|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 24, 2020 12:02:23 GMT
In which case why have you mentioned this one several times of late? A claim which is demonstrably false, but which it suits you to make. There are lessons to be learned. I can't leave them to you to teach. I said when you get a clue come back. I didn't say I will tolerate your incompetence. Evasion noted. That would be the 'science' from same eternal supernatural which you lately deemed "offending logic, measure and order" then? Got it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 12:26:21 GMT
There are lessons to be learned. I can't leave them to you to teach. I said when you get a clue come back. I didn't say I will tolerate your incompetence. Evasion noted. That would be the 'science' from same eternal supernatural which you lately deemed "offending logic, measure and order" then? Got it. You evading showing us your clue. There is more to life than "logic" in its strict sense can address. Thus art. You know what else is "not yet demonstrated"? It is not yet demonstrated that you can levitate. Which will you demonstrate first? You levitating? You showing how life comes from lightning striking mud? Did you notice how I just won this argument and didn't have to cite any "fallacies"? How cool is that?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 24, 2020 12:47:02 GMT
You know what else is "not yet demonstrated"? It is not yet demonstrated that you can levitate. Which will you demonstrate first? You levitating? You showing how life comes from lightning striking mud? How cool is that? This is particularly ironic given how the ability to levitate was attributed to figures in Early Christianity. The apocryphal Acts of Peter gives a legendary tale of Simon Magus' death. Simon is performing magic in the Roman Forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he flies up into the air. Not to mention the claims of 1 Thess 4: 17 that "... we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.. " . No doubt we can put all this Rapturous flying about down to Arlon's 'science' of the supernatural. How cool is that? One observes that, according to recent Arlon logic, if something can be attributed to one proposed reality then it might as well be attributed to another: " it doesn't matter whether it is in nature or not, it introduces the same unpredictability either way." So, on that basis we can look forward to us all levitating... But, back in the real world: All I noticed was that you disingenuously conflate something about which we have a clue in nature and something which would be impossible, in a false equivalence. But I can see you might need to do this. In fact you did use a fallacy: something of a motte and bailey combination, a characteristic bait-and-switch and equivocation, moving from science not demonstrating yet how life might be formed but about which it has a good idea, to asking that the purely impossible be performed - a process of obfuscation which you have kindly described to us already and warned against, I believe. Science, as you have already told us, is not a democracy and has a consensus view on what is likely and what is not, and even newly-minted authorities such as yourself do not have a vote in the matter, no matter how firmly you think that current research 'does not have a clue.' I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 12:57:51 GMT
You know what else is "not yet demonstrated"? It is not yet demonstrated that you can levitate. Which will you demonstrate first? You levitating? You showing how life comes from lightning striking mud? How cool is that? This is particularly ironic given how the ability to levitate was attributed to figures in Early Christianity. The apocryphal Acts of Peter gives a legendary tale of Simon Magus' death. Simon is performing magic in the Roman Forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he flies up into the air. Not to mention the claims of 1 Thess 4: 17 that "... we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.. " . No doubt we can put all this flying about down to the 'science' of the supernatural. How cool is that? One observes that, according to recent Arlon logic, if something can be attributed to one proposed reality then it might as well be attributed to another: " it doesn't matter whether it is in nature or not, it introduces the same unpredictability either way." So, on that basis we can look forward to us all levitating... All I noticed was that you disingenuously conflate something about which we have a clue in nature and something which would be impossible. But I can see you might need to do this. In fact you did use a fallacy: something of a motte and bailey combination, a characteristic bait-and-switch and equivocation, moving from science not demonstrating yet how life might be formed but about which it has a good idea, to asking that the purely impossible be performed - a process of obfuscation which you have kindly described to us already and warned against, I believe. I hope that helps. I know, right? The irony actually had not escaped my attention. It is really sad watching you trying to seem "logical" when it is so far beyond your abilities. The chances of you levitating and life starting from lightning striking mud are about the same. You pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 24, 2020 13:00:23 GMT
