Free will & omniscience...

Remove all ads!

Chevalier:


I think the only important contention I have with your latest is that your position seems to hinge on a God which is unknowable to us in the same way that an object which gets further away from you as it approaches you would be. As far as we know, time does not exist(in the way that matter exists). It is a concept to describe the passing of events which ALWAYS happen in a linear chain.Until someone is able to demonstrate that this is not so, I must conclude that this is likely how things are.
If God existed then maybe he is able to create square shaped triangles or see all events happening at once(really mind boggling when you think about it) but until we can understand how this could be, I cannot give much credence to the notion.
Your posts are appreciated though for at least being thought -provoking and not insulting.

 

Runequestor - Time is a fully realized dimension and while as far as we know it flows only in one direction, the rate is totally relative to each individual observer. Time slows down depending on both the speed of the user and how close they are to a gravity well and its strenght. This has been demostrated repeatedly, first in the 50's when atomic clocks were put into jet planes. They would synchronize one clock on the ground compared to one put on a plane. After a fast flight, the times were compared again and there was a difference which proves that time is both a real entity and can be affected and so is not a concept but a fully realized entity. We now return you to our regularly scheduled arguement

 

jschild:

Gravity, our location in space, our velocity, all of these things have a physical effect on the universe and how we percieve the passage of time. But time itself is just a concept, like logic or distance.

 

It does more than affect our perception of the passage of time, it changes the flow of it. How we measure time is arbitrary and and conceptual, but the flow of time is not. Concepts cannot be affected by reality but time is. Time is tightly connected to the other 3 physical dimensions. It is not a solid object but it is a real one.

 

Please clarify your point.

Technically, God could change our minds and fill them with different definitions

Anyway, being a triangle comes from having three angles and sides, therefore not being a square. So demanding God to create that would be like requiring Him to say a statement both correct and false at one time. However, these are logical categories and logic is a human concept. As I said, I make no claims to understand a divine mind. Contrary, I make a claim that I'm unable to. Like my cat won't understand my human mind

 

@Chev'


My point being that a God who can percieve time non-linearly is no different, for all intents and purposes, than a god who can create square-circles or somesuch. All events happening at once(where a bomb is ticking and exploding at once and there exists a seperate instance of each individual entity(humans, trees etc.) for every nanosecond of that entitiy's existence etc.), in my mind is as much a logical conundrum as creating square triangles.

I understand and agree that, regardless of theistic disposition you cannot be expected to explain or comprehend this mind of God whether he exists or not. My point is though, that unless you CAN somehow do this, I cannot as a skeptic give credence to the concept as viable.

Still interesting and informative all the same though.


PS - Your point about God not being able to create square triangles because he must still be constrained by logic is understood and agreed with. That is why I never spring the "Can God create a rock so heavy..." thing on people. The definition of "rock" would entail that it IS somehow "liftable" so God should not be expected to create an unliftable object which could still be called a "rock".

 

OK, runequester, this is not intended as a debate or argument, so please do not treat it as such - this seems to be what you were expecting, with me it is different, but no matter.

What puzzles me is that you are even debating at all. You did say recently that you would not enter into such a debate if theists would treat everyone fairly, yet I cannot see what unfair treatment brught you into this one, as you began it, not even putting forward an idea, but simply objecting to the beliefs of the christian faith as pertains their God. This aside, you must 'assent' as you have so often put it, that you are coming from the belief, that is, faith in the principles, of skepticism and the empirical scientific method.

Now, many of the things which have been brought up here are not empirical, that is, things which can be experienced (to me the only way of ever knowing something, this may be different in your perception), but by their very nature possibly may not be subject to empirical observation, at least not to one who chooses not to accept the proof that is offered, that is, something of which there is no recorded copy, or anything unexplicable by empirical methods, which according to the scientific method, renders it false. Instead the argument is relied upon that because the empirical method cannot be used, then it is unprovable. Ok, I am not surprised you would rather stick to your own beliefs then change to anothers, as I am doing the same thing.

Which brings up my next point. We are at odds here because we are coming from a different perspective as to what is intended. You have accused me of insinuating that you are a liar, of constructing 'straw-man fallacies' -that is I think, to use rhetoric which is untrue in order to misdirect the argument or to present a contradiction which does not exist- of misconstruiong what you are saying, of deilberately ignoring a particular statement, and of presenting baseless assertations.

You see, I would accuse you of doing the exact same things, many spring to mind (your most recent was claiming I had said Einstein was a theist when all I said is he was not an atheist, as well as the many times you stated that you would go to hell for ignorance, which was said untrue according to the religion you were discussing, as well, you base everything you say upon your own prejudiced opinion, -by prejudiced I do not mean unfair, only influened by your own beliefs and xperiences- much like the rest of us, only that you make it seem as if you were impartial, that you beliefs are necessarily true, and necessary for our own to be as well. That is a logical conclusion to take, but to fault another for doing the same is not), most are mere misinterpretations I think, and as frequently as they have occured, I do not fault you for them. The fact is that your interpretation often changes the entire meaning of what I was saying, and even who or what I was reffering to in some cases. For instance, (and I am only giving an exampe here to avoid you reaching the conclusion that this is bald or groundless or illogical) I noted that if one were to have made a decision, and has prescience of it, any different decision made would be the one actual one forseen, not that the prediction somehow changes or is impossible, but that it is a fore-telling of the actual event as it takes place, thus any choice we make is not limited by the fore-knowledge, it is what creates the specific fore-knowledge. That one could make any decision, but would not do so simply because that was the choices that were made. This is why I had become agitated, a thing very uncommon for me, and not only due to this, but also what seems to me to be arguing simply for the sake of arguing, that is, not to discuss the statement, the why or how, but to dismiss whatever lies outside of your own expertise because it does not meet the criteria of your own beliefs, to say my interpretation is wrong according to your own beliefs, yet then demand I prove it if I am to say that the same applies in the opposite manner- and you have stated that you have no distinct experience or belief according actual theogeny or cosmogeny, in fact by definition of your statements about yourself these are entirely absent, and you believe (somewhat dogmatically in my opinion, but I could have misinterpreted you) that this will always be the case, and is the case for everyone else as well, but ok, I do not want to get side-tracked, and again, this is only my assess ment, not meant as ridicule- thus it only leaves your belief as pertains to epistemology and your faith in skepticism and the scientific method- thus you seem to only attack the method in which the statement is presented rather than consider the statement itself.

To attack a statement to me is no different than to be attacking my character. This does not mean one should be offended, and I often am not, nor do I have a reason to, but it is ridiculous to me to try and seperate any statements a man may make compared to any other action he takes. This is why you also seem to me to be the one un-srupulous or underhanded, as you are trying to deflect the techniques you are using, such as misquoting the interpretation or context, upon myself, in order to both deirde the truth of what I have said, and myself for saying it. Again, I am not accusing you of this, merely saying that is how it has seemed to me. If you will say it is not so, I shall believe you, I only wish you to be aware that this is how you have come across.

Now, please do not take this as an attempt at insulting you because that is not what it is. I am merely trying to explain how your argument is interpretated. I know and understand from your own beliefs in skeptic thought that this is merely your way of thinking, that you would rather see a physical object than contemplate an idea, but this is why I fear we have been at odds.

