Atheism's Blatant Contradiction [Archive]

exlude

02-24-2006, 11:46 AM

Semantic argument would be something like you arguing that the glass is half full and me arguing that the glass is half empty. Both assertions actually mean the same thing and our differences are meaningless. What we mean by half full is half empty and vice versa. But if we continue arguing one would say that our differences are just semantic.

Just fyi, my usage of the word semantic is actually in difference of meanings. Per this definition: "of or relating to changes of meaning".

This paper seems to offer something quite different. It seems that it is necessarily true that "knowledge," "thoughts, "decisions" and the like are either independent of mechanistic necessity or they are not. I sure you would agree with that.

Yes, they either are or aren't.

To be independent of mechanistic necessity and to not be independent of mechanistic necessity is not the same thing, is it? Mind you, if you say they are not the same thing you admit this is not a matter of semantics. But if you maintain they are you deny the law of non-contradiction. The choice is yours (pun intended).

In other words, you can't show a mechanism. Don't feel bad no one else can either. Evolution is supposedly a process, not a mechanism. The problem is a mechanism is needed to do the job. I don't want to get off the main topic, but the evolutionist has never been able to show a mechanism for anything. Out of nothing, something came (the universe). What was the mechanism? They don't have one. Out of the inanimate, the animate came. What was the mechanism? They don't have one for that either. Out of the non-sentient, the sentient came.
What was the mechanism? You guessed it, they don't have one.

I can't tell you the finer points of neurology and neurological evolution as I'm not a neurologist nor a geneticist, immunology is my specialty. This mechanism however, can simply turn into an apples and oranges argument:

Too many misunderstand the general point of science. It is to explain aspects of and around our existence with tangible evidence. Whether or not there is a supernatural is not a question of science until it can be observed and tested. The article you posted is simply not a scientific discussion. I think I missunderstood your question earlier between process/mechanism, so I apologize for taking it the scientific direction. One can scientifically argue against the Bible or for evolution, but where matter came from in the first place is an almost untouchable subject aside from the loosest of theory. Atleast, in our current state.

So in looking for this mechanism, a proper scientist is not going to attempt to answer such a question while the theist is going to interject that, in lack of scientific explanation, it must be explained by the supernatural. However, we are looking at an argument from two sides that stand on completely different standards preventing a decent discussion.

But back to the main topic. If all that exists is matter in motion, then all that exists is matter in motion, nothing else. This is the position of the atheist for the last 2500 years. If all matter must follow the laws of physics, then if all we are is matter in motion, all of our actions and thoughts must follow the same laws. This would mean that every thought, and decision has no more independence than a rock rolling down the hill. It moves and shifts position not because of a real decision, but because of the antecedent causes that force it to move as it does. If this is true, there is no real knowledge or thought or decision. This is all an illusion, but there is really nothing there to have the illusion either.

Here is how I look at this argument:
The "thought" is induced by a possibly endless and unfathomable amount of precedents from genetics, to proteins, to diet, to past experience, to whatever you could recall. If looked upon this way, then yes, the "thought" or "knowledge" can never be independent. The writer and I agree on that.

But here is where I believe the argument degenerates into semantics:
The writer tries to insult the atheist by saying he could not possibly be a "free thinker". True, he cannot be in the truest sense of the phrase. But because the writer wishes to interject with a remark made on a human's error, does not make the more concrete form of the atheist's argument any less true.

Here is the worse part:
He goes on to argue that one cannot deny knowledge because that is an expression of knowledge or knowing. Well, yes it is...if you go by his earlier definition of knowledge being "independent". But, that definition no longer applies here if one looks at it from the atheist's point of view. Knowledge is depedent under them, working perfectly with their response that it does or doesn't exist. It's a change in meaning, an argument of language.

So one wonders, what is discovery? How do we learn? (Two important aspects of science). Well, that's not necessarily knowledge, it's observation and memory...two VERY physical concepts and depedent concepts to the atheist. Knowledge, then, could just be the recollection and interjection of such experiences (with other factors, or course). In fact, from dictionary.com, the second definition of knowledge is just that: "Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study". See what I'm meaning by semantics?

There can still be "knowledge, thought, and decision" your definitions of the words just might have to change, or your definition of "independent" might have to change.

On one final, weaker note: The concept of supernatural knowledge is very interesting to me. If you consider it, someone's knowledge is very based on their reality. And reality is very based on what you bring in through the senses (I'm getting all Matrix on you). But, if you change someone's reality, say, through drugs, their knowledge can change quite distinctly (as has been observed). If knowledge were above and beyond the physical, it should be above and beyond the chemical reactions of a drug on the neurons in the brain. Just a possibility...

P.S. I enjoy this discussion as I have never really considered this side of naturalism.

nailman

02-24-2006, 03:22 PM

I am liking this arguement also. It is nice to see a debate where a foundation is set and relevent ideas are put forth in a non aggressive manner. I do believe in creationism, but you are putting forth a great arguement. I cannot wait to see the end of this one. (Even though it will not change my mind.)

zorro

02-26-2006, 12:45 AM

Just fyi, my usage of the word semantic is actually in difference of meanings. Per this definition: "of or relating to changes of meaning".

Sounds like you are accusing me of equivocation. Why don't you show where you think this is happening.

Here is how I look at this argument:
The "thought" is induced by a possibly endless and unfathomable amount of precedents from genetics, to proteins, to diet, to past experience, to whatever you could recall. If looked upon this way, then yes, the "thought" or "knowledge" can never be independent. The writer and I agree on that.

But here is where I believe the argument degenerates into semantics:
The writer tries to insult the atheist by saying he could not possibly be a "free thinker". True, he cannot be in the truest sense of the phrase. But because the writer wishes to interject with a remark made on a human's error, does not make the more concrete form of the atheist's argument any less true.

Well, if you agree that there is no independence and that everything is necessarily determined, how could I do anything else than point out that atheists aren't free thinkers? it was determined to be that way. You even admit that they are not free thinkers. But then neither are you or me. How can determined mechanisms be insulted? What is "insulted," if not just another effect of antecedent causes, that is, if you are right?

You see, if you assert your position as true and in effect, the meaning of your words and sentences come into question, but your worldview doesn't leave any room for questioning them. IF your worldview is true there is no real questioning, just more effects of antecedent causes. The fact that you are debating this issue means you have already lost. The fact that you are debating assumes independence.

Here is the worse part:
He goes on to argue that one cannot deny knowledge because that is an expression of knowledge or knowing. Well, yes it is...if you go by his earlier definition of knowledge being "independent". But, that definition no longer applies here if one looks at it from the atheist's point of view. Knowledge is depedent under them, working perfectly with their response that it does or doesn't exist. It's a change in meaning, an argument of language.

The problem is that the term knowledge did not change its definition, if you are right, it never had a definition and we could never give it one. Again, if you argue at all, you have already lost. It just shows you can't maintain your position. The only way you can argue is to leave your position and affirm mine.

So one wonders, what is discovery? How do we learn? (Two important aspects of science). Well, that's not necessarily knowledge, it's observation and memory...two VERY physical concepts and depedent concepts to the atheist. Knowledge, then, could just be the recollection and interjection of such experiences (with other factors, or course). In fact, from dictionary.com, the second definition of knowledge is just that: "Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study". See what I'm meaning by semantics?

If everything is necessarily determined there is no discovery or learning. There is just necessarily determined effects. A rock doesn't discover or learn anything as it falls down a hill and hits a tree or another rock. It just hits it and continues to move in an adjusted path in accord with what it hit and the velocity it hit it with. You continue to attribute independent terms, to what you insist is a determined system. That is a foul.

You see the problem for you in our past posts is solved. There is no mechanism needed to get you from inanimate to animate or non-sentient to sentient. If any atheistic cosmology is true, there is no animate or sentient. Therefore, no mechanism is needed. All that exist is just more complex matter in motion and less complex matter in motion. Nothing more, nothing less.

There can still be "knowledge, thought, and decision" your definitions of the words just might have to change, or your definition of "independent" might have to change.

And what is there, outside of an independent thinker, to change the meanings of these words? But in your worldview that thinker doesn't exist. Once again, you have stepped outside you worldview.

On one final, weaker note: The concept of supernatural knowledge is very interesting to me. If you consider it, someone's knowledge is very based on their reality. And reality is very based on what you bring in through the senses (I'm getting all Matrix on you). But, if you change someone's reality, say, through drugs, their knowledge can change quite distinctly (as has been observed). If knowledge were above and beyond the physical, it should be above and beyond the chemical reactions of a drug on the neurons in the brain. Just a possibility...

P.S. I enjoy this discussion as I have never really considered this side of naturalism.

This once again assumes that knowledge and observations can be other than what they are. If necessary determinism is true, there is no way that could be the case. The drugs a person took were determined to be taken by antecedent causes, millions or billions of years ago. That person had to observe what he observed and could do no other.

I too am enjoying this discussion. The difference is that in my wolrdview, "enjoy" has a real meaning.

Regards,

Z

exlude

02-26-2006, 10:50 AM

Sounds like you are accusing me of equivocation. Why don't you show where you think this is happening.

I'm not accusing you of anything, just defining my use of the word.

Well, if you agree that there is no independence and that everything is necessarily determined, how could I do anything else than point out that atheists aren't free thinkers? it was determined to be that way. You even admit that they are not free thinkers. But then neither are you or me. How can determined mechanisms be insulted? What is "insulted," if not just another effect of antecedent causes, that is, if you are right?

Out of curiosity, are you the author of that article? It seems you took offense when I said the writer tries to insult the atheist. I simply mentioned that because of the tone the author took with it. Seemed less like an honest statement and more the beginning of an attack (which can also show you a lot about the author's intent). However, I may have taken it wrong.

You see, if you assert your position as true and in effect, the meaning of your words and sentences come into question, but your worldview doesn't leave any room for questioning them. IF your worldview is true there is no real questioning, just more effects of antecedent causes. The fact that you are debating this issue means you have already lost. The fact that you are debating assumes independence.[/qoute]

To answer both your "insulted" comment and this:
Assuming naturalism is true, then it is true that there is no real questioning. However, this can defer from my reality (defined as what I personally bring in and observer through the senses, another determinate I might add) and it can most definitely feel differently (sensory wise). My debating this doesn't mean I have lost anything. It's not hard to recognize that due to many different predeterminates you and I recognize this entire topic differently. Debating is just a recollection of my experiences and applying them (that is, asserting memory and personal experience of the world to other plausible scenarios). None of this necessarily involves independent thinking.

[quote=zorro]The problem is that the term knowledge did not change its definition, if you are right, it never had a definition and we could never give it one. Again, if you argue at all, you have already lost. It just shows you can't maintain your position. The only way you can argue is to leave your position and affirm mine.

Who's to say that human beings cannot collaborate and define a noise? Now, if you want to get a freaky, cosmological, then yes...knowledge has no meaning/definition. But then, what is meaning? Again, the human perceived reality differs greatly from what induces it-- making it possible for me to argue this with you and not have already lost.

If everything is necessarily determined there is no discovery or learning. There is just necessarily determined effects. A rock doesn't discover or learn anything as it falls down a hill and hits a tree or another rock. It just hits it and continues to move in an adjusted path in accord with what it hit and the velocity it hit it with. You continue to attribute independent terms, to what you insist is a determined system. That is a foul.

If only a rock were the same organism as a human. What differentiates us from the rock is being able to recall past events. We have a memory, the rock does not. This memory is one of those determinates, however. While, under determinism, it is true that the chain of events was set into motion forever ago, it does branch and every specific determinate has not always existed. True, discovery and learning are just necessarily determined effects. But I was using them in a different context. Also, let me restate from a previous post that the memory is a VERY physical concept.

You see the problem for you in our past posts is solved. There is no mechanism needed to get you from inanimate to animate or non-sentient to sentient. If any atheistic cosmology is true, there is no animate or sentient. Therefore, no mechanism is needed. All that exist is just more complex matter in motion and less complex matter in motion. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's true, I didn't think of it that way. But again, it's a change in context/definition that we are having trouble getting past (it's inherent in this argument). I figured we were using sentient from the human's definition of it being a "thinking" being of sorts or as having some sort of memory. But, as you stated, outside that context...all molecules react the same and there are no special laws for that molecular matter from the molecular matter in inanimate objects.

And what is there, outside of an independent thinker, to change the meanings of these words? But in your worldview that thinker doesn't exist. Once again, you have stepped outside you worldview.

I believe I have already answered this in this post, but to reiterate:
There is a difference in what humans can assert. In my worldview this thinker most definitely can exists, and labels can most definitely be applied to things...it's just that these actions are not independent. But remember, some of the determinates from this action are the observation/realization of such concepts.

This once again assumes that knowledge and observations can be other than what they are. If necessary determinism is true, there is no way that could be the case. The drugs a person took were determined to be taken by antecedent causes, millions or billions of years ago. That person had to observe what he observed and could do no other.

I agree, but the post about the drugs was not about necessary determinism...it was about knowledge having a supernatural component that some drug's (a very physical element) could interact with. It was about the natural plausibly determining the supernatural, if the supernatural exists.

TexasDevilDog

02-26-2006, 02:55 PM

OK, would you care to show the mechanism that takes you from non-sentient to sentient? Remembering of course that it must be a non-sentient mechanism.

Thanks,

Z

Good luck. I couldn't even get someone to GUESS how asexual reproduction evolved to fusion reproduction. :D

zorro

02-27-2006, 01:14 PM

Out of curiosity, are you the author of that article? It seems you took offense when I said the writer tries to insult the atheist. I simply mentioned that because of the tone the author took with it. Seemed less like an honest statement and more the beginning of an attack (which can also show you a lot about the author's intent). However, I may have taken it wrong.

Yes, I am the author. No, I did not take offence. Just a little passionate about the topic. As I mention in the article, I fought against it for a long time. Now it seems so clear and distinct that I can't believe it took me so long to "get it." For an atheist to call himself a "free thinker" when his cosmological position says there is no free thought and that everything is determined, does have its comical elements. But that is only because it is contradictory. The problem is that most atheists have no clue that their worldview contradicts the title they have chosen for themselves. They want to think of themselves as rational, logical and that they are able to make decisions independent of environmental and/or social pressures. But there worldview says all that is a lie. It is only if their worldview is false, that they have the possibility of being truly "freethinkers."

Let me address your view here again. How does one insult a deterministic mechanism or offend a deterministic mechanism? The so-called insulter, could do nothing else and the so-called insulted, could be nothing else. The insult and the response were determined to occur millions or billons of years ago. The thing is "insult" implies intent, but the insulter (from the atheist’s position) has no intent, just necessarily determined responses to other determined responses. So, the assertion that I insulted someone or that I was offended by your comments only makes sense, if we agree that the atheist position is false.

You see, if you assert your position as true and in effect, the meaning of your words and sentences come into question, but your worldview doesn't leave any room for questioning them. IF your worldview is true there is no real questioning, just more effects of antecedent causes. The fact that you are debating this issue means you have already lost. The fact that you are debating assumes independence.

To answer both your "insulted" comment and this:
Assuming naturalism is true, then it is true that there is no real questioning. However, this can defer from my reality (defined as what I personally bring in and observer through the senses, another determinate I might add) and it can most definitely feel differently (sensory wise). My debating this doesn't mean I have lost anything. It's not hard to recognize that due to many different predeterminates you and I recognize this entire topic differently. Debating is just a recollection of my experiences and applying them (that is, asserting memory and personal experience of the world to other plausible scenarios). None of this necessarily involves independent thinking.

Isn't the problem that you are not "personally" bringing in anything? To say that you are bringing something "in," implies that you are bringing something in that comes from outside the system, and that it would not have been there, unless you brought it in. But in the atheists system, that is not the case. Everything is there becasue it has to be. There is nothing that is brought in from outside, everything is where it is because it was determined to be there billions of years ago. It could not by any different. Even the spelling errors you and I make, and our corrections of those errors were predetermined and could be no other way (that is, if the atheistic cosmology is correct). In other words, if the atheistic cosmology is true, you don't bring anything "personally" "in" to the mix at all. To assert you do, is a denial of the atheistic system itself.

That is all that I mean when I say that by participating in this debate, you have already lost. This is not a personal attack or mere boasting, but a realization that the terms uses to defend the atheist position will always contradict the atheist position. Try arguing without using the terms that imply that you have independence or are arguing independently. You will find that it is impossible. That is what took me so long to understand. You see, even though I was not an atheist, I was arguing for the atheist position, because I thought that my friends had gone off the deep end with this stuff. One day it hit me, that from the atheist position, I could not make any argument that didn't implicitly contradict the atheist position. The words I used, the phrases, the very thoughts I had all implied that I was independent.

Who's to say that human beings cannot collaborate and define a noise? Now, if you want to get a freaky, cosmological, then yes...knowledge has no meaning/definition. But then, what is meaning? Again, the human perceived reality differs greatly from what induces it-- making it possible for me to argue this with you and not have already lost.

Please re-read your paragraph. Doesn’t it imply that you are on the outside of the system looking in and determining what "human perceived reality" is? This is an assertion of independence. But the system demands that nothing is independent. So, your comments are either meaningless or the system is wrong.

Let's further examine your statement, "the human perceived reality differs greatly from what induces it." This naturally flows from the position that our common experience of independence is not real, as you pointed out in a previous post. The next logical question that comes up is, if this personal and universal perception is not real, what makes you think that any of our perceptions are real?

David Hume brings this up in his "Enquiry on Human Knowledge." Allow me to paraphrase his point:

When we observe causes and effects, we observe that causes are usually unlike their effects. For instance, when I light a match, the flame is very different than the firm paper that makes up the match or the cool chemicals that go into making the head of the match. When I drop a bowling ball, the noise, the “thud” it makes is very different from the hardness of the ball or the floor. So, we see with all sorts of other things too, that the effect is unlike its cause. With that said, let us look at our perceptions. Perceptions are effects caused by the world around us. But if causes are not like effects, what makes us think that any of our perceptions (the effects) are anything like the world (the cause) around us?

Hume, himself, was not able to satisfactorily answer this question. His problem is like yours. He maintained a cosmology that didn't have the elements needed to come up with an answer. Even though he had some leanings toward deism, his basic cosmology was that of naturism.

I think I will stop here, because the way you answer the above questions will affect the way I deal with the rest of you comments.

Regards,

Z

Fobra

02-28-2006, 01:26 AM

I think I will stop here, because the way you answer the above questions will affect the way I deal with the rest of you comments.

http://www.westsidemustangs.com/forums/Smileys/wsm/rockon.gif

<---refills on popcorn :D

ClockwrkOrangeS4

02-28-2006, 07:07 PM

soooooo, there is proof that there is a god?

zorro

02-28-2006, 07:15 PM

soooooo, there is proof that there is a god?

Hi,

I am not sure if this is a real question. I will answer it as if it were.

Yes. If you can show that no atheistic cosmology is true, then some theistic cosmology must be true. Ergo, God exists.

Regards,

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

02-28-2006, 07:49 PM

Fobra

02-28-2006, 08:34 PM

do the Muslims and all the other non-god worshiping people know yet?

I may be receiving this wrong, but that question sounds rather sarcastic http://www.westsidemustangs.com/forums/Smileys/wsm/suspicious.gif

zorro

02-28-2006, 08:51 PM

do the Muslims and all the other non-god worshiping people know yet?

Do you have a real point you would like to discuss?

Z

ScottEvil

02-28-2006, 10:05 PM

Do you have a real point you would like to discuss?

Z

His question seems valid to me http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Who tells the indian who worships the buffalo?

zorro

02-28-2006, 10:20 PM

His question seems valid to me http://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Who tells the indian who worships the buffalo?

Well, now that you know, why don't you and ClockwrkOrangeS4 do it. I took the time to tell you and I will tell many others. If you feel led to talk to native americans, it becomes your turn to tell them.

(Actually, out of all the nationalities you could have picked, you just happened to pick the one I am having a discussion with on another board. I am conversing with a very nice native american woman.)

Z

Fobra

02-28-2006, 10:41 PM

Well, now that you know, why don't you and ClockwrkOrangeS4 do it. I took the time to tell you and I will tell many others. If you feel led to talk to native americans, it becomes your turn to tell them.

(Actually, out of all the nationalities you could have picked, you just happened to pick the one I am having a discussion with on another board. I am conversing with a very nice native american woman.)

Z
post the link up, I'd like to check it out :)

zorro

02-28-2006, 11:27 PM

post the link up, I'd like to check it out :)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Rats_In_The_Garden/messages

DarkWolf

03-01-2006, 11:33 AM

Hi,

I am not sure if this is a real question. I will answer it as if it were.

Yes. If you can show that no atheistic cosmology is true, then some theistic cosmology must be true. Ergo, God exists.

Regards,

Z

Playing devils advocate here for a moment, your argument falls short of proving atheism wrong, by the simple assumption that knowledge can only come from God.

Knowledge, as defined, is familiarity gained through experience or association. A computer can learn through association, the same way a human, or any animal does. Much like the human brain, a computer works on electrical impulses. Yes, a computer has to be made by something, but overall it's no different from anything else, in that it's made from base materials common to this world. This world is made from base materials common to the universe. If there are elements in the universe, that are the same as the elements within our own DNA, and thus the very building blocks of life, then by necessity, we are of the same substance (at least in part) as the universe, and are thus not particluarly "special".

While this doesn't prove or disprove God, it does at least indicate that knowledge itself, doesn't require that there be a God for it to exist. Naturally, something has to bring these elements together. But it could just as easily be time, as it could be God.