This is particularly ironic given how the ability to levitate was attributed to figures in Early Christianity. The apocryphal Acts of Peter gives a legendary tale of Simon Magus' death. Simon is performing magic in the Roman Forum, and in order to prove himself to be a god, he flies up into the air. Not to mention the claims of 1 Thess 4: 17 that "... we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.. " . No doubt we can put all this flying about down to the 'science' of the supernatural. How cool is that? One observes that, according to recent Arlon logic, if something can be attributed to one proposed reality then it might as well be attributed to another: " it doesn't matter whether it is in nature or not, it introduces the same unpredictability either way." So, on that basis we can look forward to us all levitating... All I noticed was that you disingenuously conflate something about which we have a clue in nature and something which would be impossible. But I can see you might need to do this. In fact you did use a fallacy: something of a motte and bailey combination, a characteristic bait-and-switch and equivocation, moving from science not demonstrating yet how life might be formed but about which it has a good idea, to asking that the purely impossible be performed - a process of obfuscation which you have kindly described to us already and warned against, I believe. I hope that helps. I know, right? The irony actually had not escaped my attention. I am surprised, such things often do. You have already given us the answer: science is not a democracy and the equivalent unlikelihood you claim is not something commonly perceived there; neither have you been elected an authority, although you are naturally entitled to your opinions. Now fly away home.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 24, 2020 13:52:31 GMT
Motte and bailey (MAB), Arlon's go-to phrase of the week, is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "science has not yet demonstrated exactly how life began") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "Life must have been started by the supernatural") in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended. Thank you for proving that citing "fallacies" is often useless. I have never recommended it. I will address as I always have, the actual issues at hand. Saying science has "not yet demonstrated" how life began means exactly that science has no clue how life began. Case closed. No go away. If you get a clue how life began then you may return. Meanwhile thank you very much for conceding your utter loss. Don't let the door slap you on your way out. Like rizdek you're just playing with words. You especially have great difficulty with words and are easily distracted and confused by meanings that escape you. "Not yet demonstrated" Sure, there is a "science" that can explain how life originated. It's a god's science, not yours. You're doing it again. I don't know where you debated/discussed these things before, but...did it work on those others?
And now I have you on record saying how life originated and what started it. That is what I've been waiting for from you. Now is your chance. Explain how you know a god has the capability of creating life. First explain how, if a god is necessary for life...how is god alive.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 24, 2020 14:02:29 GMT
More than that, this is the great Richard Dawkins in the video. And anything the great Richard Dawkins says must be THE TRUTH! I do not belive that anything Richard Dawkins says must be the truth. I was referring to Her Gozness when I said that.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 24, 2020 14:48:54 GMT
I mean I can't really find any fault with what he said, though I do consider pretty much all religious arguments (Watchmaker, Pascal's Wager, prim mover, fine tuning, morality argument) not very good and refuting them is just shooting fish in a barrel. I would like to see him take on more abstract, open ended topics (secular vs Christian morality, Christian socialism, secular humanism, Christian culturalism) rather than these tired theist arguments that have already been refuted a million times. Though I'm assuming he's probably done some of those other topics as well. You mean before 1930? Things have changed since. That's the thing about "science." When it finds it made a mistake it can change. You sound like the people who say,"Here's what you need to do. You need to put a poultice on that." Your "science" is out of date. Yes, unlike religion, science must be updated and corrected when new evidence arises. Kind of in the same way we have to free innocent people when DNA evidence exonerates them where as if we applied the standards of religion/dogma the person would have to remain guilty regardless of new evidence. Is there a point you think you're making? "You sound like the people who say,"Here's what you need to do. You need to put a poultice on that." Your "science" is out of date." And I'll just add that to the long list of gibberish things you say that don't actually mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 24, 2020 15:59:35 GMT
Saying science has "not yet demonstrated" how life began means exactly that science has no clue how life began. .... Sure, there is a "science" that can explain how life originated. It's a god's science, not yours. You're doing it again. I don't know where you debated/discussed these things before, but...did it work on those others?