All I would ask you to do is relize that I have no interest in proving anything to you. I do not want to do so, and it is an intrinsic part of my beliefs that you will come across these conclusions by yourself, that this is the way you should come across them, and that I should expect you to dismiss them out of hand until such a time comes. I am perplexed that someone would ask another to prove his beliefs to him, by abandoning those beliefs and accepting the other's. It would be as if I asked you to prove that skeptiks are correct, or that empirical data is the only way in which to evaluate the truth, or even something as simple as 'the burden of truth lies upon the cliamant', by not using any of those principles within your argument, and by abiding by all of my own personal beliefs. Do you now perhaps understand why this is a hypocritical thing to expect? The fact remains that even though I have no interest in proving any of these things to you, I am trying to discuss them with you because I was under the impression that was what you wished for when you began such topics. If you do not wish me to participate any longer, and I am asked to desist, then I shall desist.

In clarification, what I am trying to say is that all the arguments you have presented against me are based squarely upon your own beliefs. If this means you will never accept what I say, that is ok, but I would ask that you do not make the jump from here to conclude that I am either deluded or contain absolutely no idea on how to hold a coherent discussion, the fact remains that, as I said, to argue with you was never what I was trying to do. No, I do not mean by this that I expected you to believe what I said without question, only that you would not dismiss it without question.

We also come across from very different perspectives on other matters, matters basic to the argument and perhaps one of the largest reasons why you have found what I was saying as nonsense. For example, eternity to me is not simply linear time until the end of time. If it has a beggining, if it has a measureable existence within time, and if it has a point -even one that is undefined- at the other side, then it is not infinte. Un-ending is not the same, allthough I am aware that is the defintion used by the majority of mathematicians. It caused a certain amount of dissent for me when talking analytically, but I am aware that it is a very useful and valid tool.

Please understand that I am not trying to simply dismiss what it is you are saying. For instance, on the topic of evolution, you say there is evidence. There is evidence indeed (despite the situation that you term this as an accepted fact for us all), but to me, and many others, the particlar theory of macro-evolution is unproved and untrue. The evidence proves something, of genetic evolution of species for example, but not the theory as it is accepted by some. This again, hinges on the personal belief of the scientists involved, as the theory of evolution, you should admit, is entirely based upon extrapolated inference. Given the time-frames involved it could be no other way. Yet, my own beliefs still account for this, and not only this, but take the idea further, give it a reason, and also explain for the anommalies which science to-date cannot. This is one of the reasons why I hold them, despite that there is no more proof for any of it empircally than there is for macro-evolution.

So you see, we are at entirely different points of perspectve here, all I want to do is foster an understanding between us.

If you still think I am wrong and a fool that is fine by me, if you still believe that all I was trying to do was insult you rather than question why you were responding in the manner you were, then that too I shall not hold against you. It is in your hands, I only hope that upon reading this you understand what I have been saying in my previous posts, if I do not dare to hope you would ever agree.

 

Oh I fully intended a debate to come of this thread!

You are taking what i said out of context. A big no-no as it leads to the misunderstandings you display here. Before, what I said was that I would have no reason(GENERALLY SPEAKING) to be overly concerned about who believed in what gods in a world where people were content to simply believe and not attempt to force their beliefs into everyone else's lives(eg. Creationists trying to replace science with mythology in our classrooms and dumbing down the entire country, Jehova's witnesses who not only stand on my doorstep with a new prediction of apocalypse every few years and urge me to join their club before it's too late, etc.). If the world were not like this then I would feel no more compulsion to argue and debate with theists adn supernaturalists than I do to argue with people who like to eat pig intestines.

Since this is NOT the world I live in, I will continue to ask questions, point out inconsistencies and faulty reasoning etc. whether it be in a thread I start or someone else's.

A)There is no rule about having to start threads with some positive idea of my own!?! What kind of sense would that make???

B)Not all christians believe in the god-concept that I was critiquing.

C) The belief I was critiquing is a widespread/common one. As such it is completely fair game to criticise it.

Nope. Never use "faith" and I don't really have any positive "beliefs" beyond the materialist axiom(we all must begin with a base assumption from which to proceed. The quality of that assumption can be inferred by what sort of progressive knowledge of reality you are able to attain by accepting it. Materialism has proved as flawless as one could hope for as a base. Solopsism by contrast is utterly impotent.

I do not have to "believe" in skepticism or matter. critical thinking is a methodology that works and matter exists regardless of whether you want it to or not.
I do not "believe" the sun will rise tomorrow. I ACCEPT that such a thing is likely based upon past experience.

I have no problem with the term "unproveable" but when you try to substitute "unproveable" in place of "likely nonexistent" ONLY FOR YOUR PET BELIEFS but not for, say, gremlins or genies then we have a sort of double standard and furthermore we have no right to say that ANYTHING is more or less likely to exist. To be consistent we must watch for gremlinhs as we leave the house and beware of 400' radioactive dinosaurs attacking from the harbor just as we are giving credence to psychics and such.

What beliefs?

No I have not!? I don't recall you ever calling me a liar(could be my memory failing I guess) but YOU have numerous times implied or stated that I was calling YOU a liar when I wasn't adn never have.
The straw man fallacy occurs when you either attack a position that I do not hold or construct the argument in such a way that my posiiton is caracaturised by extreme, nonsensical examples.

For example: Two politicians are arguing about whether single mother deserve a special tax break. The opposed argues "Governor Watson may support "free drug money" for prostitutes who have children at the state's expense but I am a christian and I love this country and I will have NONE OF IT!".
Governor Watson, in the above never espouses any such position as "giving free drug money to prostitutes" and now he is in the position of explaining his "irresponsible proposal" to an angry mob.

THAT is a strawman...and you have commited a few of them.

See above.

Why the word "deliberately" above? THIS is an example of such dishonesty. It makes it apopear that I have come in here accusing you of being a liar or shyster. You HAVE misunderstood(as I demostrated) several things and I have hasd to go back and attempt to clear up your misconceptions(which I do not mind until you start to insult me or accuse me of things I am not doing based upon your misconcpetions) and you have CERTAINLY adn UNDENIABLY enaged in bald assertions.

"All psychics are con artists" would be a bald assertion and sweeping generalization.

"The supernatural exists" is another groundless assertion.

"Ghosts have been shown to likely exist by *this* evidence..." would NOT be an unqualified assertion because the author is attempting to demonstrate his position by presenting supporting evidence.

You are either an atheist or a theist. It is arguable whether the hypothetical "undecided" could be classified as neither but in any case, Einstein was not undecided. He employed Spinoza's God in polite company which is in essence invoking a metaphorical "God" which is simply the natural universe itself. Einstein said in letters written to a baptist minister that technically he was an atheist.

You are going to tell me what religion I was discussing?!? I am told at least once a week that I AM going to hell for my ignorance...by those of the religiuous persuasian I am discussing. But this is irrelevant anyway. Do you have a point here?

This is ridiculous. If you are going to charge me with this then back it up! Show us where my reasoning is flawed and colored by my prejudice/bias. It is the same thing over and over..."either agree with me or you are biased/closed minded/not thinking".

What a choice.