On a side note, what was the purpose of pretending like this article wasn't your own, early on in the thread?

zorro

03-01-2006, 01:09 PM

Playing devils advocate here for a moment, your argument falls short of proving atheism wrong, by the simple assumption that knowledge can only come from God.

I think you misunderstood the argument. It does not say that knowledge can only come from God, but that there is no atheist cosmology that allows us to get to knowledge. I have no problem with you or I coming to deductive or inductive conclusions on our own. But for us to be able to do that requires something that is just not available in any atheistic system. This is what I meant by the illustration of ice tea in my paper.

Knowledge, as defined, is familiarity gained through experience or association.

Isn't it something more than just familiarity? Familiarity doesn't give you the basis for drawing conclusions. Nor does it give tou the ability to make abstractions.

A computer can learn through association, the same way a human, or any animal does. Much like the human brain, a computer works on electrical impulses.

Isn't this a reassertion of the question at hand? The question is are we just determined mechanisms, but mecanisms without a designer? If it is true, then we can never know it, because if it is true, then we can only "know" what we were determined to know and nothing else. Everything we believe or hold as true is necessarily determined by antecedent causes put in motion billions of years ago. What is worse is that those antecedent causes have necessarily determined that the vast majority of humans (some 80% to 90%)will believe that God exists. So, if the atheist cosmology is true, it has caused the vast majority to necessarily believe a lie. If that is true, how can we believe anything we "know" is true?

You see, unless you can go outside the necessarily determined system (In other words, unless you are independent of the system), you can't come to any conclusions about the system. There is no atheistic system that allows you to go outside of it

On a side note, what was the purpose of pretending like this article wasn't your own, early on in the thread?

I never indicated that it wasn't my own. But to be fair, I never explicitly stated it was. It just didn't seem importat to say, until someone asked and then I said it was.

Regards,

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-01-2006, 06:58 PM

But it is possible that the argument is wrong. Can you show us the elements in any atheistic cosmology that allows us to get to knowledge?

Regards,

Z

I am atheist and I gained the knowledge that you talk, and write, in circles. I also gained the knowledge that you answered my question with a question.

zorro

03-01-2006, 07:55 PM

I am atheist and I gained the knowledge that you talk, and write, in circles. I also gained the knowledge that you answered my question with a question.

Actually, the post of mine you just quoted from was a response for exclude, not you. In the first paragraph of that post, I answered his question. The second paragraph I asked him a question. He didn't answer it, perhaps you would like to give it a try?

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-02-2006, 08:35 AM

do the Muslims and all the other non-god worshiping people know yet?

Do you have a real point you would like to discuss?

Z

That's what I was referring to.

The bible is a fairy tale. A collection of stories, written by many people, and put together. I'm sure you know this. You seem like a pretty smart person, you use a lot of big words and talk like a politician. This doesn't change the fact that a belief is a belief, nothing more. You nor I will never be able to "prove" the others ideas or beliefs don't exist. You have a choice in who you worship as do I. Until I, as an individual, can determine what belief suits my needs I will remain the same, in the "none of the above" column. In the meantime you can continue to believe that billions of human beings were spawned from two people created by a single god and in doing so, come to the conclusion that all other religions are wrong.

The funny thing to me is that religious wars will alwya be an issue and have been throughout history. It's funny to me because other people really feel that it is neccessary to push thier beliefs on other people because they feel they are right and the opposing side is wrong. There is no right or wrong. You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. I'm sure there is more to it, but when it all boils down, that's all that matters.

So you say my belief can't exist. I say fine. I say your belief doesn't exist, you try to convince me. See the difference?

Hollywood

03-02-2006, 12:23 PM

I heart Tim.

zorro

03-02-2006, 06:31 PM

The bible is a fairy tale. A collection of stories, written by many people, and put together. I'm sure you know this. You seem like a pretty smart person, you use a lot of big words and talk like a politician. This doesn't change the fact that a belief is a belief, nothing more. You nor I will never be able to "prove" the others ideas or beliefs don't exist. You have a choice in who you worship as do I. Until I, as an individual, can determine what belief suits my needs I will remain the same, in the "none of the above" column. In the meantime you can continue to believe that billions of human beings were spawned from two people created by a single god and in doing so, come to the conclusion that all other religions are wrong.

The funny thing to me is that religious wars will alwya be an issue and have been throughout history. It's funny to me because other people really feel that it is neccessary to push thier beliefs on other people because they feel they are right and the opposing side is wrong. There is no right or wrong. You believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. I'm sure there is more to it, but when it all boils down, that's all that matters.

So you say my belief can't exist. I say fine. I say your belief doesn't exist, you try to convince me. See the difference?

I am a little confused, perhaps you can clarify a point or two for me.

It is my position that the Bible is true and that atheism is false. Further I hold that my paper, "Atheism's Blatant Contradiction" proves that atheism is false.

If I understand your position correctly it is that all philosophical and theological positions are of equal value. No one is more or less true than another. You can believe what you want and I can believe what I want; there is no right or wrong.

However, it seems that the purpose of your post was to tell me that my position is wrong. Am I correctly understanding what you wrote?

Regards,

Z

talisman

03-02-2006, 08:47 PM

I am a little confused

Understatement of the year.

Good closing point, Clockwork.

TexasDevilDog

03-02-2006, 09:20 PM

It's funny to me because other people really feel that it is neccessary to push thier beliefs on other people because they feel they are right and the opposing side is wrong.

I am sorry that you feel that way. I hope that people don't try to force their religious believes on you. Our church routinely prays for the unchurched people of the world.

I'll pray for you. :)

Fobra

03-02-2006, 09:32 PM

Understatement of the year.

Good closing point, Clockwork.

You know talisman, you said earlier that you thought this thread was laughable in the politics section, I find it rather amusing that almost everything you post about (primarily about christianity) relative to these issues has no valid substance to explain why you believe the way you do. All you merely do is make snooty little one liners, it's as if that somehow elevates your position in the argument, or lack there of. If you are going to attempt an argument, at least try to incorporate a reasoned explanation to support it.

TexasDevilDog

03-02-2006, 09:35 PM

talisman

03-02-2006, 09:52 PM

You know talisman, you said earlier that you thought this thread was laughable in the politics section, I find it rather amusing that almost everything you post about (primarily about christianity) relative to these issues has no valid substance to explain why you believe the way you do. All you merely do is make snooty little one liners, it's as if that somehow elevates your position in the argument, or lack there of. If you are going to attempt an argument, at least try to incorporate a reasoned explanation to support it.

You were the one asking me about my athiesm in that post, I wasn't promoting the fact OR trying to justify it. I wasn't even trying to convert anyone; just mentioned that Elvis' offer wouldn't be taken up, and the reason why.

That thread is about something else entirely, and you were trying to turn it into a different debate. You failed because I'm not going to debate athiesm being right or wrong. I don't CARE if other people think the same way I do. I'm not sanctimonious enough to feel the need to explain my beliefs. My reasoning is just as flawed and human as yours is for believing. Frankly, the reason I believe what I believe is none of your damn business, but I'll still pop in to point out a contradiction every once in awhile to keep you guys on your toes. There's a nice little ignore feature this board has if it bothers you so much.

talisman

03-02-2006, 09:54 PM

I mean honestly, you want this to be taken seriously?:

The argument I will present is not my argument it has been developed and put forth by many others before me. But, even though it is not mine, you may find a few nuances that I have added. It is the argument for the necessity of God based on the existence of knowledge. In a nutshell, I will show that if knowledge exists, then atheism is inherently contradictory and theism must be true.

If you must know, I fought against this argument for a long time because I didn’t really understand it. Now that I have come to see it clearly and distinctly, I will try to put down in this paper the points and reasons that finally made sense to me, in hopes that they will do the same for you.

Sounds like a Nigerian scam artist for christs sake!

Fobra

03-03-2006, 01:22 AM

You were the one asking me about my athiesm in that post, I wasn't promoting the fact OR trying to justify it. I wasn't even trying to convert anyone; just mentioned that Elvis' offer wouldn't be taken up, and the reason why.

That thread is about something else entirely, and you were trying to turn it into a different debate. You failed because I'm not going to debate athiesm being right or wrong. I don't CARE if other people think the same way I do. I'm not sanctimonious enough to feel the need to explain my beliefs. My reasoning is just as flawed and human as yours is for believing. Frankly, the reason I believe what I believe is none of your damn business, but I'll still pop in to point out a contradiction every once in awhile to keep you guys on your toes. There's a nice little ignore feature this board has if it bothers you so much.

My statement about your one liner posts wasn't only based on the thread in the politics section, it was based on just watching your posts that have been in the theology section in the past.

These statements progressively changed the debate:
LOL, could also have something to do with me being an athiest, but ya know...Prior to this statement, I was unaware of your position.

Then you said this...
I read a few bits, and it was almost laughable.
To which I decided to ask you to defend your position and yet you have not done.

I mean honestly, you want this to be taken seriously?
This one liner appears to be an ad hominem fallacy, you'd rather go around the argument by demonizing it than actually refute it. You see, this is what I'm talking about, you cling to these snooty remarks instead of coming up with an intelligent argument to justify your responses. Try having an open mind to what zorro initiated instead of just saying "that's laughable" when making a response.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-03-2006, 09:34 AM

I am a little confused, perhaps you can clarify a point or two for me.

...it seems that the purpose of your post was to tell me that my position is wrong. Am I correctly understanding what you wrote?

Regards,

Z

I would say you are a tad more confused than you think. The only thing you have proven with your paper is that you have an opinion, nothing more.

The purpose of your post was to tell me I am wrong. The purpose of my post was to tell you that we are both right.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-03-2006, 09:38 AM

I am sorry that you feel that way. I hope that people don't try to force their religious believes on you. Our church routinely prays for the unchurched people of the world.

I'll pray for you. :)

I was referring to wars started because of religious conflicts, not a religious forum on DFWStangs. :)

Pray all you want, I don't need it.

zorro

03-03-2006, 10:26 AM

The only thing you have proven with your paper is that you have an opinion, nothing more.

What I mean by the word "proven" is a argument with a deductively valid form and true premises, that yeilds a necessarily true conclusion. That is what is in my paper. The paper proves that atheism is necessarily false.

You seem to disagree with this. Perhaps you could show where the argument is formally invalid or the premises false?

The purpose of your post was to tell me I am wrong. The purpose of my post was to tell you that we are both right.

It would seem that if there are two contradictory positions that one is necessarily true and one is necessarily false. To say anything else is to deny the law of non-contradiction.

Let me explain. I hold that my paper proves that atheism is false, you say that it proves nothing. So, it seem obvious that you don't believe that we are both right.

What do you think?

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-03-2006, 10:58 AM

What I mean by the word "proven" is a argument with a deductively valid form and true premises, that yeilds a necessarily true conclusion. That is what is in my paper. The paper proves that atheism is necessarily false.

You seem to disagree with this. Perhaps you could show where the argument is formally invalid or the premises false?

It would seem that if there are two contradictory positions that one is necessarily true and one is necessarily false. To say anything else is to deny the law of non-contradiction.

Let me explain. I hold that my paper proves that atheism is false, you say that it proves nothing. So, it seem obvious that you don't believe that we are both right.

What do you think?

Z

I think you are attempting to make something that is a belief into science.

what is this a picture of?

http://www.lemniscateinc.com/images/vase.gif

whatever you say it is, I say the opposite. Who is wrong?

talisman

03-03-2006, 11:21 AM

My statement about your one liner posts wasn't only based on the thread in the politics section, it was based on just watching your posts that have been in the theology section in the past.

These statements progressively changed the debate:
Prior to this statement, I was unaware of your position.

Then you said this...

To which I decided to ask you to defend your position and yet you have not done.

This one liner appears to be an ad hominem fallacy, you'd rather go around the argument by demonizing it than actually refute it. You see, this is what I'm talking about, you cling to these snooty remarks instead of coming up with an intelligent argument to justify your responses. Try having an open mind to what zorro initiated instead of just saying "that's laughable" when making a response.

For someone so desperatly seeking an arguement, you sure do lack some basic reading comprehension skills. I know since you're used to trying to convince people to believe what you believe it must be a little confusing knowing that I have no interest in swaying your opinion, nor explaining my personal philosophies so you can attempt to pick them apart, but thats just how I roll. I don't HAVE a postion on being athiest.

What I mean by the word "proven" is a argument with a deductively valid form and true premises, that yeilds a necessarily true conclusion. That is what is in my paper. The paper proves that atheism is necessarily false.

You seem to disagree with this. Perhaps you could show where the argument is formally invalid or the premises false?

It would seem that if there are two contradictory positions that one is necessarily true and one is necessarily false. To say anything else is to deny the law of non-contradiction.

Let me explain. I hold that my paper proves that atheism is false, you say that it proves nothing. So, it seem obvious that you don't believe that we are both right.

What do you think?

Z

You loved it when they talked about adverbs in Freshman English, didn't you?

zorro

03-03-2006, 12:00 PM

I think you are attempting to make something that is a belief into science.

what is this a picture of?

http://www.lemniscateinc.com/images/vase.gif

whatever you say it is, I say the opposite. Who is wrong?

I say the black portion resembles two faces and the white portion resembles a vase of some sort. Do you disagree with this? Do you think the white portion resembles two faces and the black portion resembles a vase? Or, from your position, are you even able to say which is white and which is black?

Let me give you one: 2 + 2 = 5

Is this false?

Z

zorro

03-03-2006, 12:08 PM

You loved it when they talked about adverbs in Freshman English, didn't you?

Actually, I only enjoyed English in so much as its grammar is a form of logic. Logic was my real interest in college. I see that there are very few atheists here that share that interest. Wouldn't you agree?

Z

talisman

03-03-2006, 12:28 PM

Actually, I only enjoyed English in so much as its grammar is a form of logic. Logic was my real interest in college. I see that there are very few atheists here that share that interest. Wouldn't you agree?

Z

LOL

Not your first language either, is it?

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-03-2006, 12:29 PM

I say the black portion resembles two faces and the white portion resembles a vase of some sort. Do you disagree with this? Do you think the white portion resembles two faces and the black portion resembles a vase? Or, from your position, are you even able to say which is white and which is black?

Let me give you one: 2 + 2 = 5

Is this false?

Z

let me rephrase the question:

do you see a vase or faces? ("both" is an acceptable answer as well)but remember, be logical

There is more than one answer to the question. That's because it's not a scientific question, it is a question based on interpretation.

zorro

03-03-2006, 12:43 PM

LOL

Not your first language either, is it?

Since your statement is not a complete English sentence, but merely a fragmant, I am not quite sure what you mean. A fragment has a tendency to be an amphiboly.

Oooooh, hehehe, I get it. You were attempting to show how atheists can use neither logic or English correctly. That was a good one. I completely agree with you. LOL!

Z

talisman

03-03-2006, 12:53 PM

Since your statement is not a complete English sentence, but merely a fragmant, I am not quite sure what you mean. A fragment has a tendency to be an amphiboly.

Oooooh, hehehe, I get it. You were attempting to show how atheists can use neither logic or English correctly. That was a good one. I completely agree with you. LOL!

Z

You also like to dodge direct questions, don't you? I wasn't giving you a hard time, it's a serious question based on your over flowery word usage.

zorro

03-03-2006, 01:38 PM

let me rephrase the question:

do you see a vase or faces? ("both" is an acceptable answer as well)but remember, be logical

There is more than one answer to the question. That's because it's not a scientific question, it is a question based on interpretation.

The problem with your example is that it is intentionally ambiguous. That may be fine for pictures, but not for propositions. When propositions are ambiguous it is called a fallacy.

For instance take this newspaper headline:

"Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers"

Like your picture, it could mean a couple of different things. But the fact that it could mean two different things doesn't mean that there are two sets of facts to the story or that both sets of facts are true. The author was trying to get an idea across to his readers. Most readers are smart enough to interpret the meaning that the author intended, but the fact that it is ambiguous, makes it a little humorous. It is humorous, because the author made an obvious error. Or it is possible that the author meant to make a joke out of it. But the real story behind the headline still has only one set of facts.

You may want to review the article on “ambiguity” at the Fallacy Files web site:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ambiguit.html

You will also find more examples of optically ambiguous pictures.

Back to my question, that is unambiguous:

Is the statement, 2 +2 = 5, a false statement?

Regards,

Z

zorro

03-03-2006, 01:40 PM

You also like to dodge direct questions, don't you? I wasn't giving you a hard time, it's a serious question based on your over flowery word usage.

I was born and raised in the USA.

Z

TexasDevilDog

03-03-2006, 01:44 PM

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-03-2006, 01:54 PM

The problem with your example is that it is intentionally ambiguous. That may be fine for pictures, but not for propositions. When propositions are ambiguous it is called a fallacy.

For instance take this newspaper headline:

"Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers"

Like your picture, it could mean a couple of different things. But the fact that it could mean two different things doesn't mean that there are two sets of facts to the story or that both sets of facts are true. The author was trying to get an idea across to his readers. Most readers are smart enough to interpret the meaning that the author intended, but the fact that it is ambiguous, makes it a little humorous. It is humorous, because the author made an obvious error. Or it is possible that the author meant to make a joke out of it. But the real story behind the headline still has only one set of facts.

You may want to review the article on “ambiguity” at the Fallacy Files web site:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ambiguit.html

You will also find more examples of optically ambiguous pictures.

Back to my question, that is unambiguous:

Is the statement, 2 +2 = 5, a false statement?

Regards,

Z

That is a lengthy explanation to say that your headline is a play on words, which is all that is. I'm sure you've also heard the phrase "comparing apples to oranges" which is what you are doing.

Yes, your 2+2=5 is a false statement. It has been proven that 2+2=4. My picture has been proven to be BOTH a vase and faces. That is a fact, like it or not. It's not a riddle, it's not something you have to explain. It's a vase or a pair of faces, or both if you can see it that way.

Your headline has nothing to do with the picture I posted, no matter how many links you post.

The picture I posted has more than one answer, both of which are correct, but completely different, and in some respects, completely opposite. Just like religion.

The bottom line is this:

Religion doesn't have a single answer. To some, like myself, there isn't even a question.

zorro

03-03-2006, 04:13 PM

That is a lengthy explanation to say that your headline is a play on words, which is all that is. I'm sure you've also heard the phrase "comparing apples to oranges" which is what you are doing.

Yes, your 2+2=5 is a false statement. It has been proven that 2+2=4. My picture has been proven to be BOTH a vase and faces. That is a fact, like it or not. It's not a riddle, it's not something you have to explain. It's a vase or a pair of faces, or both if you can see it that way.

Your headline has nothing to do with the picture I posted, no matter how many links you post.

The picture I posted has more than one answer, both of which are correct, but completely different, and in some respects, completely opposite. Just like religion.

Yes we are dealing with apples and oranges, but it is you who is doing it. The fact is that there are no faces or no vase in the picture. If you were looking at two real faces in that position, you would never think there was a vase there; or if you were looking at a real vase, you would not see two faces. The reason that you can see both in the picture is because of the ambiguity of the artist’s rendition. In this case, it was intentional.

You now agree that the proposition 2 + 2 = 5 is false. I will assume that you would also agree that the proposition 2 + 2 = 4 is true. These two propositions are like the propositions:

1) God does exist.
2) God doesn't exist.

Even though we may not know, at this point, which one is true, we can say with certainty that one is true and one is false; just like with any other antithesis.

Are we in agreement?

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-03-2006, 04:24 PM

Are we in agreement?

Z

are you kidding?

zorro

03-03-2006, 04:38 PM

are you kidding?

No.

What do you disagree with?

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-03-2006, 04:40 PM

No.

What do you disagree with?

not all questions have absolute wrong and absolute correct answers

do we agree on that?

zorro

03-03-2006, 04:43 PM

not all questions have absolute wrong and absolute correct answers

do we agree on that?

Yes, but this is not one of those.

Don't you agree that if it is true that God does exist, then the statement, "God doesn't exist," is false?
Don't you agree that if it is true that God doesn't exist, then the statement, "God does exist," is false?

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-03-2006, 04:53 PM

Yes, but this is not one of those.

Don't you agree that if it is true that God does exist, then the statement, "God doesn't exist," is false?
Don't you agree that if it is true that God doesn't exist, then the statement, "God does exist," is false?

Z

based on your criteria, Bigfoot exists because I can't prove that he doesn't

here is a proposition to you:

the word "cup" is a unit of measurement

a.) true
b.) false

zorro

03-03-2006, 05:38 PM

based on your criteria, Bigfoot exists because I can't prove that he doesn't

That has nothing to do with any criteria I have. Please don't put words in my mouth, that is unsanitary.

here is a proposition to you:

the word "cup" is a unit of measurement

a.) true
b.) false

We will get to that in a while, but first, I want to know if you agree that:

If it is true that God doesn't exist, then the statement, "God does exist," is false?

Fobra

03-03-2006, 05:48 PM

Please don't put words in my mouth, that is unsanitary.
lol

talisman

03-03-2006, 06:04 PM

Yes, but this is not one of those.

Don't you agree that if it is true that God does exist, then the statement, "God doesn't exist," is false?
Don't you agree that if it is true that God doesn't exist, then the statement, "God does exist," is false?

Z

I'd like you to quote where any of us atheists have said God doesn't exsist, please. Just because you believe something, doesn't mean its right. That goes for you and me.

Fobra

03-03-2006, 06:22 PM

I'd like you to quote where any of us atheists have said God doesn't exsist, please.

lol! Atheism is by definition one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist

In other words, calling yourself an atheist necessarily implies that you don't believe in God lol...

zorro

03-03-2006, 06:22 PM

I'd like you to quote where any of us atheists have said God doesn't exsist, please. Just because you believe something, doesn't mean its right. That goes for you and me.