And now I have you on record saying how life originated and what started it.
We also have him on record here with what is, ultimately, just another of his usual God of the Gaps arguments lol
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 24, 2020 18:31:50 GMT
You mean before 1930? Things have changed since. That's the thing about "science." When it finds it made a mistake it can change. You sound like the people who say,"Here's what you need to do. You need to put a poultice on that." Your "science" is out of date. Yes, unlike religion, science must be updated and corrected when new evidence arises. Kind of in the same way we have to free innocent people when DNA evidence exonerates them where as if we applied the standards of religion/dogma the person would have to remain guilty regardless of new evidence. Is there a point you think you're making? "You sound like the people who say,"Here's what you need to do. You need to put a poultice on that." Your "science" is out of date." And I'll just add that to the long list of gibberish things you say that don't actually mean anything. Bolded section, very well and clearly said.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 24, 2020 20:02:44 GMT
I mean I can't really find any fault with what he said, though I do consider pretty much all religious arguments (Watchmaker, Pascal's Wager, prim mover, fine tuning, morality argument) not very good and refuting them is just shooting fish in a barrel. I would like to see him take on more abstract, open ended topics (secular vs Christian morality, Christian socialism, secular humanism, Christian culturalism) rather than these tired theist arguments that have already been refuted a million times. Though I'm assuming he's probably done some of those other topics as well. Pascal's Wager is beyond retarded. I can't believe anyone ever took it seriously. Pascal's wager at least they got the title right. So...it's a gamble and even if there is a god...there is no assurance it is their god. So, Homer Simpson is right in his analysis, what if we're worshiping the wrong god...every time we go to church we're making him madder and madder. Perhaps a god would be just as happy..or even happier with someone like me who simply doesn't worship ANY god(s) because I'm not sure which is the true god, than with someone who is 'whoring after false gods.'
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 24, 2020 20:08:47 GMT
You're doing it again. I don't know where you debated/discussed these things before, but...did it work on those others?
And now I have you on record saying how life originated and what started it.
We also have him on record here with what is, ultimately, just another of his usual God of the Gaps arguments lol I can well understand someone thinking that if there IS a god...then its existence would explain a lot of things. But they must know that they're just making things up when they 'give' or 'assign' god its attributes and capabilities. Each and every asserted trait is a just so feature so that God can be the answer to the many conundrums of the natural world. It sure seems like God was designed by humans rather than the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 21:34:32 GMT
Thank you for proving that citing "fallacies" is often useless. I have never recommended it. I will address as I always have, the actual issues at hand. Saying science has "not yet demonstrated" how life began means exactly that science has no clue how life began. Case closed. No go away. If you get a clue how life began then you may return. Meanwhile thank you very much for conceding your utter loss. Don't let the door slap you on your way out. Like rizdek you're just playing with words. You especially have great difficulty with words and are easily distracted and confused by meanings that escape you. "Not yet demonstrated" Sure, there is a "science" that can explain how life originated. It's a god's science, not yours. You're doing it again. I don't know where you debated/discussed these things before, but...did it work on those others?
And now I have you on record saying how life originated and what started it. That is what I've been waiting for from you. Now is your chance. Explain how you know a god has the capability of creating life. First explain how, if a god is necessary for life...how is god alive.