I understand your position but thanks for (finally) clarifying something. The problem is that one cannot make a decision before it is time to make that decision, therefore you cannot place the foreknowledge ahead of the decision making process. The foreknowledge is just taht...KNOWLEDGE. If it were "foresuspicion" that would be one thing but the paradox arises because God is hypothetically sitting around in the void 50 trillion years ago adn KNOWS that humans will be created. He KNOWS what each will do, when they will go extinct etc. He has that knowledge RIGHT THEN. Now he waits for 48,996,000 years and then creates humans.
Just the instant before he creates them he decides "No...too much trouble. I will wait"

WHat does this do to the "knowledge" he had 50 trillion years ago that humans would be created at that time? You cannot logically fudge the decision before the knowledge anymore than you can arive at a bus station before leaving for the bus station.

That is completely wrong and you should know this. Rational is rational regardless of anyone's beliefs. Logic is also logic regardless(to great extent) of anyone's beliefs.
I do not have any real "beliefs". I aknowledge likelihoods and possibilities according to observation and critical examination of the evidence. I do not "set out to prove psychics are not real" or "try to disprove God".

I do NOT have faith in ANYTHING and the scientific method requires no faith at all. Belief in unseen, undemonstrated, unknown things requires faith. Accepting that one cannot, say "fall off of the edge of the earth" or rely on "wishing" to cure disease requires NO faith...only aknowledgement of the fact that the earth is not flat and we are bound by gravity or that wishing has never been observed as a reliable/consitent cause for disease remission.

Wrong. Statements made are fair game in a debate. That is the whole POINT of debate is to examine and critique the ARGUMENTS. Attacking "the person(ad hominem) is when you avoid or ignore the argument presented and make a point about some irrelevancy of the opponent's character.
For example: "Manus has claimed that soandso has sound economic proposals but I do not think we should give much weight to the opinions of someone who believes in GHOSTS!"

In the above hypothetical I avoid your hypothetical arguments for some politician's tax/economic proposals by attempting to attack your belief in the occult to sway the audience.

Where have I EVER taken anything you say out of context? WHere have I done ANY of the thingts you accuse me of??? This is exactly what I am talking about! You toss out these unqualified statements as if they were known fact and common knowledge inlieu of presenting any sort of coherent points!

From now on either back up your charges or keep them to yourself please as I will brook no more of this sort of behavior.

Next time include the above little statement BEFORE you go off directly accusing mke of those things then. It is a bit confusing to read several paragraphs worth of insulkts and charges that are untrue and then come across a sort of post script "By the way none of what I wrote was actual it was just my (mis)perception!

Better yet, DON"T MAKE THESE ACCUSATIONS AT ALL unless you know what you are saying and are prepared to provide cites and references.

Whose fault is it that you have misunderstood my position? In which instance was I not clear and how could my position have been better explained for you?
You are guilty of reading INTO what I say rather than reading what I actually write.

I have no such beliefs. I do not even see how one COULD have such a "belief".

Also not true. I would rather contemplate ideas all day long than look at an object.

FINE!Sorry someone forcibly pulled you in here and demanded you engage. Are you free now? Take care!! *Waves*

I have no "beliefs" adn am not asking you to abandon or switch to any. I AM asking for consistency in that you apply the SAME skepticism you use in your everyday life to any issue outside your pet supernaturalist beliefs, to these claims you are a proponent of here. Are there any gods(Zeus, Vishnu, Odin etc.) that you do NOT believe exist? If so then why not?


It would be as if I asked you to prove that skeptiks are correct,[/QUOTE]prove that "I do not see reason to assent to the supernaturalist claims presented thus far"? How do I prove such a thing?

Strawman.

The rules of logic are not some arbitrary construct invented by skeptics to unfairly weigh the debates in our favor. Listen carefully because I am going to explain this one more time:

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING can be empirically disproven. Not Santa CLaus, elves, magic, an intelligent Bush,...nothing. THEREFORE, we either assent to all claims made(eg. "Your mother is a nazi war criminal", "George Carlin is God", "David Koresh IS/was the messiah", "gremlins cause autoimotive engine failure" etc.) which will only render us impotent with contradiction OR to evaluate the likelihood of each claim by as uniform set of rules for examination. A methodology which does not unfairly prejudice against any particular group and we place the burden of proof ON THE CLAIMANT since there is no way to prove "I do not believe fairies exist" or even "That no fairies exist".

If you nhave a better method than critical thinking I would LOVE to hear it! "Have faith that my account is perfectly accurate and true but dismiss contradictory claims by that same faith" is not very convincing.

Neither is it to me. There are two types of "infinity". One that begins at a point and proceeds away from that point without end and there is also the infinite which has no starting point but rather like a line or plane or area which extends infinitely in both(or all) directions.
Eternity can be defined several ways I think("all time", "beyond time", "From now til the end of time" etc.).

Agreed.

Thus far everyone I have encountered who did not realize evolution was an established scientific fact, better supported than the theory of gravity, are people grossly ignorant of the science involved. They are the first ones to harp on the "macro/micro" distinction which is pretty much irrelevent. Micro and macroevolution are the same exact thing. The distinctions were originally terms of convenience for biologists when discussing evolution which happened over extended periods of time(eg. millions of years. The opposable thumb of humans for example) as opposed to the variations/adaptions which can be observed within a comparitively short period((the markings of the Heiki crab or the gestation cycles of fruit flies for example).

That is all evolutionary theory is. Genetic variation. There is minor disagreement over the exact mechanics(i.e. whether it is Darwinian natural selection or perhaps Gould's Punctuated equilibrium) but there are virtually NO scientists who dissent from evolution(contrary to popular claims by creationists).
If evolution does not happen or the theory explaining it is incorrect then you should tell all diabetics to stop taking insulin and urge the president to call off the hunt for chemical weapons becuase those things are false and cannot work as they are based upon the soundness of evolutionary theory. ALL of biology is rooted in the correctness of evolution.

Wrong again but please, just for a little entertainment give us some examples.

Far less infact. "None at all" according to scientific standards. Evolution is proven factual in as much as ANYTHING can be by the methodology of science.

You should know all f this being an award winning physicist right?

 

Quote: You are mistaken and this is quickly turning to semantics.

Yes, so you should get yourself a dictionary and start using it, or you will continue to misunderstand those of us who *do* use English properly.

Quote: Many animals exhibit codes of behavior very similar to our own.

Similar is not the same as. Therefore, to assume that such animals are thus *the same as* is wrong.

Quote: Many apes(chimps especially) will exile or even enfore the death penalty agaisnt a member of the pack who violates their rules.

“Ooh! It’s as if they have imposed the death penalty” therefore they *have* imposed the death penalty is not sound logic or scientific. The signifiers for a death penalty would be the black cap, the judges with their special robes, the formal passing of sentence, etc. Having one chimp explode in a savage rage and tear another apart is not in the same realm! To think such is delusional.

Quote: I am without my reference books at the moment so going from memory(but you can look all this up online) but everything from eating out of turn to murder has uniform punishments amongst chimp families.