The question I am asking has nothing to do with what you believe or I believe. It is simply a question of logical necessity.

Would you like to answer it?

I want to know if you agree that:

If it is true that God doesn't exist, then the statement, "God does exist," is false?

Z

talisman

03-03-2006, 07:22 PM

lol! Atheism is by definition one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheist

In other words, calling yourself an atheist necessarily implies that you don't believe in God lol...

Exactly. Not believeing something isn't knowing for fact, any more than you believing there is a god. That isn't saying there IS NO GOD. It's a simple statement of my feelings on the matter.

talisman

03-03-2006, 07:24 PM

If it is true that God doesn't exist, then the statement, "God does exist," is false?

Z

Sure.

zorro

03-03-2006, 08:28 PM

Sure.

I will assume that means "yes." Let me know if I am wrong.

Now, let's try this one:

If it is true that God does exist, then the statement, "God doesn't exist," is false?

Z

SlowLX

03-03-2006, 08:30 PM

You people argue to much. God was an Aztec and yes I can prove this.

Jesus is mexican a loose decendant of Aztecs, and by our definition as humans God is technically an Alien as is Jeebus when he flew over the rio grande. SO therefore God was an ancestor of Jeebus the messican and the spanish and catholics are evil which God is not, so God is Aztecian. :D :cool: :p

talisman

03-03-2006, 09:39 PM

I will assume that means "yes." Let me know if I am wrong.

Now, let's try this one:

If it is true that God does exist, then the statement, "God doesn't exist," is false?

Z

How about cutting out the middleman and getting to the point?

zorro

03-03-2006, 10:36 PM

How about cutting out the middleman and getting to the point?

I am finding this thread fascinating. What I find fascinating is the lengths that atheists on this board will attempt to avoid admitting logically necessary conclusions.

ClockwrkOrangeS4 entered this discussion with the logically absurd affirmation that antithetical positions could both be true. Surely he must realize that answering my two questions in the affirmative destroys his assertion, but if he answers in the negative, he is admitting to irrationality. So, he is either wrong or irrational. I am guessing he will go with irrationality rather than admit he is wrong.

Now, let's take a look at your posts. So far you haven't made the same affirmation that ClockwrkOrangeS4 made, but we have had four sets of exchanges and as of yet, you have not given a straight forward answer to both of those questions. Why is that? Why do we need eight to ten posts to agree a something so simple?

Let me ask you again, do you agree that if it is true that God does exist, then the statement, "God doesn't exist," is false?

Z

SlowLX

03-03-2006, 10:59 PM

I am finding this thread fascinating. What I find fascinating is the lengths that atheists on this board will attempt to avoid admitting logically necessary conclusions.

ClockwrkOrangeS4 entered this discussion with the logically absurd affirmation that antithetical positions could both be true. Surely he must realize that answering my two questions in the affirmative destroys his assertion, but if he answers in the negative, he is admitting to irrationality. So, he is either wrong or irrational. I am guessing he will go with irrationality rather than admit he is wrong.

Now, let's take a look at your posts. So far you haven't made the same affirmation that ClockwrkOrangeS4 made, but we have had four sets of exchanges and as of yet, you have not given a straight forward answer to both of those questions. Why is that? Why do we need eight to ten posts to agree a something so simple?

Let me ask you again, do you agree that if it is true that God does exist, then the statement, "God doesn't exist," is false?

Z
I think that's pretty much common sense and you're dancing around the issue of your proof.They know they cant disprove God beyond the shadow of a doubt but you have yet to offer them any proof otherwise. Besides I've done told ya'll who God is and where he's from :)

Fobra

03-04-2006, 12:48 AM

Exactly. Not believeing something isn't knowing for fact, any more than you believing there is a god. That isn't saying there IS NO GOD. It's a simple statement of my feelings on the matter.

Belief is derived from a degree of conviction of the truth of something. The atheist denotes mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of there being no God and thus, by not believing in something such as this is based upon the fact that they see no validity in the existance of God. And again, a statement like this...
I'd like you to quote where any of us atheists have said God doesn't exsist, please.
...means that the atheists position necessarily implies that God doesn't exist based on what they suppose the truth/fact of the matter is, in this case, that God doesn't exist. I merely point this out because that statement you made looks like an oxymoron...

talisman

03-04-2006, 08:13 AM

I am finding this thread fascinating. What I find fascinating is the lengths that atheists on this board will attempt to avoid admitting logically necessary conclusions.

ClockwrkOrangeS4 entered this discussion with the logically absurd affirmation that antithetical positions could both be true. Surely he must realize that answering my two questions in the affirmative destroys his assertion, but if he answers in the negative, he is admitting to irrationality. So, he is either wrong or irrational. I am guessing he will go with irrationality rather than admit he is wrong.

Now, let's take a look at your posts. So far you haven't made the same affirmation that ClockwrkOrangeS4 made, but we have had four sets of exchanges and as of yet, you have not given a straight forward answer to both of those questions. Why is that? Why do we need eight to ten posts to agree a something so simple?

Let me ask you again, do you agree that if it is true that God does exist, then the statement, "God doesn't exist," is false?

Z

You can dance around small nuances of language all day long, it doesn't prove there is a god any more than it proves there is a Loch Ness Monster. You're 'arguement' is downright laughable. I'd go on, but exlude has already covered semantics once.

You set up two small parameters, failing to take into account the entire REST of the world around you, and if those two parameters only collide, you must be right? LOL, there may or may not be a god, but there are certainly people with god complexes, and you might want to get that checked out.

talisman

03-04-2006, 08:14 AM

Belief is derived from a degree of conviction of the truth of something. The atheist denotes mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of there being no God and thus, by not believing in something such as this is based upon the fact that they see no validity in the existance of God. And again, a statement like this...

...means that the atheists position necessarily implies that God doesn't exist based on what they suppose the truth/fact of the matter is, in this case, that God doesn't exist. I merely point this out because that statement you made looks like an oxymoron...

I've explained myself to you three times now. You know that saying about taking a horse to water? You're the horse.

zorro

03-04-2006, 09:51 AM

You can dance around small nuances of language all day long, it doesn't prove there is a god any more than it proves there is a Loch Ness Monster. You're 'arguement' is downright laughable. I'd go on, but exlude has already covered semantics once.

You set up two small parameters, failing to take into account the entire REST of the world around you, and if those two parameters only collide, you must be right? LOL, there may or may not be a god, but there are certainly people with god complexes, and you might want to get that checked out.

Another round of posts and once again no answer to the question; although I am not suprised. I am not sure what you think you are going to lose by affirming a logically necessary conclusion.

Instead of saying my argument is laughable, why don't you show where the form of argument is invalid? I am not really concerned with your likes, dislikes and preferences, and so far that is all you have offered. If that is all you have to offer, then thanks for sharing, have a nice day; I have other things to do. However, if you have a serious critique based on the logic of the argument, I would be interested in seeing that.

But, before you give any critique, why don't you try answering the following question:

Do you agree that if it is true that God does exist, then the statement, "God doesn't exist," is false?

Z

talisman

03-04-2006, 10:28 AM

Instead of saying my argument is laughable, why don't you show where the form of argument is invalid?
Z

I have already done so with my last post. You like to repeat yourself though, don't you? You like to repeat yourself though, don't you? Typical lousy debate skills. Someone points out your shortcomings and you respond with,"Why don't you point out my shortcomings." Then you get two more paragraphs of smoke and mirrors trying to deflect the fact that that was the only worthwhile thing you had to say, which in retrospect, wasn't all that worthwhile since it had already been answered. Wouldn't you agree?

zorro

03-04-2006, 10:42 AM

I have already ...

As I said in my last post if you have nothing but subjective preference, thanks for sharing, have a nice day.

Z

talisman

03-04-2006, 10:48 AM

As I said in my last post if you have nothing but subjective preference, thanks for sharing, have a nice day.

Z

And as I have said in my post before my last post, all you have to offer is a question which fails to take into account the entire world revolving around it. That is hardly a basis for a legitimate thesis, let alone one that questions the very nature of our origins; the greatest question of all time. It looks like it's going to be a beautiful day.

Fobra

03-04-2006, 11:17 AM

I've explained myself to you three times now.

Is this what you are referring to as your explanation of the matter (being an atheist)?
I don't HAVE a postion on being athiest.
If so, then by saying you are an atheist automatically assumes a position of the matter, that God doesn't exist. Based on your earlier posts about not saying that God doesn't exist 'seems' to indicate that you may hold some reservation for the possibility of the existance of God. If that's the case, then imo it would be more accurate for you to assume an agnostic position since that position is more of an in the middle position in that the agnostic neither denies nor accepts the existence of God since they just aren't sure about the issue. :)

talisman

03-04-2006, 11:40 AM

Is this what you are referring to as your explanation of the matter (being an atheist)?

If so, then by saying you are an atheist automatically assumes a position of the matter, that God doesn't exist. Based on your earlier posts about not saying that God doesn't exist 'seems' to indicate that you may hold some reservation for the possibility of the existance of God. If that's the case, then imo it would be more accurate for you to assume an agnostic position since that position is more of an in the middle position in that the agnostic neither denies nor accepts the existence of God since they just aren't sure about the issue. :)

Anything is possible, but that doesn't mean I believe it.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-04-2006, 11:58 AM

Do you agree that if it is true that God does exist, then the statement, "God doesn't exist," is false?

Z

I agree

now answer my question:

true or false:

the word "cup" is a unit of measurement

a.) true
b.) false

just answer a.) or b.) no lengthy explanations or hypothetical scenarios

zorro

03-04-2006, 12:31 PM

I agree

now answer my question:

true or false:

the word "cup" is a unit of measurement

a.) true
b.) false

just answer a.) or b.) no lengthy explanations or hypothetical scenarios

A

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-04-2006, 02:05 PM

A

Z

incorrect

TexasDevilDog

03-04-2006, 04:13 PM

I think....but you have yet to offer them any proof otherwise. Besides I've done told ya'll who God is and where he's from :)

I believe that he has done something much harder than prove god, he has used logic, without theology, to disprove the possibility of "no god". Atheist always state when challenged that they can't disprove a non-existant god, but he did just what they said they couldn't.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-04-2006, 04:23 PM

I believe that he has done something much harder than prove god, he has used logic, without theology, to disprove the possibility of "no god". Atheist always state when challenged that they can't disprove a non-existant god, but he did just what they said they couldn't.

so he used science to disprove a belief? AMAZING!!

Fobra

03-04-2006, 04:50 PM

so he used science to disprove a belief? AMAZING!!

Is science the only means you hold to in order to 'prove' something by virtue of the scientific method; that is you make an observation/question, form hypothesis to explain certain phenomenon, test hypothesis through experimentation, then draw conclusions and hope it's capable of being tested multiple times yielding similar results?

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-04-2006, 04:58 PM

Is science the only means you hold to in order to 'prove' something by virtue of the scientific method; that is you make an observation/question, form hypothesis to explain certain phenomenon, test hypothesis through experimentation, then draw conclusions and hope it's capable of being tested multiple times yielding similar results?

uuuuuh ok. You're pretty damn smart too.

but I thought scientists disproved all the stories in the bible already:confused:

Fobra

03-04-2006, 05:04 PM

uuuuuh ok. You're pretty damn smart too.
I asked a simple question, is the scientific method your means of proving something to be true or false?
but I thought scientists disproved all the stories in the bible already:confused:
Now you're side tracking the issue, this is irrelevant given that the Bible has not been the subject of debate in this thread.

talisman

03-04-2006, 05:17 PM

Now you're side tracking the issue, this is irrelevant given that the Bible has not been the subject of debate in this thread.

This is irrelevent? Sounds like you're agreeing with him, so lets contuinue: You say that Zorro is using this logic to disprove atheism. However this same logic has disproved the bible. By this train of thought, believeing in god or not believing in god is wrong. Good stuff.

Fobra

03-04-2006, 05:33 PM

This is irrelevent? Sounds like you're agreeing with him, so lets contuinue: You say that Zorro is using this logic to disprove atheism. However this same logic has disproved the bible. By this train of thought, believeing in god or not believing in god is wrong. Good stuff.

The existence of God has been the subject of debate in this thread and has been neutral over religious affliation, that's why bringing the Bible in 'now' is not important, so no, there is no agreement. But if you insist, then if you really think Zorro's logic has disproven the Bible, by all means use Zorro's logic to disprove it :D

I'll be waiting in the mean time getting popcorn ready while you attempt to use Zorro's logic to disprove the Bible :cool:

talisman

03-04-2006, 05:41 PM

The existence of God has been the subject of debate in this thread and has been neutral over religious affliation, that's why bringing the Bible in 'now' is not important, so no, there is no agreement. But if you insist, then if you really think Zorro's logic has disproven the Bible, by all means use Zorro's logic to disprove it :D

I'll be waiting in the mean time getting popcorn ready while you attempt to use Zorro's logic to disprove the Bible :cool:

LOL at impying Zorro has used logic in this thread.

Fobra

03-04-2006, 05:48 PM

LOL at impying Zorro has used logic in this thread.

Do you know what logic is??? I help you out because it doesn't seem like you do...
log·ic
n.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logic

So, where has Zorro not used the above?

talisman

03-04-2006, 06:07 PM

Do you know what logic is??? I help you out because it doesn't seem like you do...
log·ic
n.
1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=logic

So, where has Zorro not used the above?

Deductive reasoning takes into account variables. Putting two sentences against each other doesn't allow for it. Its a simplistic word game that most 2nd graders would recognize as a tool used by a simple person with an agenda as a ploy to get the next person to put a dollar in the collection plate.

Fobra

03-04-2006, 07:24 PM

Deductive reasoning takes into account variables. Putting two sentences against each other doesn't allow for it. Its a simplistic word game that most 2nd graders would recognize as a tool used by a simple person with an agenda as a ploy to get the next person to put a dollar in the collection plate.

I bolded that part to emphasize the "...principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions..." area. Did you ever think that the kind of logical framework Zorro was using was inductive?

inductive

adj 1: relating to logical induction; "inductive thinking" 2: arising from inductance; "inductive reactance" 3: of reasoning; proceeding from particular facts to a general conclusion; "inductive reasoning" [ant: deductive] 4: inducing or influencing; leading on.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductive

Now, give us one example where Zorro did not use logic, as you noted...
LOL at impying Zorro has used logic in this thread.

talisman

03-04-2006, 07:44 PM

I bolded that part to emphasize the "...principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions..." area. Did you ever think that the kind of logical framework Zorro was using was inductive?

inductive

adj 1: relating to logical induction; "inductive thinking" 2: arising from inductance; "inductive reactance" 3: of reasoning; proceeding from particular facts to a general conclusion; "inductive reasoning" [ant: deductive] 4: inducing or influencing; leading on.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=inductive

Now, give us one example where Zorro did not use logic, as you noted...

LOL, YOU'RE the one who brought up deductive reasoning, but now it's INDUCTIVE, right? I find it VERY amusing that several stipulations of your definition are"GENERAL conclusion," "Leading on," and " influencing." I'll tell ya what. You are right! The rate you've been posting, it's almost like you're on my side!

zorro

03-04-2006, 09:16 PM

uuuuuh ok. You're pretty damn smart too.

but I thought scientists disproved all the stories in the bible already:confused:

No, the hard sciences do not deal with history. Sometimes they come into play to make a point. And, although they both rely on inductive logic, the methodologies used in the hard sciences are very different than the methodologies used to determine history.

Z

zorro

03-04-2006, 09:31 PM

Deductive reasoning takes into account variables. Putting two sentences against each other doesn't allow for it. Its a simplistic word game that most 2nd graders would recognize as a tool used by a simple person with an agenda as a ploy to get the next person to put a dollar in the collection plate.

Deductive reasoning deals with necessary relationship and yields necessary conclusions. My argument simply points out that there is no atheistic cosmology that has the elements needed to get to knowledge. So, if any form of atheism is true, there is no knowledge. Conversely, if there is knowledge, then atheism is false.

It would be quite simple to prove my argument wrong. Just show the elements in negationism or naturism that allow for knowledge.

You could also try to show that the conditional syllogism I use is somehow faulty, but it is a pretty straight forward use of modus ponens and modus tollens.

A deductive argument is made up of two parts: 1) a valid form and 2) true premises.

Let's start with the form.

Will you agree that the form of my argument is valid? If not, why not?

Z

TexasDevilDog

03-04-2006, 10:35 PM

uuuuuh ok. You're pretty damn smart too.

but I thought scientists disproved all the stories in the bible already:confused:

Funny how some people always have to drag the bible in to a discussion. I never thought CWO was a bible thumper. :rolleyes:

Fobra

03-05-2006, 01:36 AM

LOL, YOU'RE the one who brought up deductive reasoning, but now it's INDUCTIVE, right? I find it VERY amusing that several stipulations of your definition are"GENERAL conclusion," "Leading on," and " influencing." I'll tell ya what. You are right! The rate you've been posting, it's almost like you're on my side!

If ignorance is bliss, you must be a very happy person...

You have offered nothing constructive in this entire thread and you really have made no points with supportive substance which point out where any of Zorro's arguments are flawed. You might as well not even bother posting anymore since your statements clearly indicate that they can't hold up under scruntiny.

1994SilverGT

03-05-2006, 02:07 AM

sadly this paper does in know way prove that a god or gods exist. Nor does it prove they do not exist. It is merely an argument from some nutjob explaining why he now believes in god.

1994SilverGT

03-05-2006, 02:17 AM

1994SilverGT

03-05-2006, 02:23 AM

zorro

03-05-2006, 10:40 AM

About the part where disproves Negationism, exactly how is he proving it doesnt exist?

By just saying that knowledge exists? So then if negationism was the way, then that would mean that it is all illusion, so he is saying you cant have knowledge if illusion is involved??? So you couldnt learn from a dream then, as it doesnt actually exist, yet one could argue it is illusion. Or what about thoughts, they dont actually exist in the real sense, they cant come out my head, no one else can see them, nor can i, but i know the exist.

Im confused about where he actually disproves it.

Hi GT,

The thing I like about you is, unlike most fo the others here who have attacked my argument with mere subjectivity, you actually read the paper and ask questions about the content.

Allow me to answer.

Regarding negationism, the position is that God doesn't exist, and neither does the universe. All of this is just an illusion. Now, is seems to me that if nothing eixsts, there is nothing to be known and no one to know it. It also seems to me that an illusion cannot exist on its own, it requires someone to have it. So, if no one exists, there is not the possibility of an illusion either.

Therefore, it would be necesarily true that if negationism is true, there is no knowledge. Conversely, If knowledge exists, then negationism is necessarily false.

Can we agree on this?

Regards,

Z

Fobra

03-05-2006, 11:01 AM

1994SilverGT You're probably the most intelligent opponent for this paper thus far because you actually read the whole thing and offered constructive criticismhttp://www.westsidemustangs.com/forums/Smileys/wsm/thumb.gif

zorro

03-05-2006, 11:18 AM

And then he attempts to disprove naturism. Well he mentions at the beginning

"There are simple compositions of matter and complex compositions of matter; there is light matter, dark matter, normal matter and exotic matter, but there exists nothing but matter."

Well right there he mentions there are compositions of matter simple and complex. So there are those types by themselves and them in combination.

then he says this

"The next question we must ask is what elements in this cosmology get us to knowledge? What elements of this cosmology allow us to be independent of or to rise above the deterministic nature of mere matter in motion, so that we can have free thought and are able to make free decisions; not simply act as we must like some predetermined programmed mechanism? Well, if matter in motion is all there is, then matter in motion is all there is! In other words, there are no elements that allow us to draw independent conclusions, or to give real meaning to words and sentences."

Why cant there be a combination of these elements that allows for indedendnet conclusions and real meaning to words and sentences? He doesnt mention any of these combinations, so how does the know one doesnt exist? He obviously isnt a student of this line of thought.

lol wow this guy is grasping at straws big time.

i mean come on, so because he "proved" two forms of aethism wrong all of sudden god must exist. Hate to say it, but proving them wrong if he even did that does not prove that god exists or the theism is correct. All it does is prove that those forms are wrong.

While yes either a.)god does exist or b.)he does not.

Just because you can prove that 2 out of 100 theories about b.) are untrue, does not make one of 100 or 100 of 100 of a.) true.

Hi GT,

In this post you make two points. Since I don't have the time to answer both of them now, Please allow me to take on one of them and address the other later this evening when I return.

Actually there are only nine possible cosmologies. Some of them have variations internal to the main position, some do not.

To make it easy for the readers here I have prepared a chart diagraming the positions:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmologies.htm

You can find definitions of each at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology_%28metaphysics%29

Regarding the atheistic cosmologies, it seems quite clear that if God does not exist, then there are only two possibilities: Either the universe does exist or the universe doesn't exist.

I don't think you will be able to give any variation to naturism that does not destroy its basic prinicples. But in even suggesting one, you and I can agree on one thing: The naturism I outline in my paper is the position taken by atheist philosophers for the last 2500 years; so, we can agree that all of them were wrong. If all of them weren't wrong, we would't need another "version" of naturism.

Regards,

Z

1994SilverGT

03-05-2006, 12:36 PM

Hi GT,

The thing I like about you is, unlike most fo the others here who have attacked my argument with mere subjectivity, you actually read the paper and ask questions about the content.

Allow me to answer.

Regarding negationism, the position is that God doesn't exist, and neither does the universe. All of this is just an illusion. Now, is seems to me that if nothing eixsts, there is nothing to be known and no one to know it. It also seems to me that an illusion cannot exist on its own, it requires someone to have it. So, if no one exists, there is not the possibility of an illusion either.

