I see that our concept of dimensions is flawed. Since we use this when referring to relativity, it is relevant with a theory proving itself.
There is no such physical thing as one dimension in reality. The theoretical "dot" can only occur in three dimensional space. It must have length, height AND depth to exist at all. In the same way as you cannot have less than three dimensions, you cannot have less than time,space and motion in order to measure relativity.
Although relativity measures time , motion and space, it also assumes them to be separate entities that DON'T require a separate theory to explain them. This makes time "something". It makes motion"a form of energy". And space "a totally independent medium that time and motion live in".
If I am critical of science, it is because this set of concepts falls short of asking the question of what energy is. It simply answers "what energy does". Although this provides us with innumerable utilitarian uses for the energy we measure, it relegates what we cannot measure to the too hard basket. Or in fact places it into the two easy basket. A prime example of this is infinity...Just make the universe infinite...Don't worry that we also said energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Aug 11 2009, 08:12 AM)
Hi Buttershug
Generally science reviews "whole concepts", such as relativity,Quantum, Stella , big bang and so on. However science (as far as I have been able to see) doesn't worry that the measuring sticks they are using are themselves flawed. relativity is a prime example.
Relativity only works when you 'assume' that other concepts occur at the same time.....all the time. If any of these were shown to be incorrect, then relativity falls down.
Cheers
Iseason
But science's measuring stick is the only one we have.
The religious one is made up, and made up differently for each person.
What science does is try and make a common measuring stick.
There was someone on here who said that he was studying Geology and that scientists interpret things to match what they believe and he would match things to fit the Great Flood theory.
The problem is that proper science does not work that way it is not conclusion first.
What I'm saying is it can appear that way. Even thesises(sp) have the abstract first. But that is usuallly the last thing written.
What needs to be taught is "We don't know". Science not knowing does not mean that religion does.
Generally science reviews "whole concepts", such as relativity,Quantum, Stella , big bang and so on. However science (as far as I have been able to see) doesn't worry that the measuring sticks they are using are themselves flawed. relativity is a prime example.
Relativity only works when you 'assume' that other concepts occur at the same time.....all the time. If any of these were shown to be incorrect, then relativity falls down.
Cheers
Iseason
But science's measuring stick is the only one we have.
The religious one is made up, and made up differently for each person.
What science does is try and make a common measuring stick.
There was someone on here who said that he was studying Geology and that scientists interpret things to match what they believe and he would match things to fit the Great Flood theory.
The problem is that proper science does not work that way it is not conclusion first.
What I'm saying is it can appear that way. Even thesises(sp) have the abstract first. But that is usuallly the last thing written.
What needs to be taught is "We don't know". Science not knowing does not mean that religion does.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 10 2009, 05:15 PM)
WHat I meant was they seem to be teaching by saying this is what we believe and then this is why.
That is not how science is done. It's not conclusion first. It's obervations first. But a lot of people think that evidence is sorted to fit the theory but it's done the other way around.
But when it's taught the conclusion has been reached. The students might get the timeline out of order.
I feel sure it works both ways. I remember being taught a lot of things about mistakes people had made, and how they were corrected. I thought that was a waste of time, especially when we had to remember names and dates. It's enough to try to remember the correct concepts, without having to remember the incorrect ones and details about them too.
That is not how science is done. It's not conclusion first. It's obervations first. But a lot of people think that evidence is sorted to fit the theory but it's done the other way around.
But when it's taught the conclusion has been reached. The students might get the timeline out of order.
I feel sure it works both ways. I remember being taught a lot of things about mistakes people had made, and how they were corrected. I thought that was a waste of time, especially when we had to remember names and dates. It's enough to try to remember the correct concepts, without having to remember the incorrect ones and details about them too.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 11 2009, 11:47 PM)
But science's measuring stick is the only one we have.
The religious one is made up, and made up differently for each person.
What science does is try and make a common measuring stick.