Absolutely. Only fake people on virtually anonymous computer discussion boards are still a problem. If anyone in real life said what you do they would lose their jobs. That is, unless their "job" is media "personality" that requires no science, religion or anything else You have no idea what "god" with a lower case 'g' means and have no competence to discuss any records.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 22:02:29 GMT
I have no idea what you mean by "God." The "intelligent designer" is what it is. It is a hard wall in your path and nothing in your little toolkit is getting past it. Have you tried praying? Some people think they contacted the intelligent designer that way. I can't verify that though. The rules for evidence apply to both a God or an Intelligent Designer. You say design is proof a designer exists, but without actual evidence or at least a mathematical theory, this is begging the question. Explain how this proves a designer exists. Just what constitutes design? Is it possible to prove gravity will not cancel tomorrow? Not really. Why then is it called the "law" of gravity? It is called the law of gravity because it dependably predicts what nature will do in "every" case. Nature typically "obeys" it. What laboratories have proved with their rather extensive and comprehensive tests is that the assembly of life happens with the same frequency as levitation, in other words not at all. Since nature has no choices, no "free will" to assemble or not, that means it cannot assemble. Since that assembly necessarily happened that shows that something that can choose to assemble or not must have chosen at some time in the distant past to assemble. It's really very convincing and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2020 22:13:10 GMT
Yes, unlike religion, science must be updated and corrected when new evidence arises. Kind of in the same way we have to free innocent people when DNA evidence exonerates them where as if we applied the standards of religion/dogma the person would have to remain guilty regardless of new evidence. Is there a point you think you're making? "You sound like the people who say,"Here's what you need to do. You need to put a poultice on that." Your "science" is out of date." And I'll just add that to the long list of gibberish things you say that don't actually mean anything. Bolded section, very well and clearly said. Actually religion, except some unofficial "Christian" denominations, is about leaving punishment to a god. I suppose it might make you feel better about your government that it is making advances in being more fair in its punishments. However even DNA evidence is useless without strict control over all space. It can be planted otherwise. The only "punishment" religious people allow themselves to administer is self defense against a present and dangerous assault.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 24, 2020 23:08:40 GMT
You're doing it again. I don't know where you debated/discussed these things before, but...did it work on those others?
And now I have you on record saying how life originated and what started it. That is what I've been waiting for from you. Now is your chance. Explain how you know a god has the capability of creating life. First explain how, if a god is necessary for life...how is god alive.
Absolutely. Only fake people on virtually anonymous computer discussion boards are still a problem. If anyone in real life said what you do they would lose their jobs. That is, unless their "job" is media "personality" that requires no science, religion or anything else You have no idea what "god" with a lower case 'g' means and have no competence to discuss any records. That's why I'm leaving it up to you. Please proceed. Discuss the records or anything else you have. Describe how God or a god can be/do the things it needs to be/do to solve the conundrum of life....keeping in mind that would include explaining how it, itself, has life. This is the golden opportunity...there are several atheists/nonbelievers/skeptics who are simply asking for some basis to attribute the conundrums of the natural world to another world and are waiting with bated breath.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 24, 2020 23:19:01 GMT
Bolded section, very well and clearly said. Actually religion, except some unofficial "Christian" denominations, is about leaving punishment to a god. I suppose it might make you feel better about your government that it is making advances in being more fair in its punishments. However even DNA evidence is useless without strict control over all space. It can be planted otherwise. The only "punishment" religious people allow themselves to administer is self defense against a present and dangerous assault. I was not speaking to you. Perhaps lowtacks86 would like to respond.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 24, 2020 23:38:01 GMT
I assume these are the reasons:
1. I'm not stranded alone on a tropical island with Mary Ann
Well, that's enough.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 24, 2020 23:50:04 GMT
In which case why have you mentioned this one several times of late? A claim which is demonstrably false, but which it suits you to make. There are lessons to be learned. I can't leave them to you to teach. I said when you get a clue come back. I didn't say I will tolerate your incompetence. How can you be both so ignorant and so arrogant? Is there no self reflection capability in you?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 24, 2020 23:52:12 GMT
Subject lines make points for those who post them and don't specify. If not, what was the point of your posting this? I am not going to argue with you, i know better than you if i made a point or nor. Maybe this one of those Zen things where you need not make a point in order to make a point, and Goz being so versed in the ways of Buddhism got your point without you making your point. Yeah, maybe that.
|
|