Therefore, it would be necesarily true that if negationism is true, there is no knowledge. Conversely, If knowledge exists, then negationism is necessarily false.

Can we agree on this?

Regards,

Z

well the problem is, that it says that god doesnt exist, and neither does the universe, it doesnt mention that there cant be a different universe were the illusion exists in, it merely says the universe as we know it doesnt exist and that all that we see and know is in reality an illusion. And if one existed in this illusion, and to their senses and such it was reality, yet still and illusion, yet they didnt know it was an illusion, would it not be possible for said person to develop knowledge based on this persons experiences in illusion? Knowledge is merely based on what you learn and see in life, so if i were merely an illusion as everything around me, id have knowledge regarding my illusion.

1994SilverGT

03-05-2006, 12:43 PM

Hi GT,

In this post you make two points. Since I don't have the time to answer both of them now, Please allow me to take on one of them and address the other later this evening when I return.

Actually there are only nine possible cosmologies. Some of them have variations internal to the main position, some do not.

To make it easy for the readers here I have prepared a chart diagraming the positions:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmologies.htm

You can find definitions of each at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology_%28metaphysics%29

Regarding the atheistic cosmologies, it seems quite clear that if God does not exist, then there are only two possibilities: Either the universe does exist or the universe doesn't exist.

I don't think you will be able to give any variation to naturism that does not destroy its basic prinicples. But in even suggesting one, you and I can agree on one thing: The naturism I outline in my paper is the position taken by atheist philosophers for the last 2500 years; so, we can agree that all of them were wrong. If all of them weren't wrong, we would't need another "version" of naturism.

Regards,

Z

Well, another problem i see is, that no where does that diagram address where we created the gods to explain what we dont understand. Im not gonna claim to have the answers for you, i merely have questions and hypotheticals.

So say we created the gods. the only reason they are a part of the world at all is because back in the day egyptians decided they needed a sun god, and a death god and all those fun guys i dont know a lot about. And the romans decided they needed gods for every single little thing. Whos to say those arent real gods? If they have existed as long as they have, longer than me, couldnt they be a real?

i fail to see why your diagram states that reality consists of - one one hand god exists and the other he/they dont. I was under the impression that anything and everything we see, feel and think we know is our reality, for me it is gonna be different than say for you. Since you believe in god and well im not sure what i believe in. And the universe does exist in some way.

1994SilverGT

03-05-2006, 01:03 PM

zorro

03-05-2006, 10:55 PM

well the problem is, that it says that god doesnt exist, and neither does the universe, it doesnt mention that there cant be a different universe were the illusion exists in, it merely says the universe as we know it doesnt exist and that all that we see and know is in reality an illusion. And if one existed in this illusion, and to their senses and such it was reality, yet still and illusion, yet they didnt know it was an illusion, would it not be possible for said person to develop knowledge based on this persons experiences in illusion? Knowledge is merely based on what you learn and see in life, so if i were merely an illusion as everything around me, id have knowledge regarding my illusion.

Actually when dealing with cosmologies the first words of any cosmology are, "reality consists of..." So, when negationism says that reality consists of no God and no universe, it means that reality consists of no God and no universe. If something exists, negationism is false.

If other universes existed they would have the same problem. No matter what universe you are in, an atheistic cosmology will be true or a theistic cosmology will be true, pushing it back a level doesn't get you out of the problem.

But more than that, you are dealing with the fallacy of "argumentum ad ignorantiam," an argument from ignorance; your speculation is not based on what you do know, but based on what you don't know. If we are to look around us, what conclusion would you come to?

But the greater defeater is listed above, in order to save negationism, you must destroy it. This cosmology says that nothing exists and in order to try and save it you must affirm that something does exist.

Z

zorro

03-05-2006, 11:06 PM

Well, another problem i see is, that no where does that diagram address where we created the gods to explain what we dont understand. Im not gonna claim to have the answers for you, i merely have questions and hypotheticals.

Unless God starts out as the original being, it would fall under an atheistic cosmology. If God is invented, He doesn't really exist.

i fail to see why your diagram states that reality consists of - one one hand god exists and the other he/they dont. I was under the impression that anything and everything we see, feel and think we know is our reality, for me it is gonna be different than say for you. Since you believe in god and well im not sure what i believe in. And the universe does exist in some way.

The two positions (atheism and theism) are antitheticals; One must be true and the other false.

There is only one reality, hence the name, "reality." But you have hit on a big question, can we know it at all? The point of the paper is that if atheism is true, we can't know anything, including anything about what we percieve. Allow me to quote from a previous post dealing with this issue:

avid Hume brings this up in his "Enquiry on Human Knowledge." Allow me to paraphrase his point:

When we observe causes and effects, we observe that causes are usually unlike their effects. For instance, when I light a match, the flame is very different than the firm paper that makes up the match or the cool chemicals that go into making the head of the match. When I drop a bowling ball, the noise, the “thud” it makes is very different from the hardness of the ball or the floor. So, we see with all sorts of other things too, that the effect is unlike its cause. With that said, let us look at our perceptions. Perceptions are effects caused by the world around us. But if causes are not like effects, what makes us think that any of our perceptions (the effects) are anything like the world (the cause) around us?

Hume, himself, was not able to satisfactorily answer this question. His problem is like yours. He maintained a cosmology that didn't have the elements needed to come up with an answer. Even though he had some leanings toward deism, his basic cosmology was that of naturism.

What do you think?

Z

zorro

03-05-2006, 11:29 PM

Back to negationism,

Now as i read the paper i realized a flaw in your logic, or waht i consider to be a flaw in logic.

Here is the statement.

"It should be clear that if the universe doesn’t exist, then thinking creatures that are part of the universe don’t exist and there could be no knowledge."

So first lets talk about the universe. If say the "universe" didnt exist, well this in no proves that thinking people cant exist. The word universe is the term we put to describe everything that exists, but if this universe didnt exist in our sense of the word, yet as something else, something we cant comprahend, then what we know as the univerce could well be a giant illusion. It appears to be what we decided it was, but in reality it is different, yet we still exist. We still have knowledge because based on what we know, we exist, and if we exist there is knowledge. As i dont believe knowledge has a direct correlation to god existing. In my mind, knowledge exists because people exist.

Well, it seems that you and I agree on something. That the atheistic cosmologies, as they are, cannot stand and must be discarded and something else tried. Your above proposition is not needed if either of the atheistic cosmologies are true, so we can agree that both of them are false and move on to something else. Agreed?

On a side note can you prove to me that we do exist as a whole? How to i know im not the only one that exists? I can only prove to myself that i exist, and i cant logically do this, except that i know i exist because i can think to myself. Well how do i know this whole world isnt one giant illusion? Something created from my mind, all these people i "interact" with could be figments of my imagination.

You will notice that this is one of the cosmologies on my list. It is called sbjectivism and the position you suggest is called solipsism, it is part of a philosophy called nihilism. There are two philosophical positions that are consistent, Christianity and nihilism. Since we are here, let me explain the dilemma to you. When all is said and done, and the smoke clears from all the arguments, there will be two consistent positions: one says that nothing we experience is real, or at least we can't know if anything is real or has any meaning. The second says that what we experience corresponds to the world around us. The first will lead you to nothing, the second will lead you to a Cross.

I normally don't talk about this at this point in the discussion, but since you were clever enough to hit on it, there you go.

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-06-2006, 08:19 AM

Funny how some people always have to drag the bible in to a discussion. I never thought CWO was a bible thumper. :rolleyes:

FWIW, the bible was 'drug' into the conversation WAAAAAAY before that post you are referring to. At the time, it was being used in favor of the 'god exists' camp, so it was okay. Funny how when it is used against the same squad someone calls foul.

....and man don't you guys hate it when the fairy tales that you all worship so heavily is used against you?

1994SilverGT

03-06-2006, 09:18 AM

hmmmm, interesting. But i dont see how just because i dont actually agree with either of these aetheist arguments, and i would agree neither is correct, that means that god does exist. That is a bit of a stretch to me, its like saying that because i can prove this isnt true that this must be true. Which we both know isnt the case.

Its a lot like the people who say well you cant prove god exists so he must not. Or the people who say well you cant prove he doesnt exist therefore he must.

I beleive one great mind said that if we have the idea of god then he must exist, where else could we get it from.

Well im still in my same place, ive got questions and no real answers. As of now ive had nothing in my life to prove or even suggest there is a god or gods.

as for hume's view on things, i could certainly see why he thought what he thought. And i would have to agree that current cosmology doesnt have the answers for me. Neither side does, the aetheist points are a bit underthought, and well honestly so are a few/all of the theist ideas.

Another question i have is, can something exist for one person but not for another? For example we coudl use god as this thing. Because if you asked me i would tell you that god doesnt exist in the form all the bible people think he does, hell he might not exist at all. Yet if you ask someone else the same question he would say yes and mean with all his "heart". Granted wanting soemthing with your heart doesnt mean a damned thing in the end. But can things exist for some but not for others? and if so is religion one of those, something that some people need to get by while others can function without?

zorro

03-06-2006, 10:45 AM

hmmmm, interesting. But i dont see how just because i dont actually agree with either of these aetheist arguments, and i would agree neither is correct, that means that god does exist. That is a bit of a stretch to me, its like saying that because i can prove this isnt true that this must be true. Which we both know isnt the case.

Its a lot like the people who say well you cant prove god exists so he must not. Or the people who say well you cant prove he doesnt exist therefore he must.

I invite you to reread your own posts. Look at the hypotheticals you used to try and save the atheistic cosmologies.

In the end there are three points that you had to use:

1. A denial of the correspondence between our perceptions and the world around us.
2. an abandonment of logic.
3. The inevitable rejection of the two atheistic cosmologies.

Let me put this challenge to you:

Present an argument that does not abandon logic and correspondence and that affirms either of the atheistic cosmologies, yet shows my argument false.

as for hume's view on things, i could certainly see why he thought what he thought. And i would have to agree that current cosmology doesnt have the answers for me. Neither side does, the aetheist points are a bit underthought, and well honestly so are a few/all of the theist ideas.

Well you must begin here then, how do you justify your perceptions? How can you say that anything outside your mind really exists? What is the basis of your assumption?

Another question i have is, can something exist for one person but not for another? For example we coudl use god as this thing. Because if you asked me i would tell you that god doesnt exist in the form all the bible people think he does, hell he might not exist at all. Yet if you ask someone else the same question he would say yes and mean with all his "heart". Granted wanting soemthing with your heart doesnt mean a damned thing in the end. But can things exist for some but not for others? and if so is religion one of those, something that some people need to get by while others can function without?

Well, if logic exists then it is not possible for something to exist for one person and not exist for another. If logic does not exist, then it doesn't matter because you coldn't know anything about it anyway.

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-06-2006, 10:57 AM

TK_Blown98_GT

03-06-2006, 11:29 AM

It's all BS........Neither proove either exist. Knowledge is "'learned"........Cats and dogs have Knowledge. They learn to "know" what is dangerous to them and what is not. Theys know how to Cope in society because their parents and siblings "taught" them knowledge.....
You are taught knowledge..........Not born with it.......
People here on Earth give it to ya.......real simple.........We are god and God is you....................Mabey if we started focusing on ourselves as gods and that this is all we got, we may get somewhere some day without religious Bickering and Flat out rediculousness.....

Any god who denies "knowledge" to his creation is EVIL!!!!!!!

zorro

03-06-2006, 12:33 PM

Okay, let's say you did actually prove that atheism is false, which you haven't as far as I'm concerned, but that's neither here nor there. You still have to disprove every other form of religion that doesn't worship your god.

I am not going to go into the other arguments here at this time. May I give you the short version?

Out of all the theistic cosmologies, most suffer the same fate as atheism; they just don't have the elements to get to knowledge or thought, etc... The only two that do are theism and deism. Another factor you are going to find that is needed is that the information "that we can know" is going to have to come from outside the system. In other words, we need to be handed a jumpstart (a complete cosmology and epistemology) by someone in the know. Since deism says that no information comes from outside the system there can be no jumpstart from that position. This leaves only theism. Then the resurrection gets you from there to the final conclusion.

But we are far away from that point. We still need to work on our current argument. Unless you are willing to stipulate the above and go straight to the resurrection? If so, we can start a new thread.

What do you think?

Z

TK_Blown98_GT

03-06-2006, 01:27 PM

Riddle me this......
Where did YOU get "the idea" of religion from............Hmmmmm........

The answer is....Mommy and Daddy.......

Where did they get the Idea of Religion from..........

The answer is....Mommy and Daddy.......

You were taught the "knowledge" (lies) by your parents and so on..........and so on.....and so on......etc.....

You were brouht into a huge awe-inspiring beautiful yet scary church and told you must accept Jesus in your heart or go to hell.........So you conjured up weird false feelings of Joy and Awe (the feeling that god is real most describe) and Became yet another sheep following the heard to the cliff of life.............and total BS, lies, etc....

To accept the "we" are the best God can create is abserd........we have so many flaws/mistakes is is unbelievable.........
To accept that a God cares about you, yet allows all the tryany, death, suffering to occur to his "beloved creation" and this is his "mysterious way of working" is pure insanity at best, dissolutional, and down right ignorant.......

No different than a Domestic abuse victim....Loves the man/woman their with (blind faith), accepts their beatings as their own fault, and still stays with the abuser untill they die from blunt force trauma.......Because they apologise (sermons).........

Same fucking thing with religion and Faith............

zorro

03-06-2006, 01:52 PM

Fobra

03-06-2006, 02:00 PM

1994SilverGT

03-06-2006, 02:16 PM

I invite you to reread your own posts. Look at the hypotheticals you used to try and save the atheistic cosmologies.

In the end there are three points that you had to use:

1. A denial of the correspondence between our perceptions and the world around us.
2. an abandonment of logic.
3. The inevitable rejection of the two atheistic cosmologies.

Let me put this challenge to you:

Present an argument that does not abandon logic and correspondence and that affirms either of the atheistic cosmologies, yet shows my argument false.

Well i said i dont have the answers, my points are that you proved nothing in your posts at all. Other than the fact that you think you have the answers. Im sorry to say, but even if you were disproving the aethism points of view, that in no way proves that theism or deism is right. Disproving one viewpoint in no way proves the other right, all it does is disprove that one. really quite simple and not logical to make the conclusion that because A is wrong then B must be right. Liek saying well the world is either round or flat, well since it isnt flat is must be round, well while yes the world may well be round, it isnt because we can prove it isnt flat, it happens to be because it is round.

So if god exists, it isnt because aetheism is wrong, it is because god exists.

1994SilverGT

03-06-2006, 02:20 PM

Well, if logic exists then it is not possible for something to exist for one person and not exist for another. If logic does not exist, then it doesn't matter because you coldn't know anything about it anyway.

Z

Ok then why do i say god doesnt exist, yet you say he does? Logic still exists does it not? or does it now stop being because we dont agree that he exists for both of us? Kinda kills your attempt at logic there doesnt it.

1994SilverGT

03-06-2006, 02:40 PM

false dilemna. thats your problem zorro.

You are saying that either god exists or he doesnt, which by itself is good enough.

But when you state that he either exists in one of the 7 ways or doesnt in one of the two and try to state he does exist bc you think you disproved the two ways he doesnt exist.

Problem is he could not exist in any number of ways. He doesnt have to not exist in those two ways. he could not exist and we could still have a universe and still have knowledge and logic and all that stuff. And just becuase he did exist doesnt mean he can only exist in one of those seven ways, he could very well be a giant pink bunny, and honestly who would know? certainly not us mortals who pretend we know all.

On top of the assumption about knowledge in the paper. That is one of the biggest problems with the agrument, that knowledge can only exist if god does. Well knowledge comes from the world around us, the lessons in life, not god or the absence of god.

zorro

03-06-2006, 04:10 PM

Well i said i dont have the answers, my points are that you proved nothing in your posts at all.

And my point was that if you affirm logic and correspondence your point can't be made. The reason my arguments proves nothing when you reject logic and correspondence is that no argument can prove anything when you reject logic and correspondence. In fact, when you reject logic and correspondence, words have no meaning. So, what have you shown? That you can be irrational? Once again, here is the challenge:

Present an argument that does not abandon logic and correspondence and that affirms either of the atheistic cosmologies, yet shows my argument false.

If it can't be done, the argument stands.

Im sorry to say, but even if you were disproving the aethism points of view, that in no way proves that theism or deism is right. Disproving one viewpoint in no way proves the other right, all it does is disprove that one. really quite simple and not logical to make the conclusion that because A is wrong then B must be right. Liek saying well the world is either round or flat, well since it isnt flat is must be round, well while yes the world may well be round, it isnt because we can prove it isnt flat, it happens to be because it is round.

So if god exists, it isnt because aetheism is wrong, it is because god exists.

The statements "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are antithetical. That means that if one is false, the other is necessarily true. So, if I prove that all atheistic cosmologies are false, it means that at least one general theistic cosmology is true. It has to do with the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle.

The statements "the earth is flat" and "the earth is round" are not antithetical; therefore, if one is false the other is not necessarily true.

Z

Fobra

03-06-2006, 04:16 PM

I think what you guys need to do is find common ground on what is meant by proof of something, in other words, what would the criteria look like of the proven. Certainly scientific proof through the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, conclusion) can't be the only means of proving something because if you limit your understanding of proof to this, then proving your birth by the scientific method would pose quite challenge...

zorro

03-06-2006, 04:35 PM

Ok then why do i say god doesnt exist, yet you say he does? Logic still exists does it not? or does it now stop being because we dont agree that he exists for both of us? Kinda kills your attempt at logic there doesnt it.

Your original question was, "can something exist for one person but not for another." I guess I should have asked if you meant "exist in reality" or "exist in your mind." Normally, when a person asks that question, they mean exists in reality. That would mean, as in our example, can God actually exist for one person and not actually exist for another. The answer to that is, no. Can one person believe (have the opinion) that God exists and another believe (have the opinion) that God doesn't exist? Yes. However, in this latter instance, one of them is wrong. Just as if someone says, "there is a computer in this room" and another person says, "there is not a computer in this room." One of them would be wrong.

Z

zorro

03-06-2006, 04:42 PM

TexasDevilDog

03-06-2006, 07:33 PM

Okay, let's say you did actually prove that atheism is false, which you haven't as far as I'm concerned, but that's neither here nor there. You still have to disprove every other form of religion that doesn't worship your god.

I don't think Zoro is trying to prove or disprove any religion. He is only arguing between "no god" and "any god"

1994SilverGT

03-06-2006, 09:44 PM

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-07-2006, 08:18 AM

I don't think Zoro is trying to prove or disprove any religion. He is only arguing between "no god" and "any god"

So you're saying that multiple gods exist?

zorro

03-07-2006, 08:40 AM

i guess you dont understand, you didnt prove that the atheism theories were wrong. You are basing your whole proof off the fact that knowledge must come from a god. Which means nothing because knowledge is and was created by us, the idea of it was created by people. And in no way have you ever proved knowledge comes from a god. And you have yet to prove that neither of these two atheisms are wrong,w hile i agree they arent right it, that is opinion not fact as are your points.

I guess you don't understand. It doesn't matter what you think I did or didn't do. The argument is a formally valid argument, with true premises. Therefore, the conclusion is necessarily true. If you don't like it, too bad! In order to reject it you have to reject the logic on which it is built. Please forgive me if I am not shattered by the opinion of someone who would reject logic.

You have also missed the point of the argument. it is not based on "the fact that knowledge must come from a God." It is based on the fact that no atheistic cosmology (that does not reject logic or correspondence) has the elements to get us to knowledge. So, if atheism is true, there is no knowledge. And conversely, if there is knowledge, atheism is false.

The next point follows naturally, if we know that all atheist cosmologies are false, we also know that at least one theistic cosmology is true. There's that darn logic thing again.

Something else you said in the above, "Which means nothing because knowledge is and was created by us, the idea of it was created by people." How do you know that? Since you rejected correspondence and admitted that you can't answer Hume, on what basis do you make this sweeping and conclusive statement? Is it because you like it and you don't like the alternative? Can you give any inductive, deductive or transcendental argument for your position? Or is it just hot air?

I will be waiting for your comprehensive argument.

Z

Fobra

03-07-2006, 08:45 AM

So you're saying that multiple gods exist?
looks like this statement is clutching to a straw man argument...

Fobra

03-07-2006, 08:48 AM

i guess you dont understand, you didnt prove that the atheism theories were wrong. You are basing your whole proof off the fact that knowledge must come from a god.
What do you consider as proof and/or what does something proven look like?

TexasDevilDog

03-07-2006, 09:11 AM

So you're saying that multiple gods exist?

No. I can't seem to find where I used a plural form of god, but my reading comprehension is different than yours.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-07-2006, 10:01 AM

No. I can't seem to find where I used a plural form of god, but my reading comprehension is different than yours.

So we have a case of process of elimination then. He claims to proven that there is a god, one god by disproving atheism. All that remains is to dispel all the other religions that pray to a god other than the one he has proven to exist. Otherwise he has proven that several gods exist, which is fine. So which one is correct?

TexasDevilDog

03-07-2006, 12:34 PM

So we have a case of process of elimination then. He claims to proven that there is a god, one god by disproving atheism. All that remains is to dispel all the other religions that pray to a god other than the one he has proven to exist.

Which god did he prove the existance of?

lol

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-07-2006, 01:00 PM

Which god did he prove the existance of?

lol

You tell me, he hasn't said.
I guess you were right, we do comprehend on different levels.