There was someone on here who said that he was studying Geology and that scientists interpret things to match what they believe and he would match things to fit the Great Flood theory.
The problem is that proper science does not work that way it is not conclusion first.
What I'm saying is it can appear that way. Even thesises(sp) have the abstract first. But that is usuallly the last thing written.
What needs to be taught is "We don't know". Science not knowing does not mean that religion does.
hi Buttershug
No science does no have a common measuring stick. You are being selective as to what you are referring to as science. your selection relates to an accepted theory which has been proven via a common interpretation.
an example is that everything must conform to relativity. This is because relativity has been shown to "not be incorrect' . But insisting that relativity does not need further proving is folly........Of course everything conforms to relativity, but what must it conform to?
When you use relativity, you lose the greater portion of the ability to prove it because "the smallest" change affects "the largest". This means that relativity is segmented NOT ONLY via two or more objects, but also via every variance that exists or has existed EVER...This is another good argument against infinity.
Time cannot be a thing (in it's own right) if relativity is to be believed. A position can only exist IF it is measuring another position. There is no other way for relativity to be true to itself. If it can only measure itself via another position, then it needs to have surety that it doesn't simply repeat measuring the same position again and again.
Gravity is a good example where relative volume is measured accurately by us in our relative volume WITHOUT us even being aware we are measuring. So somehow EVERYTHING in the universe can create a divisional sum that IS SO ACCURATE that it can never be wrong. The only way to do this is to measure from both ends.
The smallest and the largest. An infinite universe could not get it right because the parameters wouldn't hold true from one second to the next.
Cheers
Iseason
The religious one is made up, and made up differently for each person.
What science does is try and make a common measuring stick.
There was someone on here who said that he was studying Geology and that scientists interpret things to match what they believe and he would match things to fit the Great Flood theory.
The problem is that proper science does not work that way it is not conclusion first.
What I'm saying is it can appear that way. Even thesises(sp) have the abstract first. But that is usuallly the last thing written.
What needs to be taught is "We don't know". Science not knowing does not mean that religion does.
hi Buttershug
No science does no have a common measuring stick. You are being selective as to what you are referring to as science. your selection relates to an accepted theory which has been proven via a common interpretation.
an example is that everything must conform to relativity. This is because relativity has been shown to "not be incorrect' . But insisting that relativity does not need further proving is folly........Of course everything conforms to relativity, but what must it conform to?
When you use relativity, you lose the greater portion of the ability to prove it because "the smallest" change affects "the largest". This means that relativity is segmented NOT ONLY via two or more objects, but also via every variance that exists or has existed EVER...This is another good argument against infinity.
Time cannot be a thing (in it's own right) if relativity is to be believed. A position can only exist IF it is measuring another position. There is no other way for relativity to be true to itself. If it can only measure itself via another position, then it needs to have surety that it doesn't simply repeat measuring the same position again and again.
Gravity is a good example where relative volume is measured accurately by us in our relative volume WITHOUT us even being aware we are measuring. So somehow EVERYTHING in the universe can create a divisional sum that IS SO ACCURATE that it can never be wrong. The only way to do this is to measure from both ends.
The smallest and the largest. An infinite universe could not get it right because the parameters wouldn't hold true from one second to the next.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Aug 20 2009, 09:27 AM)
hi Buttershug
But insisting that relativity does not need further proving is folly........Of course everything conforms to relativity, but what must it conform to?
Cheers
Iseason
Reality.
Science must conform to verifiable reality.
Anyone who finds something that does not conform to relativity and can verify that fact will be a great scientist. but it won't be someone like Mirrorman. He can't understand even simple things.
But insisting that relativity does not need further proving is folly........Of course everything conforms to relativity, but what must it conform to?
Cheers
Iseason
Reality.
Science must conform to verifiable reality.
Anyone who finds something that does not conform to relativity and can verify that fact will be a great scientist. but it won't be someone like Mirrorman. He can't understand even simple things.