Your ‘reference’ books might well have been written by chimps for all I know. Cite them for us. As for learning things by making Google searches, I hate to disillusion you but the internet can be contributed to by *anyone*, including religious fundamentalists, racists, bigots, paedophiles, and escaped mental patients who think they are extra terrestrials. If you want to be a philosopher, you need to learn that you cannot believe much (if anything) outside of your own experience. I’ve seen documentary evidence of chimps ‘murdering’ other monkeys (not chimps); this was cited as first seen by esteemed anthropologist Jane Goodall and was shown as proof that our closest ancestors are *not* purely vegetarian as was previously thought to be the case. This is not chimps committing murder, nor chimps carrying out a death penalty. It was current film documenting the leading knowledge on the matter of chimps killing other monkeys. Until I see new evidence such as this, that supports your assertions, I will not accept them.

Quote: What you call "patterns of behavior" ARE morals in that there is reasoning involved "You do this which threatens the tribe and we punish you by doing *this* which deters others from doing what you did".

This depends on if you can demonstrate (and not merely tell me it is so) that the patterns of behaviour you mention can be credibly interpreted as evidence of morals.
Incidentally, ‘patterns of behaviour’ was *your* term, not mine. Furthermore, a pattern of behaviour is an observable phenomenon; morals are conceptual, so your above response that "patterns of behavior" ARE morals is also wrong.

Quote: Yes [animals have laws] They are not written laws but laws all the same. But laws do not equal morals.

Check my post again; I didn’t say that laws *were* morals - I said that morals are often underpinned by laws. My point is that one must look for *evidence* to support the assertion that chimp (or any other animal’s) behaviour should be interpreted as being based on morality as opposed to instinct.

Quote: It is illegal to snoke marijuana in the U.S.. Is it immoral?

Yes in certain circumstances e.g. smoking marijuana while pregnant would be immoral – why do you think the law was created in the first place?

Quote: It is illegal to drive without a seatbelt but is it immoral?

Yes, if by not doing so, you kill a pedestrian by head butting them at 30 mph after flying through the windscreen.

Quote: a group of friends ship[wrecks on an island will not have laws(not right away at least) but they will have or develope morals if they are to survive at all.

Not necessarily. Check out the film Alive, based on an actual event. The survivors of the plane crash who *had* morals, *died* because of them i.e. they wouldn’t allow themselves to eat the flesh of the human dead. Those who were more primitive were the survivors.

Quote: Yes. Happens all the time in the animal kingdom. Lions, tigers, bonobos, chimps, baboons, gorillas, wolves etc....all have moral codes which they judge others of the species by.

You are very quick and offhand when you say this – but where is your evidence? Incidentally, what's a bonobo? It isn't mentioned in *my* dictionary.

Re my own words: Put simply, God works on the faith system (which makes sense from at least one point of view i.e. if He asks them to have faith (as Jesus has reputedly said He did) then why should He help those who don't?).
Admittedly this was not, in retrospect, the most succinct of writing, but you have clearly misunderstood me. All I was saying is that God obviously conceals His presence (if He exists at all) because no one has managed to find anything like convincing proof of His existence. Besides which, it stands to pure logical reasoning, that if he is a deity, indeed, the *Almighty*, and wishes to remain hidden – as appears to be the case - nothing a mere man can do would reveal Him – and indeed, nothing man has done *has* revealed Him. Thus, He is either hiding Himself, or He doesn’t exist at all! Therefore, anyone who wants to believe in God or *a* God, has no option but to have mere faith - because there is no proof.

Quote: Ever wonder why you don't find many who believe in the pentacostal God who were born and raised in India or why you find almost no worshippers of Vishnu who were born and raised in Arkansas? If any gods had rational arguments for their existence then indoctrination would be a far less important factor in determining what theistic beliefs one has.

Use a dictionary; I suggest you look up theist, polytheist and Vishnu in that order. Then you might understand why your arguments are frustrating to me. Also, you might then consider climbing down from your high horse because some of us can see huge gaps in your knowledge that you are failing to acknowledge. A further example of this is when you said: "Agreed. I accept that I have free will because given the options and the arguments for both free will and determinism, free will makes more sense to ME. I have never stated that "determinsim was wrong" or any such thing."
In my post, I made no mention of [sic] determinsim, let alone determinism!

You like to toss big words into your posts when clearly you don’t fully understand them. See [sic] paradoxial in the next of your quotes that I have addressed.

Quote: My point has always been that there is a paradoxial flaw in the logic of SOME theists(actually the majority) who assert that God can "know" something…

Just listen to yourself. You sound like you are trying to convince us that you are *the* leading authority in matters of philosophy and theology! “My point has *always* been", and “some theists (actually the majority)”…blah, blah, blah.

Quote: Nontheist = atheist(or specifically "weak atheist"). Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society refers to himself as a 'nontheist' because he feels that most have a misconception of what atheism is and therefore the term "atheist" carries too much negative baggage.

So, in fact, you used a word made up by ‘some guy’ from the ‘Skeptics Society’. Sorry, but I try to stick to those words that can be looked up in the English dictionary. I was immediately a bit suspicious of ‘nontheist’ and tried (and of course, failed) to locate it.

I’ve had my own experience of religious message boards and philosophy message boards and in all cases they were full of people like Runequester, trying desperately to sound knowledgeable and wise but filling their posts with clues to their real intellectual level.
I admire your efforts to seek knowledge but you don’t help humanity by spouting off ignorantly Runequester. This can fool the gullible, who, through no fault of their own, believe this nonsense and pass it on. This clouds the search for truth and pollutes the knowledge man *has* attained. Effectively Runequester, you and your ilk undermine all the good work that has gone before - the dictionary compilers and contributors for a start! You mustn’t try to run before you can walk. Learn more about good communication and how to carry out research. I would recommend going to university. If you’ve already *been* to university, I would recommend going back and paying more attention because if you can be honest with yourself, you’ll acknowledge that your posts *are* full of spelling errors and the internet *is* a dubious place to carry out research and quoting somebody from a society that can’t even spell sceptics correctly *is* open to question.

Quote: I guess Manus was right about one thing: The SOP around here seems to be tossing insults/ ad hominems. Your comment above sounds pretentious and childish. Are you claiming that you have the "intelligence for really deep thought"? What do you consider to be "deep thought" and how do you measure my(or anyone's) intellectual capacity for such?

What does SOP stand for? Of course I’m not claiming *I* have the intelligence for really deep thought. You would be making an inference, to think that. Pay careful attention to what I actually wrote, not what you *think* I wrote. I made no mention of my own abilities. You are free to *infer* what you will from my words but don’t make the mistake of thinking your inferences are correct.
In the context of my comment, ‘deep thought’ would be anything which was complex for *you*, Runequester.
How do I measure your intellectual capacity? Well, one way would be to track your incorrect usage of words and your constant spelling errors. Since the board rules have asked us all to try to be very careful on spelling, and have even provided us with a spellchecker, it would seem to be an obvious inference that you are either inconsiderate of the rules, or so arrogant that you felt it unnecessary to read them, or too stupid to understand them, or so ignorant that you think your spelling is correct when it isn’t, or a combination of the above. Whichever is true, the reflection on your intellect is clear.

[ January 19, 2004, 21:41: Message edited by: keldor ]

 

Keldor:


Listen kiddo, when I first read your lengthy tirade I had the intention of responding in kind. Exposing every misconception or error you made while making glib remarks about someone who measures "intelligence" adn determines objective meanings by consulting his dictionary(exclusively as if it were the sole fount of information).
But alas, I do not have THAT much free time right now. If you want someone to exchange insults with you will have to find someone else as I will be putting you on the ignore list after this response.