You now agree that the proposition 2 + 2 = 5 is false. I will assume that you would also agree that the proposition 2 + 2 = 4 is true. These two propositions are like the propositions:

1) God does exist.
2) God doesn't exist.

Even though we may not know, at this point, which one is true, we can say with certainty that one is true and one is false; just like with any other antithesis.

Are we in agreement?

We both know what atheists believe, and zorro claims to have proven that they are wrong, therefore declaring that there is a god.

1994SilverGT

03-07-2006, 06:39 PM

zorro

03-07-2006, 06:57 PM

but the paper proves nothing. It looks at two forms of atheism and supposedly proves they dont exist by pretending that his definition of knowledge is correct and that by some grace of his "logic" that knowledge can only exist when a god does. but in all honesty it doesnt matter what we say, he knows exactly what he thinks already and nothing we say will change it for him, so im done.

You didn't answer Fobra's question, let's try it again. You say the paper proves nothing; how do you prove anything? Obviously, you have to know in order to say, "it proves nothing." So, please share that with us.

Z

DarkWolf

03-07-2006, 07:01 PM

I think you misunderstood the argument. It does not say that knowledge can only come from God, but that there is no atheist cosmology that allows us to get to knowledge. I have no problem with you or I coming to deductive or inductive conclusions on our own. But for us to be able to do that requires something that is just not available in any atheistic system. This is what I meant by the illustration of ice tea in my paper.

Haven't really been keeping up with the thread, so didn't see you'd replied.

The basis of your argument is proving atheistic cosmologies wrong, which can only stem from proving theistic cosmologies right. In so doing, you're equating the "mechanism" of knowledge as being God or a god of some sort. You don't have to explicitly say it. God either exists, or he doesn't. Atheism says God doesn't exist. So if you can prove atheism wrong, that proves God exists.

You continue to state that atheism doesn't have a mechanism for knowledge. I've got good odds that the mechanism for knowledge you're looking for is God, being that you state only the theism cosmology has the necessary mechanism for knowledge, and that I suppose, only because it's the only cosmology that holds to a personal God (it also helps that it's the cosmology that your religion is based on, but surely you wouldn't be arguing from a subjective viewpoint, would you?).

As I stated, your argument falls short of proving atheism wrong, in that we are made up of the same substance (at least in part) as the rest of the universe, and therefore not necessarily special. If God doesn't exist, knowledge still would, the mechanism for it would simply be time bringing the necessary elements together rather than God.

Isn't it something more than just familiarity? Familiarity doesn't give you the basis for drawing conclusions. Nor does it give tou the ability to make abstractions.

As for the definition of knowledge, let's take a look:

Main Entry: knowl·edge
Pronunciation: <tt>'nä-lij</tt>
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen
1 obsolete : COGNIZANCE
2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to="" the="" best="" of="" my="">knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned knowledge
3 archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by mankind b archaic : a branch of learning

It would seem that knowledge, as defined, does account for reasoning and drawing conclusions. I'll go back to my statement about how computers learn the same way we do. Computers don't have a soul, but yet they can reason and make decisions based on what they've learned thusfar, and draw conclusions based upon the given input. Should we consider ourselves gods for being able to bring these parts together and create a machine that can think like a human?

Isn't this a reassertion of the question at hand? The question is are we just determined mechanisms, but mecanisms without a designer? If it is true, then we can never know it, because if it is true, then we can only "know" what we were determined to know and nothing else. Everything we believe or hold as true is necessarily determined by antecedent causes put in motion billions of years ago. What is worse is that those antecedent causes have necessarily determined that the vast majority of humans (some 80% to 90%)will believe that God exists. So, if the atheist cosmology is true, it has caused the vast majority to necessarily believe a lie. If that is true, how can we believe anything we "know" is true?

You see, unless you can go outside the necessarily determined system (In other words, unless you are independent of the system), you can't come to any conclusions about the system. There is no atheistic system that allows you to go outside of it

The presence of knowledge does not indicate it originated from a god. You ignore theories such as Chaos, which implies an underlying order to the "random bouncing of atoms" you propose in your article. All of the elements to produce this order are present, and physical. Time is all it would take to bring the necessary elements, "randomly" bouncing around in space, together to form life and moreover the elements necessary for knowledge.

But as I stated before, this neither proves nor disproves God. It's just pointing out that knowledge doesn't necessarily come from God. And if knowledge can be independant from God, then you can't "prove" atheism wrong, for not having God as the mechanism for knowledge.

If I'm wrong in my deduction, please do tell what the mechanism in theism is, for knowledge. You've gone on and on about how atheism doesn't have it, yet you've made no mention what you believe it is... though you did state in your article that theism is the only cosmology to have it. If it's not God, what is it?

[edit] had something funky going on with the quotes.
</answered>

1994SilverGT

03-07-2006, 08:19 PM

he pretty much said what i meant. sorry didnt feel like explainging it further as it is obvious neither of u two was gonna listen to anything i said.

My main point was the paper cant prove anything if it is basing the entire argument off of an assumption, ie where u claim knowledge comes from god, or where u dont claim it but imply it quite well.

1994SilverGT

03-07-2006, 08:22 PM

and to answer his question, proof is facts that prove that something is true, like saying a day is 24 hours, well we have facts that prove this.

saying god exists bc you think god doesnt exist because you think you proved atheism wrong, is not prove, it is an assumption that knowledge comes from god, and that neitehr of the atheistic arguments have room for knowledge. I disagree with said paper, i am not taking it as fact as you are, so your statement regarding the existence of god is faulty in my mind as you have done nothing to prove he exists other than use some big words and wordy definitions to attempt to confuse.

1994SilverGT

03-07-2006, 08:31 PM

I have read this over three times and it makes no sense.

Sorry I have no response, because I have no clue what you are getting at.

Z

ok if you cant understand this simple post then i understadn why you think your paper is full of logic.

A false dilemna is a type of logical fallacy. Which is what your paper is based on, the entire thing.

a false dilemna is when u prove something right by "proving" something else wrong, so in an antithesis this would work. If it were as simple as just this statement

god exists or he doesnt.

But he could not exist in any number of ways or two accepted ways as far as your concerned. Even if their are other ways, however plausible they are or are not.

Same with if he did exist, he could exist in any number of systems. He could be how the christians think, or the jews, or the islams, or they could be as the romans thought.

So lets say i prove your 7 ways he exists wrong, the that means by your definition he has to not exist in one of the two ways you will accept. The problem is you have no control over how he does or doesnt exist. Jsut because you wont accept that he couldnt not exist because we created him, doesnt mean it isnt the way it is.

Same goes for me, while i may not accept that he does exist it doesnt mean he doesnt.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-08-2006, 01:20 PM

looks like this statement is clutching to a straw man argument...

not sure how I missed this the first time around...

He claims to have proven that atheism can't exist, therefore proving god exists. That being said, which god exists? Surely there can only be one, or is it okay for gods to coexist?

zorro

03-08-2006, 10:31 PM

Haven't really been keeping up with the thread, so didn't see you'd replied.

The basis of your argument is proving atheistic cosmologies wrong, which can only stem from proving theistic cosmologies right. In so doing, you're equating the "mechanism" of knowledge as being God or a god of some sort. You don't have to explicitly say it. God either exists, or he doesn't. Atheism says God doesn't exist. So if you can prove atheism wrong, that proves God exists.

I don't think "mechanism" is the right word; "efficient cause" might be more what we are looking for.

Yes, if you prove atheism false, then some sort of theism must be true. Allow me to just note that this is a secondary deduction, or an indirect deduction. The primary argument is still that no atheistic cosmology has the needed elements to get to knowledge.

You continue to state that atheism doesn't have a mechanism for knowledge. I've got good odds that the mechanism for knowledge you're looking for is God, being that you state only the theism cosmology has the necessary mechanism for knowledge, and that I suppose, only because it's the only cosmology that holds to a personal God (it also helps that it's the cosmology that your religion is based on, but surely you wouldn't be arguing from a subjective viewpoint, would you?).

As I stated, your argument falls short of proving atheism wrong, in that we are made up of the same substance (at least in part) as the rest of the universe, and therefore not necessarily special. If God doesn't exist, knowledge still would, the mechanism for it would simply be time bringing the necessary elements together rather than God.

Great, then it should be easy to show the elements in any atheistic cosmology that get us to knowledge. Once again, if all that exists is matter in motion, then all that exists is matter in motion.

It would seem that knowledge, as defined, does account for reasoning and drawing conclusions. I'll go back to my statement about how computers learn the same way we do. Computers don't have a soul, but yet they can reason and make decisions based on what they've learned thusfar, and draw conclusions based upon the given input. Should we consider ourselves gods for being able to bring these parts together and create a machine that can think like a human?

The very fact that you are talking about definitions implies independence from deterministic necessity. Dictionaries give us a brief look at how a word is used, but it is the actual usage of the word that gives it meaning. So, in order to understand what we mean by the word "knowledge", we must look at how it was used by Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume and Kant, etc.. There is a book called "The Great Ideas" by Mortimer Adler. He covers all this information. But even without that, you must understand that the fact you are trying to make a decision on what the word means, and that the word has several different meanings in the dictionary, shows you are assuming an independent decision on what the word means in this particular instance is possible. If an independent decision is not possible, it doesn't matter on what it says in a book called the dictionary, because any so-called meaning that it may have is necessarily determined and can be no other.

The problem is that computers don't learn anything and don't know anything; they simply manipulate ones and zeros as they must according to a program. They are not able to make a decision based on the data, but solely on the program. Each and every thing a computer does in necessarily determined. If we are like computers, then we are necessarily determined, as I point out in my paper. The big difference is that a computer has a program designer and a hardware designer. If atheism is true, we have no hardware designer and no designed program. In atheism everything is what it is unintentionally.

The presence of knowledge does not indicate it originated from a god. You ignore theories such as Chaos, which implies an underlying order to the "random bouncing of atoms" you propose in your article. All of the elements to produce this order are present, and physical. Time is all it would take to bring the necessary elements, "randomly" bouncing around in space, together to form life and moreover the elements necessary for knowledge.

Chaos theory can't get you from inanimate to animate or non-sentient to sentient. Once it is all said and done, all you have is just bouncing atoms and nothing more. Chaos refers to systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense. This doesn't get you to independence, but it does show that we may never be able to measure anything precisely enough to accurately determine everything about our subject.

If I'm wrong in my deduction, please do tell what the mechanism in theism is, for knowledge. You've gone on and on about how atheism doesn't have it, yet you've made no mention what you believe it is... though you did state in your article that theism is the only cosmology to have it. If it's not God, what is it?

The problem the Atheist has is his cosmology is one of accedentalism. This means that everything happens in this universe by accident. There is no reason or intent for any two particles to have a relationship with each other; it is all accidental. Why must this be the case? Because the atheistic cosmology, there is no reasoner or intender to make it any other way. The antithesis of accedentalism is found in the theistic cosmology, this element is called intentionalism. In other words, in cosmological theism everything exists intentionally. In theism there is an intender. In cosmological theism, there is a reason that things are as they are; there was someone who intended to make a universe that works in a certain way. The theist cosmology provides a basis for knowing, for doing induction and deduction, and for the independence of the self. With the theistic cosmology in place terms like “conclusion” and “response” have separate meanings and are not functional synonyms, as I have shown them to be given the atheist cosmology.

Let's take the problem with sensory perception that we have been discussing in this thread. Why do we think that our sense perception corresponds to the world around us? The atheistic cosmology has no answer; there can never be a justification from the atheistic position. The theistic cosmology has an answer: the world was intentionally created to be known and we were intentionally created to know it. Our senses are one of those intended ways to knowledge.

Z

zorro

03-08-2006, 10:41 PM

and to answer his question, proof is facts that prove that something is true, like saying a day is 24 hours, well we have facts that prove this.

Actually, facts by themselves prove nothing. Proof must be offered in some form. For instance, a day being 24 hrs is a measurement and nothing more. It is not true in and of itself. A day on Mars is not 24 hrs. So, the measurement of 24 hrs, means nothing outside the argument form. So, how do you get to your argument forms? and how do you derive the premises? If you get them through your senses, how do you justify that your senses are actually corresponding to the world around you?

Z

zorro

03-08-2006, 10:54 PM

ok if you cant understand this simple post then i understadn why you think your paper is full of logic.

A false dilemna is a type of logical fallacy. Which is what your paper is based on, the entire thing.

a false dilemna is when u prove something right by "proving" something else wrong, so in an antithesis this would work. If it were as simple as just this statement

You might want to look up something the following: a disjuctive syllogism, the law of excluded middle and contradictory. You might also want to look up the real meaning of a false dilemma.

But he could not exist in any number of ways or two accepted ways as far as your concerned. Even if their are other ways, however plausible they are or are not.

Well, let's look at the possibilities:

1) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does not exist (negationism).

2) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does exist (naturism)

3) Reality consists of: Hmmmm... God does not exist and the universe does exist and does not exist.

No, I don't think that one is going to cut it. Why don't you come up with a few.

Z

DarkWolf

03-09-2006, 11:03 AM

I don't think "mechanism" is the right word; "efficient cause" might be more what we are looking for.

Yes, if you prove atheism false, then some sort of theism must be true. Allow me to just note that this is a secondary deduction, or an indirect deduction. The primary argument is still that no atheistic cosmology has the needed elements to get to knowledge.

Let's cut to the chase: "mechanism" and/or "efficient cause" = God. How about we stop dancing around the issue.

Great, then it should be easy to show the elements in any atheistic cosmology that get us to knowledge. Once again, if all that exists is matter in motion, then all that exists is matter in motion.

The elements are those which derived life. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon. Elements that make the amino acids, and proteins that form DNA. These are basic "bouncing atoms" that form to make complex organisms. They're the basic elements that make us. They're all over the universe. We've recently discovered a potential "baby" solar system, among the dust and debris orbiting the central star, is a healthy dose of these basic elements... it's quite possible we're witnessing the birth of a new solar system, though it won't be complete in our lifetime (or are we expecting God will make it in 6 days like he did with our world? If so, he's taking his sweet time, because the discovery was reported back in December. Maybe he's still on Christmas vacation.)

With the basic elements prevelant in the universe, and now we've got proof of these elements gathering around a developing solar system, surely you can concede that Time is as likely a candidate for bringing the elements together to form life, as God. Knowledge is a byproduct of life.

The very fact that you are talking about definitions implies independence from deterministic necessity. Dictionaries give us a brief look at how a word is used, but it is the actual usage of the word that gives it meaning. So, in order to understand what we mean by the word "knowledge", we must look at how it was used by Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume and Kant, etc.. There is a book called "The Great Ideas" by Mortimer Adler. He covers all this information. But even without that, you must understand that the fact you are trying to make a decision on what the word means, and that the word has several different meanings in the dictionary, shows you are assuming an independent decision on what the word means in this particular instance is possible. If an independent decision is not possible, it doesn't matter on what it says in a book called the dictionary, because any so-called meaning that it may have is necessarily determined and can be no other.

The problem is that computers don't learn anything and don't know anything; they simply manipulate ones and zeros as they must according to a program. They are not able to make a decision based on the data, but solely on the program. Each and every thing a computer does in necessarily determined. If we are like computers, then we are necessarily determined, as I point out in my paper. The big difference is that a computer has a program designer and a hardware designer. If atheism is true, we have no hardware designer and no designed program. In atheism everything is what it is unintentionally.

You and TDD. Man. Amazing. Given the accepted dictionary definition, you still want to use your own definition, simply because the dictionary doesn't support your argument. At some point you have to accept that without using agreed upon definitions of something, you're just arguing semantics and not going to get anywhere. But I guess in the meantime you can keep arguing in circles if it makes you feel better.

You say computers simply manipulate ones and zeros. In effect... states of ON and OFF. Much like our own brains. There's either a synaptic spark (ON, 1) or there's not (OFF, 0). While we're not there yet, in regards to making fully autonomous computers, it's pretty silly to think it will never happen.

There's research making strides into evolving programs. Computers that do things the programmer never thought of, never "programmed" into it. Currently instead of the typical "if, then, else" method of programming (also called "do now" programming), they're using an advanced method known as "do if needed" programming. Which was initially developed in the late 1950's.

But you're right. Computers have a designer. Us. However, all we've done is take the basic elements and put them together. Even in atheism, we have a designer. That designer is time.

Chaos theory can't get you from inanimate to animate or non-sentient to sentient. Once it is all said and done, all you have is just bouncing atoms and nothing more. Chaos refers to systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense. This doesn't get you to independence, but it does show that we may never be able to measure anything precisely enough to accurately determine everything about our subject.

Chaos theory isn't supposed to get us from non-sentient ot sentient, et al. Chaos theory is just there to suggest an order to the supposed "randomness". In otherwords, in order for the "random" atoms to come together over time, chaos would suggest some underlying force to direct them. Again, that force could as likely be gravity in a developing solar system pulling the elements together, as it could be God blowing life into a handful of dust to create man.

The problem the Atheist has is his cosmology is one of accedentalism. This means that everything happens in this universe by accident. There is no reason or intent for any two particles to have a relationship with each other; it is all accidental. Why must this be the case? Because the atheistic cosmology, there is no reasoner or intender to make it any other way. The antithesis of accedentalism is found in the theistic cosmology, this element is called intentionalism. In other words, in cosmological theism everything exists intentionally. In theism there is an intender. In cosmological theism, there is a reason that things are as they are; there was someone who intended to make a universe that works in a certain way. The theist cosmology provides a basis for knowing, for doing induction and deduction, and for the independence of the self. With the theistic cosmology in place terms like “conclusion” and “response” have separate meanings and are not functional synonyms, as I have shown them to be given the atheist cosmology.

Let's take the problem with sensory perception that we have been discussing in this thread. Why do we think that our sense perception corresponds to the world around us? The atheistic cosmology has no answer; there can never be a justification from the atheistic position. The theistic cosmology has an answer: the world was intentionally created to be known and we were intentionally created to know it. Our senses are one of those intended ways to knowledge.

Z

It's pretty commonly accepted that given enough time, monkeys banging on a keyboard could write the complete works of Shakespear. Did they intend to? More than likely not.

The flaw with your reasoning, is that things can only happen because they were intended. Or maybe you're more specific, in that life and subsequently knowledge, can only happen, because it was intended. While it's a valid argument, you dismiss the possibility of it all being pure chance that these elements came together. You can dismiss it all you want, that doesn't prove it false.

... 2

zorro

03-10-2006, 10:10 AM

Before I answer your last post, I need to get a clarification on something: is it your position that we have an element of independence or is it your position that we are necessarily determined. In some of your response it seems that you could be saying one thing, or the other.

Z

TexasDevilDog

03-11-2006, 06:54 AM

It would seem that knowledge, as defined, does account for reasoning and drawing conclusions. I'll go back to my statement about how computers learn the same way we do. Computers don't have a soul, but yet they can reason and make decisions based on what they've learned thusfar, and draw conclusions based upon the given input. Should we consider ourselves gods for being able to bring these parts together and create a machine that can think like a human?

Computers don't learn. Computers are machines and can only do what they are designed to do. Computers can't reason, but they can make statistical guesses. A computer's knowledge is about as good as a dictionary knowledge.

TexasDevilDog

03-11-2006, 07:49 AM

You say computers simply manipulate ones and zeros. In effect... states of ON and OFF. Much like our own brains. There's either a synaptic spark (ON, 1) or there's not (OFF, 0). While we're not there yet, in regards to making fully autonomous computers, it's pretty silly to think it will never happen.

To say that a fully autonomous computer will one day happen, would mean that a computer system desgined to autonomously analyze astronomical phenomena would one day just deside that it wanted to be an artist instead.

It aint happening.

zorro

03-11-2006, 10:36 AM

Computers don't learn. Computers are machines and can only do what they are designed to do. Computers can't reason, but they can make statistical guesses. A computer's knowledge is about as good as a dictionary knowledge.

The dictionary analogy is perfect, I really like. Well done!

Z

1994SilverGT

03-11-2006, 04:16 PM

You might want to look up something the following: a disjuctive syllogism, the law of excluded middle and contradictory. You might also want to look up the real meaning of a false dilemma.

Well, let's look at the possibilities:

1) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does not exist (negationism).

2) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does exist (naturism)

3) Reality consists of: Hmmmm... God does not exist and the universe does exist and does not exist.

No, I don't think that one is going to cut it. Why don't you come up with a few.

Z

lol, i guess you completely dont understand what i was saying at all.

Ok, im not arguing that the statement
God does or does not exist. that is completely true.

So, by your unfailing mind, negationism and naturism are the only two ways god can not exist.

And you seem to think that the only way god cant exist if the universe doesnt exist is through negationism, and the only way god cann't exist while the universe still exists is through naturism.

Why are those the only two ways? I do not accept either of them as why i may or may not think god exists. But does that mean those are the only ways, no.

Hate to say it, but just because god doesnt exist and the universe does, doesnt mean it is through naturism. That is merely what you are trying to state, which is one of your fallacies of logic.

Do you see what my argument is now? it has nothing to do with the way you wanna take it. And in the paper neither of those is proven wrong anyways, since you base your proof off of teh "fact" that knowledge cant exist in either one of those. Then you attempt to assert that those are the only two versions of atheism you will accept as valid... what makes you the expert on atheism? you dont believe in it at all, so...

zorro

03-11-2006, 08:02 PM

lol, i guess you completely dont understand what i was saying at all.

Ok, im not arguing that the statement
God does or does not exist. that is completely true.

So, by your unfailing mind, negationism and naturism are the only two ways god can not exist.

And you seem to think that the only way god cant exist if the universe doesnt exist is through negationism, and the only way god cann't exist while the universe still exists is through naturism.