Like many bad arguments, of course it is based on some grains of truth, and that is worth examining. But small elements of faith do crop into science generally, and physics in particular.
iseason, ah, my dare you's are to provoke discussion.
Then you fathom my points. Yes, I have almost a Mr. William F.. Buckley vocabulary.
I find those begged questions, and there are other inherent fallacies of theism.
As science indeed presents the case that Existence is eternal on the basis of the conservation of energy applied to the quantum fluctuations, and what I note above, then there is no need for a Creator or a Sustainer. God does not explain how matters happen or why; no science explains the true why and how of phenomena.
One ever so errs in invoking that He gives the why of phenomena when all He means is God did it- God wills what he will- a useless tautology.
As we discern patterns rather than designs, there is no need to postulate a Designer. Again, t'is a matter of theists seeing pareidolias- mind behind Nature and patterns as designs when t'is a matter of natural causes and patterns.
So, one needs not invoke a First Cause or Designer.
Slow-read my posts here and @ the on what is your argument for God? and then respond.
Thanks to all. Let me know, please, if you want me to add you as my friend and let me know if you have me thus. Again, t'is a matter of theists pareidolias So, one need not postulate a First Cause or Designer. Existence is eternal God does not explain science explains the true why and how of phenomena
Then you fathom my points. Yes, I have almost a Mr. William F.. Buckley vocabulary.
I find those begged questions, and there are other inherent fallacies of theism.
As science indeed presents the case that Existence is eternal on the basis of the conservation of energy applied to the quantum fluctuations, and what I note above, then there is no need for a Creator or a Sustainer. God does not explain how matters happen or why; no science explains the true why and how of phenomena.
One ever so errs in invoking that He gives the why of phenomena when all He means is God did it- God wills what he will- a useless tautology.
As we discern patterns rather than designs, there is no need to postulate a Designer. Again, t'is a matter of theists seeing pareidolias- mind behind Nature and patterns as designs when t'is a matter of natural causes and patterns.
So, one needs not invoke a First Cause or Designer.
Slow-read my posts here and @ the on what is your argument for God? and then respond.
Thanks to all. Let me know, please, if you want me to add you as my friend and let me know if you have me thus. Again, t'is a matter of theists pareidolias So, one need not postulate a First Cause or Designer. Existence is eternal God does not explain science explains the true why and how of phenomena
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Oct 14 2009, 06:56 AM)
iseason, ah, my dare you's are to provoke discussion.
Then you fathom my points. Yes, I have almost a Mr. William F.. Buckley vocabulary.
I find those begged questions, and there are other inherent fallacies of theism.
As science indeed presents the case that Existence is eternal on the basis of the conservation of energy applied to the quantum fluctuations, and what I note above, then there is no need for a Creator or a Sustainer. God does not explain how matters happen or why; no science explains the true why and how of phenomena.
One ever so errs in invoking that He gives the why of phenomena when all He means is God did it- God wills what he will- a useless tautology.
As we discern patterns rather than designs, there is no need to postulate a Designer. Again, t'is a matter of theists seeing pareidolias- mind behind Nature and patterns as designs when t'is a matter of natural causes and patterns.
So, one needs not invoke a First Cause or Designer.
Slow-read my posts here and @ the on what is your argument for God? and then respond.
Thanks to all. Let me know, please, if you want me to add you as my friend and let me know if you have me thus. Again, t'is a matter of theists pareidolias So, one need not postulate a First Cause or Designer. Existence is eternal God does not explain science explains the true why and how of phenomena
WOW
I had a fairly hearty attitude back in august
(haven't been in for a bit)
Of course I can move on from that and clarify my position some more.