Words shift meaning with context and usage little buddy. Dictionaries do not provide meanings so much as they provide USAGES.

Incidentally my spelling typos are due to my being a hunt-n-pecker typist trying to respond to ALL of the replies being thrown my way in the time I have alloted. I will go back and edit my posts so you will not have such difficulty understanding me.

BTW(that stands for "by the way") SOP = "Standard Operating Procedure"(look it up in your dictionary) and I only used the word "nontheist" one time as an alternate to the word "atheist" because in my experience typing the same word over and over, especially one like "atheist" can drive the readers into a tizzy. I was not trying to undermine your existence or anything.

Amazing how indignant one will become upon realizing he is not "the big fish" in his pond.

 

Quote: If you want someone to exchange insults with you will have to find someone else as I will be putting you on the ignore list after this response.

Oh no, I can’t send you any private messages now! Don’t worry; I wasn’t intending to. Besides which, I wasn’t looking for someone to exchange insults with. I responded properly to your post and also took the opportunity to draw attention to some of your errors because they were glaring. I am not the first to do this.

Quote: Words shift meaning with context and usage little buddy. Dictionaries do not provide meanings so much as they provide USAGES.

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from calling me ‘kiddo’ or ‘little buddy’. I find this somewhat condescending and I don’t do this to you.
On the matter of words shifting their meaning: if you think this, then we sure as hell won’t be communicating very well.
Languages *evolve* it is true, but this is a slow process. They don’t shift about like the sands of a desert, changing everyday in the wind! The dictionary exists to enable us to understand one another; it is intended as a common frame of linguistic reference. If you have your own meaning for words that is different from those of other English speakers, you must define your terms *before* attempting to communicate. Since you failed to do this, it was natural for those of us who read your posts to assume that you were using the ‘Queen’s’ English and not ‘Runequester’ English.

Quote: Incidentally my spelling typos are due to my being a hunt-n-pecker typist trying to respond to ALL of the replies being thrown my way in the time I have alloted. I will go back and edit my posts so you will not have such difficulty understanding me.

This covers the typos but not the misused words. Oh sorry, you have your *own* meanings for words, don’t you?

Quote: BTW(that stands for "by the way")

Thank you but I neither needed, nor asked for, that.

Quote: SOP = "Standard Operating Procedure"(look it up in your dictionary)

I prefer not having to look words up. This is why I have appealed to you to speak plainly, using words we all know and love, and using them correctly.

Quote: ...and I only used the word "nontheist" one time as an alternate to the word "atheist" because in my experience typing the same word over and over, especially one like "atheist" can drive the readers into a tizzy.

Don’t you mean, ‘as an *alternative* to the word atheist’? Besides, in a dialogue containing many usages of such words as ‘atheist’ and ‘theist’, casually throwing in the made up word ‘nontheist’ is naturally liable to cause confusion. Did you start the thread to communicate or miscommunicate?

 

Please, gentlemen, I believe you're slowly entering the realm of argumentum in personam. Calm down a bit, so we may talk.

Please pardon me answering to answers given to someone else, but there are several important points there.

For a believer, his deity is unproveable while other deities are from likely to surely nonexistent. I think you will agree that faith in Jesus Christ is more rational than believing in graemlins and goblins, at least for an adult man. As a matter of healthy common sense, not necessarily formal logic.

Well, I don't really feel a need to carry around an Ugly Mace of Goblin Crushing +25 when I leave my house, despite for my own needs I assign a 1 to God's existence, not infringing on the fact that it's a matter of faith more than cognition, not ifringing on the fact that a certain level of cognition is possible, not infringing on the fact that full cognition is not possible until we move on to afterlife, not infringing on the fact that faith by definition can't go by full cognition

Not so really groundless. Granted, I can't prove it fully. However, there is partial inductional proof indicating a certain level of probability. Basing on St. Thomas Aquinas and later on Immanuel Kant, deism may be presented as a valid theory. Theism as a hypothesis doesn't sound that odd - perhaps even also theory. When we move on to particular religions, some of them would merit being called hypotheses in scientific sense. I won't quote neither Aquinas nor anyone else, for I'm sure you already know them anyway.

When it comes to graemlins, well, the only partial proof you have for them is lack of proof otherwise and lack of proof for impossibility of existence of such entities.

I don't know if he has, but I have been close to that, a few times. Granted, those were misunderstandings rather than real issues, but you indeed have come across as biased a few times. OK, I won't repeat myself anymore on this one.

Technically, if he believes in a monotheistic deity he has two choices: believe in only one, or worship only one. However, if you asked that question of me, the answer would be a bit more complex than a simple yes or no. A good material for a thread, BTW.

Yes, there's no way to prove or disprove anything empirically. Technically, rational proof or disproof won't be enough either for the same reason: to what extent we can trust our oh so logical minds Seems strange and is hard to get used to, but then I guess it matches my religious bias

Depends what part of, or what view on evolution. Darwinian Orthodoxy is practically an organised religion. Evolution, however, is accepted as a fact. Which doesn't mean that theories of evolution are a logical 1. After all, a group of Nobel winner scientists has spoken against teaching Darwinism and the like in schools, as it relied on faith practically as much as any religious cosmogony.

And just how much does accepting a hypothesis differ from following a religion? Not really much. Much less than one would think. Groups of atheists, and even of skeptics sometimes resemble a real church with priesthood, the faithful, dogmas and, the nicest part, infallibility. Hehe.

Unto the great scientist Darwin, a man of great wisdom, did the Lord say: «I do not exist».

Not like even Darwinism excludes Christianity, anyway.

[ January 19, 2004, 22:45: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

People seem to give a lot of stock to dictionaries here. That is wrong. A dictionary is not a listing of the words of a language or even the usage of a language. A dictionary is supposed to mirror the language spoken and written by the users of that language, thus a dictionary is trying to mirror the language of the time it was written. The correct language use lies not in the dictionary but with the user of the language in question, there is a lag between how people use a language and the changes in the dictionaries. True, dictionaries are useful to ease mutual intelligibility. They are not there to tell us how to use language but show us how language is being used. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use a word like "nontheist", people make up words all the time and if you are given an explanation of what it means you have no reason whatsoever to not accept that word. How do you think all the words in the dictionaries came to be?

End

 

RuneQuester, you are still doing it.

What else do you call comparing a religion -one which has support either through life experience or historical basis, or a sound philosophical theory as chevalier illustrated- to a fear of Graemlins, than a strawman argument?

By turning about what I said about everyones opinions being determined by their own experience, and by the epistemology and existential theories they ascribe to, whether they belive them the most logical or not (as most everyone would have a solid reason for ascribing to such a belief) you phrase it into a personal attack directed at yourself, seemingly insinuating that I am arrogant and saying that if you don't agree with me your reasoning is flawed. I never said that, I said we all were in the same boat.

What I mean by your bias is also that you believe the super-natural world must be subject to the laws of the physical, while I belive it is the physical which are subject to the laws, guiding intelligences, of the super-natural. Such as your assumptions upon God and foreknowledge. They make make sense to you, but to me they hold no clarity or logical inference especially as pertains to God, who super-sedes our own limited understanding of duration.