Why are those the only two ways? I do not accept either of them as why i may or may not think god exists. But does that mean those are the only ways, no.

Hate to say it, but just because god doesnt exist and the universe does, doesnt mean it is through naturism. That is merely what you are trying to state, which is one of your fallacies of logic.

Do you see what my argument is now? it has nothing to do with the way you wanna take it. And in the paper neither of those is proven wrong anyways, since you base your proof off of teh "fact" that knowledge cant exist in either one of those. Then you attempt to assert that those are the only two versions of atheism you will accept as valid... what makes you the expert on atheism? you dont believe in it at all, so...

Still waiting for you to come up with an atheistic cosmology that is not:

1) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does not exist.

2) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does exist.

Any time you are ready to present it, I will be happy to listen.

Z

TexasDevilDog

03-11-2006, 08:45 PM

2) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does exist.

Ok, I'll throw one out.

We are all here by some huge freak accident, which means there is probably only one planet with life in each galaxy.

zorro

03-11-2006, 09:29 PM

Ok, I'll throw one out.

We are all here by some huge freak accident, which means there is probably only one planet with life in each galaxy.

That is not really throwing one out. To help 1994SilverGT out, you have to come up with a cosmology that does not include:

1) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does not exist.

2) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does exist.

The one you presented still falls under option #2 above: God doesn't exist and the universe does exist.

You need to come up with one in which the universe doesn't exist and it does exist, or 1994SilverGT fails and his position is proven false.

Regards,

Z

TexasDevilDog

03-11-2006, 09:49 PM

I must be too tire to think straight. :o nighty time

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-12-2006, 12:10 AM

I must be too tire to think straight. :o nighty time

roll on out then! ;)

1994SilverGT

03-12-2006, 12:36 AM

That is not really throwing one out. To help 1994SilverGT out, you have to come up with a cosmology that does not include:

1) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does not exist.

2) Reality consists of: God does not exist and the universe does exist.

The one you presented still falls under option #2 above: God doesn't exist and the universe does exist.

You need to come up with one in which the universe doesn't exist and it does exist, or 1994SilverGT fails and his position is proven false.

Regards,

Z

so you still didnt read my post apparently, or you pretend to read and never actually think about what it says.

So the only way in the universe to consider there to be no god but still a universe is through naturism. So as i once said before we couldnt have created god to explain to us why the world exists, why we exist, and what we have to look forwards too, that still allows for knowledge does it not?

Im not arguing that there are other possiblities than god doesnt exist and the universe does or god doesnt exist and neither does the universe,

IM SAYING THAT NATURISM AND NEGATIONSIM ARENT THE ONLY WAY THOSE WAYS CAN WORK. All you ever argued agaisnt was that those two are not right, which as ive stated i dont beleive those are all there, but who are you to say there is no other way other than the crap definition of naturism you use for their to be no god and still a universe?

But you cant understand my point because you refuse to. So dont worry about it. Obviously its above or as im sure you think below your level so ....

zorro

03-12-2006, 09:33 AM

so you still didnt read my post apparently, or you pretend to read and never actually think about what it says.

So the only way in the universe to consider there to be no god but still a universe is through naturism. So as i once said before we couldnt have created god to explain to us why the world exists, why we exist, and what we have to look forwards too, that still allows for knowledge does it not?

I can't bellieve I am going to say, what I am about to say:

No! Wouldn't you have to have knowledge, before you created your god to explain those things and give you knowledge? Wouldn't you have had to explain to your created god why the world exists, why we exist, and what we have to look forwards to, so that he could explain it back to you?

In other words, you would already have knowledge, prior to your god being created to give you knowledge. So, prior to you creating god, what did reality consist of? It looks to me as if you are saying, that before you created your god, reality consisted of : God does not exist and the universe does exist. That would be naturism. So, naturism would have to be true prior to you creating your god. It also means that you would have to have knowledge prior to creating your god. But as we have seen, naturism doesn't have the elements to get you to knowledge. Therefore, you would not have knowledge prior to creating your god. Therefore, you would not be able to create your god. Therefore your god would not be able to explain to us why the world exists, why we exist, and what we have to look forwards to. Therefore, he would not be able to allow for the knowledge you would have needed in the first place to create him nor any knowledge after.

Im not arguing that there are other possiblities than god doesnt exist and the universe does or god doesnt exist and neither does the universe,

IM SAYING THAT NATURISM AND NEGATIONSIM ARENT THE ONLY WAY THOSE WAYS CAN WORK. All you ever argued agaisnt was that those two are not right, which as ive stated i dont beleive those are all there, but who are you to say there is no other way other than the crap definition of naturism you use for their to be no god and still a universe?

I am someone who has studied logic and the rules of logic are the ones who say there is no other way. You can reject the rules of logic and believe there are other ways. You just can not affirm the rules of logic and say there are other ways that correspond with those rules.

Conclusion:

Give up logic or give up your position.

Z

1994SilverGT

03-12-2006, 10:35 AM

zorro

03-12-2006, 11:11 AM

and why can knowledge not exist without god? Knowledge is what we learn while we live, what we get from existing. Knowledge still has no bearing on whether a god does or does not exist. Your whole argument it based on god being the reason we have knowledge, which you still havent proved is true, so seeing as you havent proved that yet, my point still stands.

God has nothing at all to do with knowledge, unless of course you are christian and need some way to explain your life, as you are.

Your point should be easy for you to make. As I have asked you many times before, provide any atheistic cosmology that has the elements to get to knowledge. The only positions you have offered, so far, are so irrational that I have been embarressed for you in having to even provide an answer to something so obviously wrong.

You proved in your previous posts that you have no idea how logic works. Did you ever look up those terms I suggested and did you figure out how wrong you were on how basic logic works?

You say your point "stands." Do you even know what that means? Before your point can stand, you have to have a rational point in the first place. You have already shown that you don't understand the basic argument of the paper. So, whatever point you have is not one against my argument, but a strawman that you created. Do you think people are so stupid that they cannot recogize this? Therfore, you have no "point" that stands against my argument. If you ever find one, let me know.

You still haven't answered the question, how do you prove something. If you don't know that, how do you know that my argument doesn't prove atheism false?

Why don't you prove me wrong on this point and outline the criteria for a proof?

Also, do you now reject your "point" about we creating god to tell us about knowledge or do you still want ot hold that it is rational"

Z

1994SilverGT

03-12-2006, 01:10 PM

First off, this is SilverGT's brother.

Ok, I read several of the posts, and I read the original article.

Well, the definition of universe needs to be clarified.

Negationism states the neither a God or gods exist nor does a universe. But it does state that illusion exists, and that knowledge exists. Obviously this is not contradictory, but it is an assertion that there is some form of existence that is possible outside of universe and god. Therefore it could be possible to exist in this illusionary "world," and that you could learn from your experiences. Thus, knowledge can be obtained, yet a god does not necessarily exist.

Naturism asserts that a god or gods do not exist, but that a universe does. Why does this mean that knowledge cannot exist? Just because the reason the universe is here is not attributed to a god does not mean the world is different in other ways as well. Let's say I believe the universe does exist, and that god does exist. Ok, well then it is safe to assume knowledge exists right? Why if I remove a god or gods from this picture does the universe change? I argue that the same universe could exist, with the same physics, the same people, and the same potential to obtain knowledge, except that there is no god or gods. Why is a god necessary for me to obtain knowledge?

Determinism claims that matter is set forth in motion, and everything that follows is a logical, predetermined result of this motion (or something like that). Couldn't a god or gods set this matter in motion, therefore a god can exist in a predetermined universe? Therefore it is possible to have a god or gods without necessarily having knowledge.

That's all for now.

zorro

03-12-2006, 08:36 PM

First off, this is SilverGT's brother.

Ok, I read several of the posts, and I read the original article.

Well, the definition of universe needs to be clarified.

How about our dimensions of time and space, matter and energy, and all that is inherent to them.

Negationism states the neither a God or gods exist nor does a universe. But it does state that illusion exists, and that knowledge exists. Obviously this is not contradictory, but it is an assertion that there is some form of existence that is possible outside of universe and god. Therefore it could be possible to exist in this illusionary "world," and that you could learn from your experiences. Thus, knowledge can be obtained, yet a god does not necessarily exist.

OK, let's start with the same questions we put to your brother: how do you prove something; what is the criteria for a proof?

Since you insist that negationism is not contradictory, please explain how do you identify a contradiction? It is pretty clear that it is a contradiction. Even those who hold to negationism freely admit that it is a paradox; which is a nice way of saying it is a contradiction. But, you say it is not. So, tell us what a contradiction is and we will apply that to negationism and see what happens.

Naturism asserts that a god or gods do not exist, but that a universe does. Why does this mean that knowledge cannot exist? Just because the reason the universe is here is not attributed to a god does not mean the world is different in other ways as well. Let's say I believe the universe does exist, and that god does exist. Ok, well then it is safe to assume knowledge exists right? Why if I remove a god or gods from this picture does the universe change? I argue that the same universe could exist, with the same physics, the same people, and the same potential to obtain knowledge, except that there is no god or gods. Why is a god necessary for me to obtain knowledge?

You said you read the paper, but the answer for every point you made is in the paper, try reading it again.

Determinism claims that matter is set forth in motion, and everything that follows is a logical, predetermined result of this motion (or something like that). Couldn't a god or gods set this matter in motion, therefore a god can exist in a predetermined universe? Therefore it is possible to have a god or gods without necessarily having knowledge.

That's all for now.

Yes, it could be and that would result in no knowledge too. That is why I pointed out in my paper that five out of the seven theistic cosmologies would have the same problem that atheism has, but once again that was already argued in the paper that you supposedly read.

Z

DarkWolf

03-13-2006, 10:32 AM

zorro

03-13-2006, 11:13 AM

Bored.

Shouldn't have to repeat myself. "Time is as likely a candidate for bringing the elements together to form life, as God. Knowledge is a byproduct of life."

As to your earlier question, Z, I did say in my initial response to your article, that I was playing devil's advocate. Make of that what you will.

... 3

The problem is, if all you are bringing together is matter in motion, that is all you will have. There is nothing there that can give independence from matter in motion, Therefore, no knowledge. You are suggesting that time is some sort of magician, one that can can create something other than matter in motion, with just the elements of matter in motion. There is no such thing as magic and time can't "do" anything, it has no volition. Neither does chance.

To be independent from matter in motion requires something other than matter in motion. Whatever that something is, all atheistic cosmologies deny it exists. Negationism denies everything exists and naturiism denies that anything other than matter in motion exists.

Z

TexasDevilDog

03-13-2006, 12:39 PM

The problem is, if all you are bringing together is matter in motion, that is all you will have. There is nothing there that can give independence from matter in motion, Therefore, no knowledge. You are suggesting that time is some sort of magician, one that can can create something other than matter in motion, with just the elements of matter in motion. There is no such thing as magic and time can't "do" anything, it has no volition. Neither does chance.

To be independent from matter in motion requires something other than matter in motion. Whatever that something is, all atheistic cosmologies deny it exists. Negationism denies everything exists and naturiism denies that anything other than matter in motion exists.

Z

Come on, if I smash two rocks together for a billion-trillion years, they will eventually gain knowledge. :rolleyes:

zorro

03-13-2006, 12:55 PM

Come on, if I smash two rocks together for a billion-trillion years, they will eventually gain knowledge. :rolleyes:

And if you keep adding 2 + 2 for a billion-trillion years they will start to equal 5, right?

There still are no elements that can get you to independence with just matter in motion. So, that is all you will ever have. You guys believe is some sort of magic. "Time can do it," is not an answer. It doesn't mean anything, except you don't have a real answer.

Smashing rocks for a long period of time will only get you smashed rocks.

Please look over the ice tea example in my paper again.

Z

DarkWolf

03-13-2006, 01:39 PM

The problem is, if all you are bringing together is matter in motion, that is all you will have. There is nothing there that can give independence from matter in motion, Therefore, no knowledge. You are suggesting that time is some sort of magician, one that can can create something other than matter in motion, with just the elements of matter in motion. There is no such thing as magic and time can't "do" anything, it has no volition. Neither does chance.

To be independent from matter in motion requires something other than matter in motion. Whatever that something is, all atheistic cosmologies deny it exists. Negationism denies everything exists and naturiism denies that anything other than matter in motion exists.

Z

Except that time is bringing the elements that make life together. Once life is achieved, life takes over and knowledge is a byproduct of life.

This is why your argument fails. Arguing in circles isn't going to make it suddenly true... but it's definitely boring me.

And TDD, I forgot to respond to your ... less than inspired rebuttal on computers that can learn and be fully autonomous. Do a little research on it. It's a lot closer than you might like to think.

zorro

03-13-2006, 02:38 PM

Except that time is bringing the elements that make life together. Once life is achieved, life takes over and knowledge is a byproduct of life.

This is why your argument fails. Arguing in circles isn't going to make it suddenly true... but it's definitely boring me.

And TDD, I forgot to respond to your ... less than inspired rebuttal on computers that can learn and be fully autonomous. Do a little research on it. It's a lot closer than you might like to think.

Can't you see what you are writting? Time doesn't "do" anything. You keep anthopomorphizing time. You give it human traits.

You fail to see the further implications of your accidentalism. You begin with a structured universe in which every partical has a relationship with every other partical. You then assume that given enough time, entropy will just fall asleep and even greater order (life) will appear and will continue to produce even greater order, as entropy continues to nap.

The problem is, given accidentalism, not only is there no reason for the elements is our structured universe to give further order, there is no reason for the structured universe. In accidentalism there is no reason for any two particals to ever have had a relationship, let alone every partical in the universe relating to each other as they do.

You see, naturism does not have the elements to get you to a structured universe, just like it doesn't have the elements to get you to knowledge. Neither does it have the elements to get you to deduction, inductions or the uniformity of nature. You assume all these thing, but your cosmology continues to deny their existence.

Given your cosmology you still have the problem of showing that your perceptions are anything like the world around you. You cosmology just doesn't have the elements to get to a consistent and coherent epistimology.

If you think I am wrong on any of these, just show me the elements in naturism that allows you to get there. I keep asking this of all the atheists and none can reply. Will you reply this time or ignore this question one more time?

You guys believe in some sort of magic. In your worldview there is some sort of magic that brings the universe in to existence from nothing. There is some sort of magic that structures the universe, even though you demand it be accidental. There is some sort of magic that insists on deductive and inductive principles exist everywhere, at all times. There is some sort of magic that makes inanimate matter into animate matter. There is some sort of magic that makes non-senient matter, sentient matter. And you believe it even though you can show no mechanism for any of it, while you maintain a cosmology that denies any of it can happen.

It is not a problem of being able to figure out how the elements of your cosmology account for all this; the problem is, given the elements, your cosmology denies all of this,
Z

DarkWolf

03-13-2006, 04:04 PM

TexasDevilDog

03-13-2006, 04:48 PM

And if you keep adding 2 + 2 for a billion-trillion years they will start to equal 5, right?

There still are no elements that can get you to independence with just matter in motion. So, that is all you will ever have. You guys believe is some sort of magic. "Time can do it," is not an answer. It doesn't mean anything, except you don't have a real answer.

Smashing rocks for a long period of time will only get you smashed rocks.

Please look over the ice tea example in my paper again.

Z

I kid, I kid. ;)

TexasDevilDog

03-13-2006, 04:50 PM

And TDD, I forgot to respond to your ... less than inspired rebuttal on computers that can learn and be fully autonomous. Do a little research on it. It's a lot closer than you might like to think.

They are close to making a computer that will decide what it wants to be! :cool:

TexasDevilDog

03-13-2006, 06:46 PM

Can't you see what you are writting? Time doesn't "do" anything. You keep anthopomorphizing time. You give it human traits.
Z

He can't admit that time isn't a catalyst for change, because he has no other. Given enough time, I guess water would boil without heat, by accident. ;)

DarkWolf

03-13-2006, 09:07 PM

He can't admit that time isn't a catalyst for change, because he has no other. Given enough time, I guess water would boil without heat, by accident. ;)

So it is your supposition that nothing ever happens by accident as well then, yes?

You see, the whole flaw in the argument is that you have to believe nothing happens by accident, that everything, ever minute thing that happens, happens for a reason. Smash you finger while hammering something? It was for a reason. Step on your dog in the middle of the night while fumbling your way to the bathroom? It was for a reason.

If you cannot accept that everything happens for a reason, then you must accept that somethings can be by accident. And if you introduce accidents into the equation, then your entire argument is flawed. If even one thing can happen by accident, who's to say that all of this wasn't by accident?

Now, if you are the type that believes everything happens for a reason, and there are no accidents, then well, what's the point of arguing farther? You're going to continue believing that, as you must, and nothing no one can say will sway your beliefs. You see, you appear as insane to others as they appear to you.

zorro

03-14-2006, 09:10 AM

I've already given you the elements. Do you remember this: "The elements are those which derived life. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon. Elements that make the amino acids, and proteins that form DNA. These are basic "bouncing atoms" that form to make complex organisms. They're the basic elements that make us. They're all over the universe."

The elements you need to provide are not chemical, but cosmological. Please reread my post.

You continue to fail to argue with anything but assumptions. You assume knowledge can only come from God. You assume that nothing can happen by accident. You assume, based on your assumptions, that you've proved atheism wrong.

You haven't.

The only assumptions I use to prove atheism is false are those provided by the atheistic cosmologies. I have never appealed to God in order to prove atheism is false. All I had to do to examine the elements of the atheistic cosmology and compare them to reality. The two contradict. You don't need believe in God to come to the conclsion that atheism is false, you just need to know a little about logic. But you allow your assumption that atheism is true to cloud you mind. The logic is clear and simple.

Now, let's review the questions that you have failed to answer from my last post:

Show me the elements in the naturism cosmology that allows you to get to knowledge.

Given your cosmology you still have the problem of showing that your perceptions are anything like the world around you. How do you justify that your perceptions are anything lke the world around you?

Z

zorro

03-14-2006, 09:21 AM

So it is your supposition that nothing ever happens by accident as well then, yes?

You see, the whole flaw in the argument is that you have to believe nothing happens by accident, that everything, ever minute thing that happens, happens for a reason. Smash you finger while hammering something? It was for a reason. Step on your dog in the middle of the night while fumbling your way to the bathroom? It was for a reason.

If you cannot accept that everything happens for a reason, then you must accept that somethings can be by accident. And if you introduce accidents into the equation, then your entire argument is flawed. If even one thing can happen by accident, who's to say that all of this wasn't by accident?

Now, if you are the type that believes everything happens for a reason, and there are no accidents, then well, what's the point of arguing farther? You're going to continue believing that, as you must, and nothing no one can say will sway your beliefs. You see, you appear as insane to others as they appear to you.

What are you talking about? Naturism demands that everything is necessarily determined by antecedent causes. There can be no such thing as an accident. Are you saying that events happen without a cause? Is that what you mean by accident?

It seems that you have a little problem. The atheistic cosmology demands that everything is what it is by accident, and that everything is necessarily determined to be what it is. What shall we call this? I know! Let's call this "Atheisms Blatant Contradiction."

Z

TexasDevilDog

03-14-2006, 09:31 AM

So it is your supposition that nothing ever happens by accident as well then, yes?

You see, the whole flaw in the argument is that you have to believe nothing happens by accident, that everything, ever minute thing that happens, happens for a reason. Smash you finger while hammering something? It was for a reason. Step on your dog in the middle of the night while fumbling your way to the bathroom? It was for a reason.

If you cannot accept that everything happens for a reason, then you must accept that somethings can be by accident. And if you introduce accidents into the equation, then your entire argument is flawed. If even one thing can happen by accident, who's to say that all of this wasn't by accident?

Now, if you are the type that believes everything happens for a reason, and there are no accidents, then well, what's the point of arguing farther? You're going to continue believing that, as you must, and nothing no one can say will sway your beliefs. You see, you appear as insane to others as they appear to you.

You are trying to equate an inanimate object accidental boiling, to me with my freedom of choice of where to move, accidentally stepping on my dog's tail, when me moving around is not just a matter of time, but choice. Big desperate leap. :rolleyes:

DarkWolf

03-14-2006, 10:26 AM

The elements you need to provide are not chemical, but cosmological. Please reread my post.

Oh, but they are chemical. That's the whole point. We're made up of chemicals. If there is no god, then there is only chemicals, and chemicals make up life, which brings us to knowledge. Again you fail to see things from anything but an assumption that knowledge can only come from (a) god.

But you allow your assumption that atheism is true to cloud you mind.

You read (or do you?), but you don't comprehend.

Are you saying that events happen without a cause? Is that what you mean by accident?

An accident is an outcome that isn't intended. An unplanned event. There's always cause & effect (hey there's that underlying order in chaos again).

You are trying to equate an inanimate object accidental boiling, to me with my freedom of choice of where to move, accidentally stepping on my dog's tail, when me moving around is not just a matter of time, but choice. Big desperate leap. :rolleyes:

Not a leap at all. You stepping on your dogs tail at night is no more intended than the elements that form life coming together. If you accept that even one thing in this universe can happen by accident (ie: without intent), you have to accept that it could ALL be by accident. You're free to believe whatever you want, but you cannot prove atheism false.

TexasDevilDog

03-14-2006, 11:08 AM

An accident is an outcome that isn't intended. An unplanned event. There's always cause & effect (hey there's that underlying order in chaos again).

Not a leap at all. You stepping on your dogs tail at night is no more intended than the elements that form life coming together. If you accept that even one thing in this universe can happen by accident (ie: without intent), you have to accept that it could ALL be by accident. You're free to believe whatever you want, but you cannot prove atheism false.