I am unable to take a position against ANY particular method for the creation/evolution of the universe as I truly subscribe to "an inevitable result". It's been difficult to get to , let alone defend , however, it is not the same thing as 'randomness', but contains it.
best way of looking at it is ' because it exists, it should always have been part of the matrix'.
this means that your every breath has relevance to the make up of the entire universe.Should you not have taken the one you just did, the fabric of the universe would not just be flawed.It would never have happenned.
for proof, I look at relativity. If relativity is correct, then you cannot pick and choose.EVERYTHING!!!!! Every tiny little photon must be where it is in the correct order EVERY TIME. It matters not at all that you and Venus aren't aware that your position is being measured by every other photon in the universe.
So the relevance for me (as far as science and religion goes) is that you cannot remove it from the mix. To do so has no lessor or greater effect than you not taking that single breath.
So how does that relate to the significance of God?
Man has had a 'God complex' alongside it's 'knowledge complex' as long as history has been recording.In much of the history of learning, the two complexes have driven each other in a forwards direction.(I know there will be many to disagree wth that statement). However , social evolution is not comparable to physical evolution.So without one , the other would cease to exist.....quite literally,you cannot remove history any more than you can take back that breath.
you might argue that you can choose a different path. that might affect some future outcome.That by doing so creates some future event.
What event do you have in mind? you are made up of tiny little events called energy quanta. What did you do but occupy space? Did you, by occupying this space for that span of time actually achieve anything?....If you did, then what?....You were energy in small packets and remain energy in small packets.?the fact that for a moment they gather in one place or time only has significance when considering a completed universe.There is no need for order or form in randomness.
that is why I see it as a review and not a current process that you can change.
Cheers Iseason
Then you fathom my points. Yes, I have almost a Mr. William F.. Buckley vocabulary.
I find those begged questions, and there are other inherent fallacies of theism.
As science indeed presents the case that Existence is eternal on the basis of the conservation of energy applied to the quantum fluctuations, and what I note above, then there is no need for a Creator or a Sustainer. God does not explain how matters happen or why; no science explains the true why and how of phenomena.
One ever so errs in invoking that He gives the why of phenomena when all He means is God did it- God wills what he will- a useless tautology.
As we discern patterns rather than designs, there is no need to postulate a Designer. Again, t'is a matter of theists seeing pareidolias- mind behind Nature and patterns as designs when t'is a matter of natural causes and patterns.
So, one needs not invoke a First Cause or Designer.
Slow-read my posts here and @ the on what is your argument for God? and then respond.
Thanks to all. Let me know, please, if you want me to add you as my friend and let me know if you have me thus. Again, t'is a matter of theists pareidolias So, one need not postulate a First Cause or Designer. Existence is eternal God does not explain science explains the true why and how of phenomena
WOW
I had a fairly hearty attitude back in august
(haven't been in for a bit)
Of course I can move on from that and clarify my position some more.
I am unable to take a position against ANY particular method for the creation/evolution of the universe as I truly subscribe to "an inevitable result". It's been difficult to get to , let alone defend , however, it is not the same thing as 'randomness', but contains it.
best way of looking at it is ' because it exists, it should always have been part of the matrix'.
this means that your every breath has relevance to the make up of the entire universe.Should you not have taken the one you just did, the fabric of the universe would not just be flawed.It would never have happenned.
for proof, I look at relativity. If relativity is correct, then you cannot pick and choose.EVERYTHING!!!!! Every tiny little photon must be where it is in the correct order EVERY TIME. It matters not at all that you and Venus aren't aware that your position is being measured by every other photon in the universe.
So the relevance for me (as far as science and religion goes) is that you cannot remove it from the mix. To do so has no lessor or greater effect than you not taking that single breath.
So how does that relate to the significance of God?
Man has had a 'God complex' alongside it's 'knowledge complex' as long as history has been recording.In much of the history of learning, the two complexes have driven each other in a forwards direction.(I know there will be many to disagree wth that statement). However , social evolution is not comparable to physical evolution.So without one , the other would cease to exist.....quite literally,you cannot remove history any more than you can take back that breath.
you might argue that you can choose a different path. that might affect some future outcome.That by doing so creates some future event.