Thus the diasagreement; We do make decisions before the moment all the time. We always have the choice to reconsider, but in many cases our minds are allready made, due to mitigating influences or desires, or the state of our minds (similar to what keldor was talking about with scripts I believe). It isn't exactly the same when speaking of a Deity for example, but what I was trying to say is that the knowledge is of the choices, includuing reconsidering, and that in my limited understanding there is no difference in time between the point of knowledge and the act itself, as God exists in a sense where time is also absolute.

In humans it is different, as no-one can have absolute knowledge about anything. Thus it is a foretelling of a series of actions, perhaps not even fully realised until after the event. In any case I still say, knowledge that you will act in a way does not mean that you could not have changed you mind, merely that due to the circumstances surrounding it, you will not change your mind to something different at the time of decision than that which shall produce the action which was forseen about the time of decision at a previous time, or else that new action depending on the change of decision would have been the one which was forseen at the time of foretelling. I assume this may be dependant on the spirit's super-session of time. It may be a dichotomy in your own understanding, but it is explained in a way that can be verified (althought you would proably look upon such verification as delusion), in these religions, and there exists no dichotomy within the framework which ascribes the condition of omniscience in the first place, thus to assume omniscience exists is to assume the dichotomy is false. If the base for this absense of dichotomy were false, then so too I think would be omniscience - we cannot talk about omniscience as existent within a framework which would discount it. You may say that neither exists, but the two complement each other in the philosophy which explains either.

To me, the material theories which try to explain something like gravity are certainly intelligent, yet misled. Yet it is taken by some as less of a jump to believe that everything is held on a subtle intangiable yet inter-actable fabric, allowing space to be curved, than it is when the very same things are said as pertains to the rest of reality by one who ascribes to faith in religion rather than science. Even despite the fact that I have good reason to belive it likely, (as I am avoiding stating something as fact now) that gravity is subservient to humans with enough insight or power, let alone the spiritual world.

But I am not permitted by my moral code to delve too deeply into such matters, for the very reasons of mis-interpretation that have been aroused -which on a largest scale can include religious advocates going to your door to say if you don't pay for a seminar-weekend at their camp you are damned for eternity.


Chemical weapons and insulan work dependant on biology and anatomy, things than can and do exist without macro-evolution. They were studied long before Darwin was born, and shall continue to be. Even the modern view of biology, as totally distinct from evolution, is not the only way in which to explain how ilnesses can be cured or created, but I am not arguing for or against that, nor would I. To adapt to a thing is evident, as one can adapt a tolerance to snake-poison for example within his own life. It can also be seen that the parents genes are combined in the offspring, and that the closer they are the less room for change. It can also be seen within a human lifespan the genetic development of a plant or species of animals which are bred to develop certain characteristics. Thus micro-evoluation can be interpolated.

Macro-evolution cannot. We cannot observe a species changing so drastically. We can see fossil records of different species, some which may still be alive toady and some which are not, and we may infer that one group of that species physically evolved into the other, in a timespan which can never be tested or verified, thus, is as unproveable as the examples you yourself have given. We may take our knowledge of gentics and breeding, and micro-evolution as pertains to minute mutations and infer that it happens on a larger scale, but we shall never know for sure, and has been stated previously, it is also widely held among the scientific community that the theory takes as much faith to believe in as any other belief.

I was once told a by a genetic biologist, one who was not religious, that Darwin would be rolling in his grave, that if he were alive today and had seen the evidence gathered in his favour and the other claims being made, he would probably debunk them himself.

Not all scientists think the same. There are many scientist who have many material theories for the existence of the paranormal or spirtual, as a mode of a new undertsanding of physics. Not all believe they are unlikely alltogether, I know of many who simply believe that the explanations given are incorrect, not the things themselves.

Remeber the aether? Accepted, then scoffed at, then practically re-accepted in a new form with Einsteinian physics.

Anyway, I think keldor and chevalier have highlighted a few of the other things I was going to, so I shall not bother repeating them.

No hard feelings I hope, just it seems the mis-understanding is continuing, likely on both sides it is true.

[ January 20, 2004, 05:01: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

*Sigh*

I know I said I wouldn't but I will exercise my free will and change my mind by replying to "Captain Dictionary" over there.

I have several and use them regularly. Which dictionary would you prefer I use before you will grant that I am intelligent enough to share the discussion boards with you? OED(that's Oxford's English Dictionary), American Heritage? Webster's?

In any case I said this was turning into a sort of semantic quibble because you are obviously holding a different definition or "morals" than I and much of the scientific community, yet instead of simply saying "I disagree because I do not believe one can be capable of morals unless one can sew/speak english/build police stations/etc." you chose to come at me with "You are stupid for being so wrong" attitude, as if YOU were objectively "right" in your definitions and anyone disagreeing was deserving of your little tongue-lashing hissy-fit.

I never argued that animals exhibited the same morals, in exactly the same way and to the same extent as we do.

And here, while unable to support your assertions, you nonetheless state that anyone who disagrees with your assertions(I and Chev' so far at least) are delusional.
You also put forth the 'Intelligence = fine manipulation' argument. Similar to how some will argue that "if dolphins are so intelligent then why haven't they built missles and taken over the world?". In such an argument the person equates the capacity for tool use and fine manipulation(as well as abstract thought capabilities) with general intelligence. You do this above with your "It wasn't the death penalty because they were not sewing and wearing hoods or building gallows" position.
When other primates engage in such "sentencing" they get together, communicate with one another about what was done and then, TOGETHER enforce the appropriate penalty. There is no "one monkey flying off the handle in a rage for no reason".

Here is a brief list to get you started:


http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/Miscellania/Morality.html - Brief article containing some illustrative examples of altruism/self-sacrifice etc.


http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/~barrylab/classes/animal_behavior/HISTORY.HTM - page full of information, some of it quite generalized but also much on animal behavior/morality.


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674356616/darwinanddarwini/102-0800410-1015348 - An amazon buy link but I could find no other online source for this one. A book by Frans De Waal on morality within animal species.


http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_MAGAZINE/summer96/inbrief.html - Oh! Here's a link to a decent interview with De Waal wherein he explains some of his findings.


http://www.jefallbright.net/taxonomy/page/or/588 - Lots of links to interesting reading on the evolution of morals within primates and such.


Now I recognise and admit that one CAN have the position that none of these behavioral examples fit THEIR definition or "moral". Like I said I don't want to get into semantic quibbling. Morals evolve like anything else. I do not say "Humans are hairless. GORILLAS...now THEY have hair! But I do not consider our tiny pathces of folicles to be true hair". I view morals the same way. Animals may not have gallows and courtrooms and lengthy tomes covering laws and the penalties for breaking them, but to my mind, they certainly display rudimentary moral behavior.

Strawman. I never said or even hinted that I thought all info on the net was valid or that you should not analyse the sources and content.

Yes...so?

Jane Goodall happens to be a proponent of the position that animals exhibit moral codes of behavior. I am not sure which documentary you are on about or what exactly your point was with the above but anyways...

No. I can only provide evidence and argument that supports MY position. I cannot "disprove" YOURS anymore than I can prove that no god exists.