An accident is an unforeseen event, not randomness. Events that happen from inanimate objects are not accidents. If a comets is on a trajectory to hit the earth, the event is inevitable, not an accident.

DarkWolf

03-14-2006, 11:57 AM

An accident is an unforeseen event, not randomness. Events that happen from inanimate objects are not accidents. If a comets is on a trajectory to hit the earth, the event is inevitable, not an accident.

So someone put that comet on a trajectory to hit Earth? Man, that'd be pretty, pardon my French, shitty of them.

You see, you still have the problem of assuming nothing can happen by accident. And that's fine if that's what you believe. But you have to hold that nothing happens by accident, or your arguments fall apart. If you accept that even ONE thing can happen by accident, you've admitted to the possibility that ANYTHING can happen by accident.

Say I throw a rock at a wall. My aim's a little off, and it hits the corner of the wall, ricochet's off and beans you in the head. You were well out of my line of fire, but you still got hit. By your reasoning, I intended to hit you. Why I wouldn't just face you and throw the rock at you directly, instead of deftly executing a precision calculation of velocity, trajectory, surface dynamics, aero dynamics and various other calculations needed to know precisely where to hit the wall and with how much force needed to have the resulting ricochet hit you, all of course dependant on my incredibly accurate aim, is beyond me. :rolleyes:

TexasDevilDog

03-14-2006, 12:24 PM

So someone put that comet on a trajectory to hit Earth? Man, that'd be pretty, pardon my French, shitty of them.

You see, you still have the problem of assuming nothing can happen by accident. And that's fine if that's what you believe. But you have to hold that nothing happens by accident, or your arguments fall apart. If you accept that even ONE thing can happen by accident, you've admitted to the possibility that ANYTHING can happen by accident.

No one put the comet on the trajectory to hit earth. Everything just happened that way. They are inanimate objects that by their enertia continue going. No accident envolved.

Say I throw a rock at a wall. My aim's a little off, and it hits the corner of the wall, ricochet's off and beans you in the head. You were well out of my line of fire, but you still got hit. By your reasoning, I intended to hit you.

You are not an inanimate object, everything you did required you to act. The rock trajectory was determined by you, however poorly aimed. This example is an accident.

If you accept that even ONE thing can happen by accident, you've admitted to the possibility that ANYTHING can happen by accident.

Because of what you wrote above, would you agree, that if you placed in a closet, steel, aluminum, glass, rubber, oil, leather, plastic and dynamite, that by exploding the dynamite, eventually, after billions and trillions of tries everything would come together perfectly and you would make a corvette?

:rolleyes: <---- preemptive for your answer

DarkWolf

03-14-2006, 02:07 PM

No one put the comet on the trajectory to hit earth. Everything just happened that way. They are inanimate objects that by their enertia continue going. No accident envolved.

You are not an inanimate object, everything you did required you to act. The rock trajectory was determined by you, however poorly aimed. This example is an accident.

Because of what you wrote above, would you agree, that if you placed in a closet, steel, aluminum, glass, rubber, oil, leather, plastic and dynamite, that by exploding the dynamite, eventually, after billions and trillions of tries everything would come together perfectly and you would make a corvette?

:rolleyes: <---- preemptive for your answer

Since no one put the comet on trajectory with Earth, there's no intent for it to hit Earth. So when it does hit Earth, that's not an accident how? It's still an unplanned event.

Your dynamite example isn't very likely to happen, because you're destroying the completed substances. While this may end up breaking them back up into their base elements, it's not likely the base elements would survive the explosion either. Granted, that's not to say the possibility is 0, just that it's very unlikely.

TexasDevilDog

03-14-2006, 03:38 PM

Since no one put the comet on trajectory with Earth, there's no intent for it to hit Earth. So when it does hit Earth, that's not an accident how? It's still an unplanned event.

If the trajectory of the comet is projected to hit the earth in a million years, it is still planned, regardless if we know it or not. An accident is not something that will eventual happened.

DarkWolf

03-14-2006, 04:47 PM

If the trajectory of the comet is projected to hit the earth in a million years, it is still planned, regardless if we know it or not. An accident is not something that will eventual happened.

You just said no one put it on trajectory to hit Earth. If no one put it on trajectory, then it's not planned. Now you're changing your statement? So you want to go back to the supposition that nothing happens by accident?

You should really pick a side and stick with it. All this flip-flopping opinions is making John Kerry look like an amature.

DarkWolf

03-14-2006, 08:52 PM

So, in order to understand what we mean by the word "knowledge", we must look at how it was used by Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume and Kant, etc..

I came across a bit of disturbing info about your friend Descartes. He loved vivisection. Thought of animals as mere machines, like clocks, and would beat them and explain that their yelps of "pain" were actually a response from the springs and sprockets within their bodies. He was also fond of nailing them to boards, and cutting them open to observe the flow of blood.

His view on God? "I think, therefore I am" ... genius. "I have an idea of a Perfect Being, in my imperfect mind, so God must exist to put this idea of a Perfect Being into my mind." Oh yeah. The man was a great thinker.

And I do hope you're aware that Hume was an atheist.

Let's see... Kant, who's ideas of God's existence were not too unsimilar to Descartes. "Moral law requires a moral lawgiver. There is a moral law. There must be a moral lawgiver. This moral lawgiver is God."

I guess it should be obvious since we're all "basically evil" that our morality could only come from god. We'd all much rather kill each other than continue our own existence, so it's a good thing god's there to provide us with morality. It's definitely not a product of our own desire to, I dunno... exist. Survive. Live.

Plato held to a dualist view, much like Zoastranism, while Aristotle held more an empiricism view.

So, you've got an atheist, dualist, empiricist, and two theists, one of whom's a sadistic nut, and both came to their conclusion that god exists based on circular logic.

I hope you weren't planning on using these examples in your attempt at proving atheism wrong at any point. Oh ... The Existence of God (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egbl111/cosmos.htm) ... I guess you did. Yet another article based on assumptions derived from your beliefs.

[edit] spelling goof

zorro

03-14-2006, 10:34 PM

I came across a bit of disturbing info about your friend Descartes. He loved vivisection. Thought of animals as mere machines, like clocks, and would beat them and explain that their yelps of "pain" were actually a response from the springs and sprockets within their bodies. He was also fond of nailing them to boards, and cutting them open to observe the flow of blood.

His view on God? "I think, therefore I am" ... genius. "I have an idea of a Perfect Being, in my imperfect mind, so God must exist to put this idea of a Perfect Being into my mind." Oh yeah. The man was a great thinker.

And I do hope you're aware that Hume was an atheist.

Let's see... Kant, who's ideas of God's existence were not too unsimilar to Descartes. "Moral law requires a moral lawgiver. There is a moral law. There must be a moral lawgiver. This moral lawgiver is God."

I guess it should be obvious since we're all "basically evil" that our morality could only come from god. We'd all much rather kill each other than continue our own existence, so it's a good thing god's there to provide us with morality. It's definitely not a product of our own desire to, I dunno... exist. Survive. Live.

Plato held to a dualist view, much like Zoastranism, while Aristotle held more an empiricism view.

So, you've got an atheist, dualist, empiricist, and two theists, one of whom's a sadistic nut, and both came to their conclusion that god exists based on circular logic.

I hope you weren't planning on using these examples in your attempt at proving atheism wrong at any point. Oh ... The Existence of God (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egbl111/cosmos.htm) ... I guess you did. Yet another article based on assumptions derived from your beliefs.

I guess if you can't answer the questions, the best thing to do is go on a silly rant and hope that no one notices.

Back to the points you failed to answer:

Is every thing necessarily determined as the atheistic cosmology mandates, or is everything an accident as the atheistic cosmology mandates?

Show me the elements in the naturism cosmology that allows you to get to knowledge.

Given your cosmology you still have the problem of showing that your perceptions are anything like the world around you. How do you justify that your perceptions are anything lke the world around you?

Z

TexasDevilDog

03-15-2006, 08:10 AM

You just said no one put it on trajectory to hit Earth. If no one put it on trajectory, then it's not planned. Now you're changing your statement? So you want to go back to the supposition that nothing happens by accident?

You should really pick a side and stick with it. All this flip-flopping opinions is making John Kerry look like an amature.

You think some aliens are up there starting comets on their paths. LOL There is no conspiracy to start it a comet. You believe some stupid crap.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-15-2006, 08:17 AM

I came across a bit of disturbing info about your friend Descartes. He loved vivisection. Thought of animals as mere machines, like clocks, and would beat them and explain that their yelps of "pain" were actually a response from the springs and sprockets within their bodies. He was also fond of nailing them to boards, and cutting them open to observe the flow of blood.

His view on God? "I think, therefore I am" ... genius. "I have an idea of a Perfect Being, in my imperfect mind, so God must exist to put this idea of a Perfect Being into my mind." Oh yeah. The man was a great thinker.

And I do hope you're aware that Hume was an atheist.

Let's see... Kant, who's ideas of God's existence were not too unsimilar to Descartes. "Moral law requires a moral lawgiver. There is a moral law. There must be a moral lawgiver. This moral lawgiver is God."

I guess it should be obvious since we're all "basically evil" that our morality could only come from god. We'd all much rather kill each other than continue our own existence, so it's a good thing god's there to provide us with morality. It's definitely not a product of our own desire to, I dunno... exist. Survive. Live.

Plato held to a dualist view, much like Zoastranism, while Aristotle held more an empiricism view.

So, you've got an atheist, dualist, empiricist, and two theists, one of whom's a sadistic nut, and both came to their conclusion that god exists based on circular logic.

I hope you weren't planning on using these examples in your attempt at proving atheism wrong at any point. Oh ... The Existence of God (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Egbl111/cosmos.htm) ... I guess you did. Yet another article based on assumptions derived from your beliefs.

[edit] spelling goof

somebody, not sure who, just got owned

zorro

03-15-2006, 09:48 AM

somebody, not sure who, just got owned

The fallacy that darkwolf committed is called, "Ignoratio Elenchi," or "ignorance of refutation." It is also called the Red Herring. It is called a red herring because it comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy.

In reading Darkwolf's post one can easily see that it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. And most of it is not even true. You will notice that Darkwolf cites no sources for his rant. Anyone with a background in philosophy can easily see that he has no idea what any of these philosophers taught or believed.

For instance, take David Hume, he wrote on several occasions and also said in public that he believed in God. Hume was a Deist, which was very popular at his time. The cosmology that he based his philosophical writings on seems to be naturism, but that doesn't take away from his profession. Many people are inconsistent in this way, just look at Darkwolf as another example of inconsistency.

The question of these authors being important to the definition of knowledge is unquestionable. Any decent philosophical dictionary or encyclopedia will make that unquestionably clear. Darkwolf doesn't address this issue, but merely uses the fallacy of "Ad Hominem Abusive." That was the issue for which they were referenced.

I guess if you have no real argument, then attempting to use fallacies is common among those who really don't care about the truth, but just want to forward their position, regardless of its falsity. The problem is, if he is caught by someone who actually knows something about logic, then he looks like a real idiot when his fallacies are pointed out one by one.

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-15-2006, 10:30 AM

I guess if you have no real argument, then attempting to use fallacies is common among those who really don't care about the truth, but just want to forward their position, regardless of its falsity. The problem is, if he is caught by someone who actually knows something about logic, then he looks like a real idiot when his fallacies are pointed out one by one.

Z

Interesting. So all that stuff he said was just "made up"? I ask because I don't know, not because I'm trying to be a smart ass.

DarkWolf

03-15-2006, 11:02 AM

The fallacy that darkwolf committed is called, "Ignoratio Elenchi," or "ignorance of refutation." It is also called the Red Herring. It is called a red herring because it comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy.

In reading Darkwolf's post one can easily see that it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. And most of it is not even true. You will notice that Darkwolf cites no sources for his rant. Anyone with a background in philosophy can easily see that he has no idea what any of these philosophers taught or believed.

For instance, take David Hume, he wrote on several occasions and also said in public that he believed in God. Hume was a Deist, which was very popular at his time. The cosmology that he based his philosophical writings on seems to be naturism, but that doesn't take away from his profession. Many people are inconsistent in this way, just look at Darkwolf as another example of inconsistency.

The question of these authors being important to the definition of knowledge is unquestionable. Any decent philosophical dictionary or encyclopedia will make that unquestionably clear. Darkwolf doesn't address this issue, but merely uses the fallacy of "Ad Hominem Abusive." That was the issue for which they were referenced.

I guess if you have no real argument, then attempting to use fallacies is common among those who really don't care about the truth, but just want to forward their position, regardless of its falsity. The problem is, if he is caught by someone who actually knows something about logic, then he looks like a real idiot when his fallacies are pointed out one by one.

Z

That wasn't posted as a red herring. It wasn't meant to have any bearing on this particular argument, due to the fact that you explicity cited them for their "definition" of knowledge. I simply came across the issue of Descartes being a vivisectionist in a book I'm currently reading, and decided to look into it a bit deeper. Had I come across this information earlier, I would've posted it earlier, the timing of it's posting isn't an attempt to "distract" you from the argument.

Just imagine it for a moment. One of the "greatest" minds of modern times. Western philosophy is based on in large part on this man alone. And he thought animals were little machines with gears and cogs and springs... one would think he'd have seen the folly of his ways after he cut his first animal open (alive, and unaesthetised, mind you) and failed to see the expected machinery that made these little "clocks" tick... and instead saw living organs not unlike our own.

However, you did quote Descartes in your "existence of god" article... hence the last part of my post.

As for Hume, it's not actually known for certain what he was. Deist or Atheist. His philosophy says one thing, his work says another. Which do we go by? The things men do, or the things men think?

As for sources, you can simply look up any wiki articles on most of them. Descartes was a little different. No mention whatsoever of his love for vivisection in his wiki article. Instead, you have to dig a bit more to find works by historians and biographers that aren't so enthralled with his "genius", and seek to tell about the man, more than the ideal. One such book is "Cogito Ergo Sum: The Life of Rene Descartes" by David Lavery, there's also numerous sources on vivisection available with a simple google search. Maybe you'd prefer the Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9382118?query=Ren%E9%20Descartes&ct=)'s information on vivisection which cites Descartes as one of the most notable people to practice and pioneer it?

Some of us are competent enough to not take things at face value and actually go look things up. I don't feel the need to always quote sources, because it's expected that if you want to verify the information, you'll go look it up yourself. Quoting sources tends to confound the reader into artificially accepting the information given. "Look, he's got sources, so it must be true." Works especially well on those that want to believe the information in the first place... as is being demonstrated unquestionably by some in this thread (and others).

Back to the points you failed to answer:

Is every thing necessarily determined as the atheistic cosmology mandates, or is everything an accident as the atheistic cosmology mandates?

Show me the elements in the naturism cosmology that allows you to get to knowledge.

Are you blind? I've already stated them ... what? 4 times now? I say again, the circular argument isn't going to work here. You've failed to prove atheism wrong, what you're currently doing is grasping at straws... I could turn your own accusations against me upon you, in that you're ignoring the answers to your question in hopes that no one will notice I've already answered them time and again.

Given your cosmology you still have the problem of showing that your perceptions are anything like the world around you. How do you justify that your perceptions are anything lke the world around you?

Amazing, really. I've also pointed this out a number of times, yet you still don't get it.

You think some aliens are up there starting comets on their paths. LOL There is no conspiracy to start it a comet. You believe some stupid crap.

Really, how do you function in society? I imagine you babbling insanely all day, lunging at people's legs as they pass by, trying to gnaw on their ankles.

You state that a comet is on trajectory with Earth, that it's not an accident. If it's not an accident, then it was intended to hit Earth. For it to be intended to hit Earth, something/someone had to place it on a trajectory to hit Earth. [This is an example of your position that nothing happens by accident]

You then state that no one placed it on trajectory, it just happend that way. So you then take the position that it wasn't intentional, and that makes it accidental. I rebute by pointing that out. [This is an example of you flipping positions to accept that accidents do happen]

You come back saying it is planned, which brings us back to it not being an accident, but rather intended. Somebody/something has to intend for it to happen, for it to be a planned event. [This is an example of you flipping back to no accidents]

You should probably look to a career in politics.

Wait, scratch that. There's enough religious nuts in office as it is. Just keep doing what you're doing, and try not to slobber too much.

TexasDevilDog

03-15-2006, 11:11 AM

That wasn't posted as a red herring. It wasn't meant to have any bearing on this particular argument, due to the fact that you explicity cited them for their "definition" of knowledge. I simply came across the issue of Descartes being a vivisectionist in a book I'm currently reading, and decided to look into it a bit deeper. Had I come across this information earlier, I would've posted it earlier, the timing of it's posting isn't an attempt to "distract" you from the argument.

Just imagine it for a moment. One of the "greatest" minds of modern times. Western philosophy is based on in large part on this man alone. And he thought animals were little machines with gears and cogs and springs... one would think he'd have seen the folly of his ways after he cut his first animal open (alive, and unaesthetised, mind you) and failed to see the expected machinery that made these little "clocks" tick... and instead saw living organs not unlike our own.

However, you did quote Descartes in your "existence of god" article... hence the last part of my post.

As for Hume, it's not actually known for certain what he was. Deist or Atheist. His philosophy says one thing, his work says another. Which do we go by? The things men do, or the things men think?

As for sources, you can simply look up any wiki articles on most of them. Descartes was a little different. No mention whatsoever of his love for vivisection in his wiki article. Instead, you have to dig a bit more to find works by historians and biographers that aren't so enthralled with his "genius", and seek to tell about the man, more than the ideal. One such book is "Cogito Ergo Sum: The Life of Rene Descartes" by David Lavery, there's also numerous sources on vivisection available with a simple google search. Maybe you'd prefer the Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9382118?query=Ren%E9%20Descartes&ct=)'s information on vivisection which cites Descartes as one of the most notable people to practice and pioneer it?

Some of us are competent enough to not take things at face value and actually go look things up. I don't feel the need to always quote sources, because it's expected that if you want to verify the information, you'll go look it up yourself. Quoting sources tends to confound the reader into artificially accepting the information given. "Look, he's got sources, so it must be true." Works especially well on those that want to believe the information in the first place... as is being demonstrated unquestionably by some in this thread (and others).

Are you blind? I've already stated them ... what? 4 times now? I say again, the circular argument isn't going to work here. You've failed to prove atheism wrong, what you're currently doing is grasping at straws... I could turn your own accusations against me upon you, in that you're ignoring the answers to your question in hopes that no one will notice I've already answered them time and again.

Amazing, really. I've also pointed this out a number of times, yet you still don't get it.

Really, how do you function in society? I imagine you babbling insanely all day, lunging at people's legs as they pass by, trying to gnaw on their ankles.

You state that a comet is on trajectory with Earth, that it's not an accident. If it's not an accident, then it was intended to hit Earth. For it to be intended to hit Earth, something/someone had to place it on a trajectory to hit Earth. [This is an example of your position that nothing happens by accident]

You then state that no one placed it on trajectory, it just happend that way. So you then take the position that it wasn't intentional, and that makes it accidental. I rebute by pointing that out. [This is an example of you flipping positions to accept that accidents do happen]

You come back saying it is planned, which brings us back to it not being an accident, but rather intended. Somebody/something has to intend for it to happen, for it to be a planned event. [This is an example of you flipping back to no accidents]

You should probably look to a career in politics.

Wait, scratch that. There's enough religious nuts in office as it is. Just keep doing what you're doing, and try not to slobber too much.

Unforeseen isn't unknown. Maybe you should check out Newton's 1st law of motion. This deals with inanimate objects. Maybe you can dispute it too. I can't believe you think a comet can just decide to hit the earth all by it self. I look forward to your stupid answers more and more.

zorro

03-15-2006, 11:14 AM

Interesting. So all that stuff he said was just "made up"? I ask because I don't know, not because I'm trying to be a smart ass.

I have read a couple of biographies of Descartes, none of those accusations about him were in them. I’d like to see a source on that. I don't expect to.

As mentioned before, he is just plain wrong on Hume.

Kant's "categorical imperative" is far more complex and formidable than the caricature darkwolf gives. It is easy to look up on the internet.

So what if Plato was a dualist, his definition of "knowledge" has been the basic one used for 2500 years.

Once again, if he had bothered to look up these names in a philosophical dictionary or encyclopedia, he would have known these things. But the purpose of his post was not to give information about these authors, but to sidetrack the real issue. You see, even if everything he said about these people were true, it doesn't affect the argument I present. So, why bring it up? The only reason is to run away from the conclusion that darkwolf sees coming.

Z

TexasDevilDog

03-15-2006, 11:23 AM

So, why bring it up? The only reason is to run away from the conclusion that darkwolf sees coming.

Z

DW never answers a single question directly and adds extraneous blather ad nauseam to deflect any point made. The usual tactics of a weak debater.

DarkWolf

03-15-2006, 11:41 AM

Unforeseen isn't unknown. Maybe you should check out Newton's 1st law of motion. This deals with inanimate objects. Maybe you can dispute it too. I can't believe you think a comet can just decide to hit the earth all by it self. I look forward to your stupid answers more and more.

So stick with your opinion that nothing happens by accident. If there are no accidents things don't "just happen that way", they're planned. There's intent. No one said the comet decided to hit Earth. It was either put on course, and thus planned, or it got on course by a series of events unplanned (such as the gravitational pull of a fluctuating magnetic field as it slingshots around a celestial body, or intersecting with a small asteroid thus throwing it into a new trajectory, etc). It's either an accident, or it's not.

However, if you accept that things can happen by accident (as you've shown by your flip flopping), then you have to admit to the possibility that anything can happen by accident. If things can happen by accident, you cannot prove atheism false.