What event do you have in mind? you are made up of tiny little events called energy quanta. What did you do but occupy space? Did you, by occupying this space for that span of time actually achieve anything?....If you did, then what?....You were energy in small packets and remain energy in small packets.?the fact that for a moment they gather in one place or time only has significance when considering a completed universe.There is no need for order or form in randomness.
that is why I see it as a review and not a current process that you can change.
Cheers Iseason
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 11 2009, 04:47 PM)
I feel sure it works both ways. I remember being taught a lot of things about mistakes people had made, and how they were corrected. I thought that was a waste of time, especially when we had to remember names and dates. It's enough to try to remember the correct concepts, without having to remember the incorrect ones and details about them too.
But it's not enough to know "what" you have to know why to really understand it.
You get these wannabe's like H2O that think they know better than "conventional" thinking. But they don't understand why certain things are. And why the things they disagree with are the "unconventional" thinking.
But it's not enough to know "what" you have to know why to really understand it.
You get these wannabe's like H2O that think they know better than "conventional" thinking. But they don't understand why certain things are. And why the things they disagree with are the "unconventional" thinking.
[B] iseason, as a writer in Skeptic magazine and Dr.Jerry Coyne, my friend, in "Seeing and Believing" [ Please , Google his name or maybe the name of the article itself.] reveal there was no ineluctuability of our or any other comparable species evolving This affirms that theists, yes, Dr. Kenneth Miller himself, argue in a circle for design. Had the flowering plants had not evolved and there was the cooling-off , we or comparable species would not have evolved.
The probability argument relies on the wrong probabilities whilst are those as those two events and mutations working with natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature.It ignores the teleonomic causes - non-planned outcomes. So, cosmic teleology would contradict natural selection and other natural causes rather than showing the compatibility of science and religion. To aver the opposite is to affirm the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with that teleonomy. Nay, natural causes as the presumption of naturalism are the sufficient reason, contrary to Leibniz.
The fine-tuning one assumes that other parameters and other sources of life beside carbon, such as silicon, wouldn't have helped produced some form of life.
And the one from reason ignores the evidence that evolution formed us such that we can on the basis of trial and error trust our faculties rather than postulate God as designing them for trust. So, we naturalist do not use a self-refuting argument, contrary to Dr. Alvin Platinga, Fr. Alfred Cyril Ewing and Mr. Clive Staples Lewis.
So, all four forms of the teleological argument not olly argue in a circle but have their own defeaters.
The probability argument relies on the wrong probabilities whilst are those as those two events and mutations working with natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature.It ignores the teleonomic causes - non-planned outcomes. So, cosmic teleology would contradict natural selection and other natural causes rather than showing the compatibility of science and religion. To aver the opposite is to affirm the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with that teleonomy. Nay, natural causes as the presumption of naturalism are the sufficient reason, contrary to Leibniz.
The fine-tuning one assumes that other parameters and other sources of life beside carbon, such as silicon, wouldn't have helped produced some form of life.
And the one from reason ignores the evidence that evolution formed us such that we can on the basis of trial and error trust our faculties rather than postulate God as designing them for trust. So, we naturalist do not use a self-refuting argument, contrary to Dr. Alvin Platinga, Fr. Alfred Cyril Ewing and Mr. Clive Staples Lewis.
So, all four forms of the teleological argument not olly argue in a circle but have their own defeaters.
We humanists with our covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism- declare that our rights stem form our level of consciousness, rather than as theists with their argument from God for our rights that either they stem from Him and so are inalienable or else from the state and so are revocable. Our argument is in line with the UN and "my cousin" Morgan's Canon.
The latter I use to support the Great Ape Project to grant to the other great apes more 'rights." And don't forget the lesser ones.
I find then that I can support both abortion and the protection of other animals!
[B]
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.