That is YOUR take, not some objective fact. Morals(in my view and the view of many) are a set of behaviors and cognitive responses that usually serve to advance the survival of a species' genes.
This view is well-supported but that does not mean that YOURS is not.

Check MY post again, I never said you DID . Read carefully what I write but do not read INTO what I write.

You are looking at this as if there is a solid dividing line between the sort of base, cognitive responses of early man, modern nonhuman primates etc. and modern man's complex codified social taboos and whatnot. Morals evolve.
Grunk and Oompah are sleeping when Og decides to club them and take their food. Grunk wakes up and sees what Og is doing and raises a commotion, waking Oompah. Grunk and Oompah get together and realize that Og, being much stronger and meaner than either of them will eventually pick them off, so they decide to team up and drop a large boulder on Og's skull as he sleeps.
Millions of years later two civilans act together to stop a burglar from breaking into Mrs. Jones house.
Morals evolve from the rudimentary example of Grunk and Oompah, devloping alongside our language/communication skills and abstract thinking capabilities. Grunk and Oompah need not have any language or much in the way of abstract thinking ability to pull off what they do in the above.

I wasn't asking that. Is drinking immoral? Of course it is wrong according to MY morals to drive while drunk but the act of drinking, by itself and the act of smoking dope, by itself is NOT.
Also, the prohibition laws were not created because of any potential harm that could occur(during pregnany or otherwise). In 1914(when the first drug prohibition laws came into effect) we had no idea that smoking CIGARETTES was harmful!

The prohibition laws were enacted by "moral authority" type, fundementalist groups of the day(the ones against drinking were actually set in motion by christian women's group who were tired of their husbands off carousing at the clubs.

But I did not ask if killing pedestrians was immoral. Still your analogy is flawed. The person not wearing a seatbelt does not do so with the intention of killing pedestrians anymore than the person who forgets to fasten all buckles on the car seat intends to kill her baby.

Yes some morals can actually be detrimental(re:nazism, NAMBLA, etc.) but that is beside the point. The survivors DID develope an agreed upon moral code wherein they agreed that survival was priority number one and that it would at some point be necessary for someone to venture out of the mountains to seek help.

It's not that they were "more primitive". It's that they were able to alter their moral code to suit the situation they were in. Morals are not objective. They shift about and change with different times, political climates, environments, etc..

A bonobo is an ape/monkey. Highly intelligent with a remarkable capacity for learning. Again, Google is not your enemy .

Yeah...so? I think you have me mixed up with someone else here. I think we largely agree on this issue.

No I don't understand why you are so frustrated? What is your beef here beyond your difficulties with reconciling the information found in your dictionary with what I have said?
The point above was that the most important factor in the determination of one's religious persuasion/theistic leanings is geography. If you are born in India you will be more likely to be Hindu than pentacostal. Born in Tibet you are more likely to be buddhist, etc..

Yes there are huge gaps in my knowledge. Which specifically do YOU think I should be aknowledging? Again, disagreement with you on the nature of morality does not amount to a gap in knowledge.

Those who do not subscribe to the notion of free will are generally called "determinists". Perhaps you are from some other persuasion that I am not aware of and if so I apologise but surely you do not think it unreasonable to assume determinsim from what you wrote in your previous replies on the matter? Indeed your beliefs seem entirely in line with determinists' beliefs!

??? I am not sure where you are getting these ideas but just because YOU(and not many others here it seems) suspect that I am of a particular mindset or motivation does not give you the right to chastise me for being so, as if this were an established fact.

 

No I will not agree to such. I firmly believe that if "Gremlinism" were as culturally ingrained and full of such lofty promise of reward of eternal life and all the other stuff that religions provide, then we would be debating gremlins here right now and people would be aghast at how I could compare them to "silly gods".
There is nothing inherently more rational about faith in Jesus of the Bible than faith in gremlins/goblins etc..

I am not sure what you mean here. 'Common sense' in the sense that it is the common accepted "wisdom" that God exists but fairies do not? Sorry but that would be an ad numeri/ad populi argument at best.

But my point is that, to a person with comparable faith in, say, gremlins or fairies, they have just as much evidence and rational argument as YOU do. Just as many reasons to believe.
To someone like me who is skeptical of ALL supernatural claims, there is no effective way of seperating the claims of fairies existing from those of God in Christ or whatever.

I can also provide you with a valid theory that explains how an evil deity(or at least one who hates humanity) created all and rules the universe. I can even show that this is more likely than a "benign" deity because it easily explains the hostile environment we exist in(The fact that out of the biilions of galaxies and planets within them, we are, as far as we know, only able to explore a small fraction of our own solar system. Also tidal waves, floods, earthquakes, disease etc....all can be explained easily by the "evil God" theory).

Still this does not warrant the inference of "evil God", God, OR the supernatural. Deism, like most theistic belief systems, is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Yes, Aquinas along with the rest of the classic theistic proponents have been presented and refuted to death. The funniest IMO, is the ontological proof of God because it is so easy to reverse and ontologically DISPROVE God.

Yes, and the same can be said for God.

If I have a bias it is for the rational. That which I can examine given the faculties at my disposal without resorting to things like "faith" which will support ANY conviction, true or not, equally well.

Yes and I see what you are getting at but my point was that the reasons one will generally NOT assent to most god-claims, go ignored when it comes to their particular god or supernatural belief(psi, ufos etc.). There is no objective, independent evidence that points to, say, YOUR God as being likely to exist as opposed to otehr gods.

But we CAN prove a positive. Scientific method has stringent rules governing this(falsification, rules of inference, repeatability etc.). They are not foolproof but the methodology is sensible and acceptable to all but solopsists and the like. Basically, if you accept that YOU likely exist then things can be proven to you according to scientific method. For example: You are using a computer to communicate with me. If you did not believe the computer was real(or even that I were real) then you would be no more likely to continue with this charade than any adult would continue talking to an animatronic lion at Disneyland after realizing it is only a robot.

Things can never be DISPROVEN because these entities can always hide in the gaps in our knowledge. The invisible pink unicorn lives in my pocket. You may search my pocket but he uses his magic to avoid detection, etc. Just as God always has an "escape hatch" from the physical world, so does Santa, gremlins, and IPUs.

No it isn't and you know better Chev'! Natural Selection is simply the best theory we have explaining evolution right now. The strength of science is that it changes as the data changes. It is not, itself, dogmatic. If something comes up showing Gould's PE theory to be more likely, it will be accepted as such.

I have seen such charges put forth by creationists before but never substantiated. The ICR once published a list of 400+ alleged scientists who denounced evolution. Somebody got to thinking something didn't sound right and did a little digging.
Turned out that of the 400+ listed, MOST were people with tangentially related to science degrees but no actual experience or knowledge of the field of evolutionary biology, a good portion were actually supporters of evolution who were surprised to find themselves on such a list, many had been deliberately misquoted or had their quotes taken OOC. After all was said and done ONE scientists(a chemist I believe) was found to be in opposition to evolution and could not scientifically support his position.

As I have said, atheists CAN be religious(however atheism itself cannot be A religion anymore than theism can be so) and some certainly are. But they are by far in the minority. As for accepting a hypothesis, I am not sure what you mean.

Evolution does not say anything about whether God exists and most evolutionists ARE theists(in this country christians). "Darwinism" though...I don't even know what that is.

 

@Manus


Briefly, Chemical weapons and insulin treatments(and ALL of modern biology in fact) are founded upon the theory of evolution. Up until the twentieth century these things were NOT studied or known and only devloped AFTER a comprehensive understanding of the principles of evolutionary biology were had.
Biology can hardly be said to predate Darwin's discoveries unless you consider exorcisms, curses, and evil spirits to be biology.

Again, in evolutionary biology the distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution does not exist. They are the same thing. Macroevolution is microevolution over a period of millions of years(to simplify).

As for anecdotes about meeting mysterious geneticists whom denounce evolution on some level, all I can say is tell them to come here and present their contentions so that I may debunk them(yes that was a bit of arogant posturing born of years of delivering the smackdown to Demski/Behe/Hovind and Gish's "bulldogs").

 

Objection here. Even if it will ultimately largely rely on argument ad populum and taking people's word on things, plus accepting certain phenomena as miracles made by God, it's still more rational and more in agreeance with common sense than believing dragons or fairies or whatever other goblins exist. That the likelihood of logically (dis)proving of either is similar doesn't change much here. After all, as we agree, logic is of human creation, relies on common agreement, is bound by human limitations and can't really (dis)prove anything on its own. It all begins and ends with argumentum ad populum and axioms.

This isn't limited to Christianity. Generally, it's not a sign of irrationality in an individual to follow an organised religion, so far as we aren't dealing with certain sects that shouldn't be mentioned in a polite company, than to believe in elves, dwarves and hobbits - for instance.

Above.

It's like the casus of my cat. To them, certainly, it appears the same. They might even think they have pretty rational proof, they've seen, heard, heard about, heard from etc. That having their heads examined will help here is a different story. My head is apparently largely well.

Possible. Understandable.

I'd say deism may seem a bit more rational than theism, but it's all in the eye of beholder, actually.

Depends. But if you mean the great organised religions, that would be true. As opposed to sects and the like, which are best disproven by prompt medical analysis of the leader's brain.

For this very reason, you won't prove positive claims either. Technically, if you can't disprove a negative statment, you won't disprove the opposite positive claim fully, in so much as proving positive doesn't serve as proof enough for falsehood of the opposite negative claim and vice versa.

This all can be concluded as relying on our senses and our reasoning. Again, argumentum ad populum. Our senses function correctly and our reason functions correctly if we get the same what most other people get. There's no other way apart from arbitrarily and dogmatically claiming our own sanity, reasonability or even infallibility for we are very close.

Believing in the best theory is like choosing the most reasonable religion around. In neither case does fool proof exist. Theory is not theory without full proof, or what is accepted as full proof since there's a technical impossibility of any fool proof whatsoever.

Buddhism is essentially an atheistic religion, so far as I know. Which probably is a general rule and doesn't preclude the worship of deities or God in general deistic sense - perhaps Einstein's understanding.

I know I haven't replied large parts of your text, which doesn't mean I assent when I don't specifically say so Let's say I see an analogy between the replied and the not replied.

 

Hmm, now how do I tell the starter of the topic thread he is off topic?

[Edit, this is directed for RuneQuester -who else. I think chevalier as always has been able to explain better the parts of the discussion where our points coincide.]

How on earth do you make so many posts after one another? I did not think that was possible.

Ok, breifly, putting omniscience aside, I see no reason to specifically dis-belive faeries or anything else, as they too (the belief if not the actual entity) are explained in my beliefs (my beliefs explain everything, if they don't I'll make a new belief which does ), but I think it is fair to say that the experiences people have had with any sort of spiritualism are greater than those who have had an experience with another assorted form of supernatural belief. The fact that people like Jesus or Gautama also spoke of these things also leans heavy sway. You may be undecided as to whether Jesus was a Christ and Gautama a Buddha, but I think you would have to admit both were real people.

Now, empirical faith is also based on ad numeri/ad populi. This was not always the way things were explained. the scientific method is used because the greatest number of people work with it, the greatest number of people in the intellectual field have had experience that the empirical method can support any piece of sense-datum or physical construct. I am not trying to say that empirical observations are untrue, only that a larger number of people who have experienced a thing does lean weight, that is, plausability, towards an argument, even if it goes no further in proving it to an outsider. The result can be the same in other methods, only the explanation differs. You yourself said that if a wide array of people had had experience with a ghost, even though it may not be proven, it would be more likely. People who have had experience with religion do come from a very wide array of backgrounds, many even from an atheist or skeptical position, like yourself but in reverse I assume, so common sense would dictate that the idea is more likely than one of ghosts or goblins for instance.

As to the scientific community - much dogma can be shown, as chev said, in a manner not unlike a relgious faith. It has been seen historically that any given scientific community is very hesitant to move away from the current paradigm or theory when contrary evidence or suppositions are provided which are later proved correct. If this isn't dogma I do not know what it could possibly be, that is, preffering to stick to your own beliefs and assume others are incorrect, mistaken, or ignorant, (even if only pertaining to a different schism) especially when said beliefs are laid out in a specific doctrine and epistimlogy, and taken to be the most authoritive view. Correct or not, it is dogma. Not necessarily arrogant either, but dogma doesn't need to be.

Now, there was working, correct, and detailed knowledge on both medical practices and anatomy (not soley limited to humans either) in ancient Greece, later the middle east when Alexandria was sacked, and the Orient. This was discounted for periods in some times, but evolution was not required to know these things. Frankly I do not see how evolution is required for a knowledge of anatomy. There were many modern doctors before Darwins time as well (for the record even something as maedieval as leeching, same theory different application, has been reinstated and approved with verified results for use in many treatments, some including arthritis and cancer). As you say, Google is your friend.

Drugs were often used, their effects well known, and especially in the orient, it was also known which particular area or organ they were effecting, and where the problem originated. The explanations as to why may have been different in some cases, but the treatment was not. I saw an article in Time Magazine which also spoke of many large Western drug companies using these solutions, and a type of wormwood used was verified as being able to treat cancer and related illnesses, because of the efficiency in which it attacked the heavy iron compounds within the cancerous cells. Accupuncture has also been around for millenia, and is now in many countries (and not only asian ones) recognised as an official member of the particular medical administration. This took a lot of evidence I am sure you will agree.

The thing with evolution is that macro-evolution the changes are not comparable to those in micro-evolution. The cause may be the same in many's estimation, but the effects are not, and macro evolution is unproveable due to the time involved, which is why it is a theory.

Mandelean genetics existed before evolutionary theory as well I belive, or independant of it, so if biologists do not make the distiction, they should. Cellular mutations are also in a seperate catergory researched on their own, thus if evolutionary scientists do not make the disctinction, it does not matter, because it is allready there. There is no conclusive evidence of macro-evolution, nor can there be. Just as with newtonian physics, simply because the theory can explain the situatin well, does not mean its tennets or theories of explaiing those observed situations are totally correct.

By the way, in answer to your other question there are no Gods or gods I dis-belive in, many are seen by me to be similar figures (not always the same very few figures either, but usually) under different names. Of course, as chevalier has said it is more complicated than this, and he is correct in what he said regading my attitudes toward them.

I also believe it would be an interesting thread, but wait a couple of weeks so I can go and re-read some books on theology!