DarkWolf

03-15-2006, 11:45 AM

DW never answers a single question directly and adds extraneous blather ad nauseam to deflect any point made. The usual tactics of a weak debater.

And you resort to base insults when the argument isn't going your way. What was it about casting the first stone? :rolleyes: Weak debater indeed.

zorro

03-15-2006, 12:10 PM

That wasn't posted as a red herring. It wasn't meant to have any bearing on this particular argument, due to the fact that you explicity cited them for their "definition" of knowledge. I simply came across the issue of Descartes being a vivisectionist in a book I'm currently reading, and decided to look into it a bit deeper. Had I come across this information earlier, I would've posted it earlier, the timing of it's posting isn't an attempt to "distract" you from the argument.

As I pointed out before this is all irrelevant. You made you ad hominem attack when you said, "So, you've got an atheist, dualist, empiricist, and two theists, one of whom's a sadistic nut, and both came to their conclusion that god exists based on circular logic.

I hope you weren't planning on using these examples in your attempt at proving atheism wrong at any point. Oh ... The Existence of God ... I guess you did. Yet another article based on assumptions derived from your beliefs."

You were also caught at it and if was shown for the fallacy it is. And now you want to cry and pretend that it wasn't an attempt to distract. Not even the other atheists on this board are going to accept that one.

However, you did quote Descartes in your "existence of god" article... hence the last part of my post.

Descartes points out existential neccesity. Are you going to deny that if you can say or think"I exist," then you necessarily exist? Do non-existing beings say or think anthing? It is obvious that you can't refute Descartes, so you atttack him personally.

As for Hume, it's not actually known for certain what he was. Deist or Atheist. His philosophy says one thing, his work says another. Which do we go by? The things men do, or the things men think?

Unless you think he was lying, we do know what he thought. He rejected Christian arguments, but believed that a god existed.

Some of us are competent enough to not take things at face value and actually go look things up. I don't feel the need to always quote sources, because it's expected that if you want to verify the information, you'll go look it up yourself. Quoting sources tends to confound the reader into artificially accepting the information given. "Look, he's got sources, so it must be true." Works especially well on those that want to believe the information in the first place... as is being demonstrated unquestionably by some in this thread (and others).

You miss the point once again. It doesn't matter if the stuff about Descartes is true. You have to deal with his arguments. If Charles Manson says "2 + 2 = 4" are you going to reject it because Manson said it. It is still a true proposition regardless of the author.

Are you blind? I've already stated them ... what? 4 times now? I say again, the circular argument isn't going to work here. You've failed to prove atheism wrong, what you're currently doing is grasping at straws... I could turn your own accusations against me upon you, in that you're ignoring the answers to your question in hopes that no one will notice I've already answered them time and again.

The fact is you have never given any cosmological elements that allow for knowledge. You have attemped to give chemical elements, but they are useless until you provide the cosmological elements. If I have missed these cosmological elements in one of your posts, then just point me to the post and I will reread it.

You have never shown any argument of mine circular, you have claimed it to be, but people claim a lot of stupid things all the time. You have yet to prove it.

You also have never stated if every thing is necessarily determined as the atheistic cosmology mandates, or if everything is an accident as the atheistic cosmology mandates. You just want to avoid these issues that you can't even begin to address.

In case you haven't notice they are al the same argument just using different elements. They are all unanswered by you, because they are all unaswerable by atheism. They are all contradictions found in atheism, thus showing the position to be false.

Amazing, really. I've also pointed this out a number of times, yet you still don't get it.

Once again, where did you EVER point out how you justify that your perceptions are anything like the world around you? You have yet to address this issue with anything other than a flip response. Your problem is, given your cosmology, that your perceptions can't be justified. There is no way to get outside yourself to the world. In fact, you can't even get beyond Hume's argument about the self: How do you know the self exists? Deductively? No, it is not deductively known? Inductively? No, it is not an inductive problem either. From an atheist point of view, how do you know that the self exists? Further, since the atheist veiw doesn't allow for indepenence, how can you decide anything at all?

Once again, it is all the same argument, one contradiction piled on another. It is not that we are just not smart enough to figure out how atheism answers these questions, the point is atheism must hold to contradictions because the cosmology and reality are contradictory. In order to maintain atheism you must hold that your own very basic perceptions are false. And if those perceptions are false, how can you ever justify your other perceptions?

Z

DarkWolf

03-15-2006, 03:35 PM

You were also caught at it and if was shown for the fallacy it is. And now you want to cry and pretend that it wasn't an attempt to distract. Not even the other atheists on this board are going to accept that one.

Oh yes, I was caught in some grand attempt to distract everyone from the real issue. Silly me for thinking I could post up some historical information about the men you refer to for their definition of knowledge. The horror.

No really, it pains me that you caught onto my wiley ways so easily, as I went to great lengths to conceal my deception. :rolleyes:

Descartes points out existential neccesity. Are you going to deny that if you can say or think"I exist," then you necessarily exist? Do non-existing beings say or think anthing? It is obvious that you can't refute Descartes, so you atttack him personally.

Who's denying they exist? I'm not trying to refute him, I'm pointing out how a "great thinker" was rather sadistic and had some incredibly off methods, and beliefs.

You miss the point once again. It doesn't matter if the stuff about Descartes is true. You have to deal with his arguments. If Charles Manson says "2 + 2 = 4" are you going to reject it because Manson said it. It is still a true proposition regardless of the author.

And again, where was I attempting to refute Descartes? You used him as a reference in your existence of god article, and I pointed him out as probably not the best example of a man to use, due to his simple circular logic in determining god exists, as well as his rediculous view of animals. "I think therefore I am" doesn't take some philisophical genius to figure that out.

The fact is you have never given any cosmological elements that allow for knowledge. You have attemped to give chemical elements, but they are useless until you provide the cosmological elements. If I have missed these cosmological elements in one of your posts, then just point me to the post and I will reread it.

I believe the problem is, you're refusing to step out of the philisophical argument, and step into reality. The reality is, we're made up of chemicals. Whether god exists or not, we're still made up of chemicals. And we have knowledge. Your argument falls short, because it doesn't account for reality, only a philisophical ideal. It doesn't matter whether atheism has a "cosmological element to allow for knowledge"... it has a reality element. Arguing philosophy is fine, but when you reject reality in favor of the ideal, you fail.

You have never shown any argument of mine circular, you have claimed it to be, but people claim a lot of stupid things all the time. You have yet to prove it.

Circular, in that you reject reality, and continue to ask for something you know is never going to happen.

You also have never stated if every thing is necessarily determined as the atheistic cosmology mandates, or if everything is an accident as the atheistic cosmology mandates. You just want to avoid these issues that you can't even begin to address.

Again, your rejection of reality forces you to ask this question. Why would anyone care about atheistic philosophy, when the reality is right in front of their face?

In case you haven't notice they are al the same argument just using different elements. They are all unanswered by you, because they are all unaswerable by atheism. They are all contradictions found in atheism, thus showing the position to be false.

Once again, where did you EVER point out how you justify that your perceptions are anything like the world around you? You have yet to address this issue with anything other than a flip response. Your problem is, given your cosmology, that your perceptions can't be justified. There is no way to get outside yourself to the world. In fact, you can't even get beyond Hume's argument about the self: How do you know the self exists? Deductively? No, it is not deductively known? Inductively? No, it is not an inductive problem either. From an atheist point of view, how do you know that the self exists? Further, since the atheist veiw doesn't allow for indepenence, how can you decide anything at all?

Once again, it is all the same argument, one contradiction piled on another. It is not that we are just not smart enough to figure out how atheism answers these questions, the point is atheism must hold to contradictions because the cosmology and reality are contradictory. In order to maintain atheism you must hold that your own very basic perceptions are false. And if those perceptions are false, how can you ever justify your other perceptions?

And that, is why you fail. I've hinted at it way too much. If you won't open your eyes enough to see, don't expect me to just hand it to you.

1994SilverGT

03-15-2006, 08:01 PM

1994SilverGT

03-15-2006, 08:24 PM

Back to the argument of negationism,

well it says that no god or gods exists and neither does the universe. But illusion does.

So lets see, the universe is a word we use to describe everything we "know". How do we know the universe is real? How do you know everything does exist? It is possible that the universe as we know it exists in our mind, similar to say the matrix. So as far as we know this is the universe, yet in reality it could be something existing in our brain, a universe that is illusion. And one could certainly acquire knowledge from the illusion, it may not be the most useful knowledge in that the real world one lives in could be entirely different, but as we learned from it, it is considered knowledge.

Can you prove that this isnt the case? I doubt it.

On a side note, you do realize that our "laws" of physics are merely theories based on trial and error that are "correct" until proven incorrect. How many times have mathematics been altered because they were proven wrong? How many times have physics been wrong on "laws" that were proven right? Something that is proven right are only right until we prove them wrong.

Can you concede that their may be flaws in our math and physics? We are basing our assumptions on our "perfect" knowledge of our "reality". Wonder how accurate it is, since everything we know is from imperfect beings....

zorro

03-17-2006, 11:29 AM

Well, based on the arguments here, darkwolf certainly has much better points than zorro or his little sidekick tdd.

And like i said the whole time, never did you prove atheism wrong. Your entire argument is based on assumption.

Well, let's look at Darkwolf's brilliant arguments.

Since my argument is a deductive argument, his responses must address that.

So, did Darkwolf offer any deductive counter arguments? Any categorical syllogisms? How about disjunctive syllogisms? Any conditional or bi-conditional syllogisms? Don't feel bad, if you can't think of even one, neither can I.

But perhaps he was able to show the form of the argument invalid. No, he offered no formal fallacy either.

How about an informal fallacy?

Let's take a look at how that discussion looked:

Darkwolf: Your argument is circular!
Zorro: Could you show the circle?
D: It's based on assumption.
Z: Could you show the assumption and the circle?
D: Descartes hurt little animals; I would believe anything he had to say!
Z: Ad Hominem and irrelevant, can you show the circle?
D: ..... (the sounds of crickets chirping).

Now let's look at how he answered the problems with the atheist's position.

1) Elements of atheistic cosmologies that allow for knowledge.

Z: Can you show the elements of the atheistic cosmology that gets you to knowledge?
D: Oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, etc...
Z: Those are chemical elements, not cosmological elements. Can you show the elements of the atheistic cosmology that gets you to knowledge?
D: I already did in a previous post.
Z: I guess I missed that, which post was it?
D: Did I mention that Descartes hurt small animals?
Z: It is still irrelevant, answer the question.
D: ...... (more crickets chirping).

2) The contradiction between atheism assertion that everything is necessarily determined and everything is accidental.

Z: Is every thing necessarily determined as the atheistic cosmology mandates, or is everything an accident as the atheistic cosmology mandates?
D: ..........
Z: Can you answer the question?
D: Hume was an atheist.
Z: Can you answer the question?
D: ........ (still more crickets chirping).

3) The justification of sense perceptions.

Z: Given your cosmology, how do you justify that your perceptions are anything like the world around you?
D: .............
Z: Given your cosmology, how do you justify that your perceptions are anything like the world around you?
D................
Z: Given your cosmology, how do you justify that your perceptions are anything like the world around you?
D: Kant and Descartes were a lot alike.
Z: Given your cosmology, how do you justify that your perceptions are anything like the world around you?
D: ....... (The crickets got tired of waiting for an answer and went home).

These are the arguments that are the basis for Darkwolf’s conclusion, “You didn’t prove atheism false.”

So, which one of Darkwolf’s arguments of do you find compelling? Which provides you with that warm, fuzzy feeling that one gets from deductive certainty?

The bottom line is that Darkwolf thinks atheism is true because he likes it, and he thinks my paper is false because he doesn’t like it. I suspect the same subjective reasoning (or, rather, lack of reasoning) is also true for you.

Have I misrepresented Darkwolf’s position? A brief rereading of the questions in my posts and his responses will reveal the accuracy of the above redactions.

Since Darkwolf couldn't answer these questions, why don't you give it a try. Here they are again:

Can you show the elements of the atheistic cosmology that gets you to knowledge?

Is every thing necessarily determined as the atheistic cosmology mandates, or is everything an accident as the atheistic cosmology mandates?

Given your cosmology, how do you justify that your perceptions are anything like the world around you?

Z

1994SilverGT

03-17-2006, 12:11 PM

zorro

03-17-2006, 12:22 PM

Back to the argument of negationism,

well it says that no god or gods exists and neither does the universe. But illusion does.

So lets see, the universe is a word we use to describe everything we "know".

No, it is not everything we "know." It can be defined as our dimension of time and space, matter and energy, and all that is inherent to them. Depending on your cosmology, it can also be define as all that exists. But there were many stars and galaxies that were part of the universe prior to us knowing about them.

How do we know the universe is real? How do you know everything does exist? It is possible that the universe as we know it exists in our mind, similar to say the matrix. So as far as we know this is the universe, yet in reality it could be something existing in our brain, a universe that is illusion. And one could certainly acquire knowledge from the illusion, it may not be the most useful knowledge in that the real world one lives in could be entirely different, but as we learned from it, it is considered knowledge.So lets see, the universe is a word we use to describe everything we "know".

You actually hit on some of the right questions. Given any atheistic cosmology, you can't know if this universe is real or is just all in your mind. That is why I keep asking Darkwolf to justify that his sense perceptions actually correspond to the world around them. He can not and neither can you. The atheistic cosmologies do not have the elements to form a coherent and cohesive epistemology. So, you have not idea what is real or fake, what is true or false, or if anything is there at all. It is just as possible, given your cosmology, that everything you think you "know" is 100% false. The basic definition of "knowledge for the last 2500 years has been, "justified, true belief." Since nothing you believe can be justified and you have no way to determine if it is true, it can't be knowledge.

Can you prove that this isnt the case? I doubt it.

Not from you cosmology, but from mine, yes. The actual existence of this universe and our ability to know it are part of the theistic cosmology and give the basis for a coherent and cohesive epistemology.

On a side note, you do realize that our "laws" of physics are merely theories based on trial and error that are "correct" until proven incorrect. How many times have mathematics been altered because they were proven wrong? How many times have physics been wrong on "laws" that were proven right? Something that is proven right are only right until we prove them wrong.

Can you concede that their may be flaws in our math and physics? We are basing our assumptions on our "perfect" knowledge of our "reality". Wonder how accurate it is, since everything we know is from imperfect beings....

Actually, physics and science are based on induction and only give probable conclusions. They are subject to adjustment as other data enters the mix. Math, on the other hand is based on deduction and yeilds necessary and certain conclusions. So, even though mathematians can be wrong, math cannot be.

Last, let's take a look at where you have to go to try to get out of my argument:

1) the universe doesn't really exist.
2) math and logic can be wrong.
3) We can never know if we know anything at all.

In doing so you are admitting that if the universe really exists, math and logic are always right and we can know things, that my argument cannot be overcome.

That is all I am saying too.

Z

zorro

03-17-2006, 12:30 PM

You seem to forget you are the one trying prove something, that doesnt mean you control where the argument goes, instead of answering questions we ask you merely ask another question. If your logic is so damned good answer what we ask instead of redirecting us. Simple as that. You only state the same things when asked questions, which is prolly part of the circular logic, as i said earlier you have yet to prove anything.

I have pointed out on many occasions that the atheistic cosmologies can't get you to knowledge. You say that they can. The three questions I have been asking need to be answered to show that any atheistic cosmology can get you to knowledge.

The problem is not that you are just to stupid to answer them, but that the atheistic cosmologies are unable to provide the answers, leaving the atheist to either reject reality (as you have been arguing) or hold to contradictions (as Darkwolf has been arguing).

If you think I am wrong, then provide answers to the questions. It is that simple.

Z

black02mustang

03-17-2006, 01:18 PM

I have pointed out on many occasions that the atheistic cosmologies can't get you to knowledge. You say that they can. The three questions I have been asking need to be answered to show that any atheistic cosmology can get you to knowledge.

The problem is not that you are just to stupid to answer them, but that the atheistic cosmologies are unable to provide the answers, leaving the atheist to either reject reality (as you have been arguing) or hold to contradictions (as Darkwolf has been arguing).

If you think I am wrong, then provide answers to the questions. It is that simple.

Z

You have assumed that the universe had to be created by something. I'm not really up on what atheists actually believe, but according to your argument, if say I could prove that the universe was created by chance or accident then that would mean that there does not have to be a god. There are theories that speculate that this universe started completely apart from some outside source. Such cases would be in quantum physics were some things cannot be explained they just happen just by chance. So at the start of this universe and time for that matter, planets and galaxies start to form, and as stated earlier, chemicals make up everything in this universe, and life can start given the right ingredients time, and a little electricity. Until you can prove that "something" else jump started this universe other than chance than i don't see how you can conclude a god exists. I don't think anyone can prove one way or the other but as of yet, you cannot throw out it just happened.

what happened before the big bang? (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html#)

How did life begin? (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html#)

zorro

03-17-2006, 04:10 PM

You have assumed that the universe had to be created by something. I'm not really up on what atheists actually believe, but according to your argument, if say I could prove that the universe was created by chance or accident then that would mean that there does not have to be a god. There are theories that speculate that this universe started completely apart from some outside source. Such cases would be in quantum physics were some things cannot be explained they just happen just by chance. So at the start of this universe and time for that matter, planets and galaxies start to form, and as stated earlier, chemicals make up everything in this universe, and life can start given the right ingredients time, and a little electricity. Until you can prove that "something" else jump started this universe other than chance than i don't see how you can conclude a god exists. I don't think anyone can prove one way or the other but as of yet, you cannot throw out it just happened.

what happened before the big bang? (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html#)

How did life begin? (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html#)

The problem is that my paper assumes the atheistic cosmologies and show that given any atheistic cosmology as true, there can be no knowledge. This means that if there is knowledge, then all atheistic cosmologies must be false.
You can find the link to the paper at the beginning of this thread.

Z

black02mustang

03-17-2006, 04:42 PM

The problem is that my paper assumes the atheistic cosmologies and show that given any atheistic cosmology as true, there can be no knowledge. This means that if there is knowledge, then all atheistic cosmologies must be false.
You can find the link to the paper at the beginning of this thread.

Z

I'm simply asking if the universe was created by accident, do we still have proof of a god? We all know after the universe was created life derived from time, chemical reactions, and probability. I am only asking simple questions here...For example:
If the universe was created out of dumb luck and life formed as it would inevitably, is there a god? Real and simple...

DarkWolf

03-17-2006, 05:09 PM

I'm simply asking if the universe was created by accident, do we still have proof of a god? We all know after the universe was created life derived from time, chemical reactions, and probability. I am only asking simple questions here...For example:
If the universe was created out of dumb luck and life formed as it would inevitably, is there a god? Real and simple...

Precisely. Forget atheistic philosophy, and look at reality. Whether god exists or not, we're still made up of chemicals. We still have knowledge.

Of course, Zorro wishes to continue ignoring reality, and keep arguing philosophy. The problem with philosophy, is it gets you only so far, before reality starts getting in the way. If you refuse to tackle the argument from a reality viewpoint, then there's no point continuing this debate.

Zorro, you really do amuse me. You've deducted that god exists, in much the same way Kant and Descartes did. Yet you've failed to give more than philosophical arguments. I don't think anyone's refuting that atheism is contradictory. Theism has it's fair share of contradiction as well. What's being refuted is your "proof" that atheism is wrong, based on philosophy alone, but you ignore that, philosophy aside, we're made of chemicals, and whether or not god exists isn't going to change that fact.

So unless you have some physical, real proof that god exists, then you have no hope of ever proving atheism wrong. We can go around in circles forever on this if you'd like. But I'm bored, and tired of repeating myself.

DarkWolf

03-17-2006, 05:13 PM

The bottom line is that Darkwolf thinks atheism is true because he likes it, and he thinks my paper is false because he doesn’t like it.

This will never cease to amuse me. :D

1994SilverGT

03-17-2006, 07:58 PM

No, it is not everything we "know." It can be defined as our dimension of time and space, matter and energy, and all that is inherent to them. Depending on your cosmology, it can also be define as all that exists. But there were many stars and galaxies that were part of the universe prior to us knowing about them.

Z

time is not part of the universe, it is a concept and nothing more. It does not actually exist. and space is nothing, the lack of something, so i doubt either of those should actually be considered part of our definition of universe.

But knowledge is something we define, there is no universally accepted definition that i know of. that is where the problem with this comes in,

People percieve things differently. One person may see the sun in one way while another sees it differently. So which way is right? the one more people agree on? So does that make it "right", just because more people can agree it is right. sadly that doesnt mean a damned thing in the end.

How do you know your perceptions are right? How do you know a god exists? I can say without a doubt in no way has a god ever influenced my life or "stuck his hand in" my life. Does that mean there isnt a god, hell no. but just because you might claim he has in your life also doesnt mean it was him, or it. It merely means something happened that you cant explain and want to explain so there is god.

im not really sure what some of this has to do with the arguement, but my brain is a bit off right now, so o well.

1994SilverGT

03-17-2006, 08:04 PM

You actually hit on some of the right questions. Given any atheistic cosmology, you can't know if this universe is real or is just all in your mind. That is why I keep asking Darkwolf to justify that his sense perceptions actually correspond to the world around them. He can not and neither can you. The atheistic cosmologies do not have the elements to form a coherent and cohesive epistemology. So, you have not idea what is real or fake, what is true or false, or if anything is there at all. It is just as possible, given your cosmology, that everything you think you "know" is 100% false. The basic definition of "knowledge for the last 2500 years has been, "justified, true belief." Since nothing you believe can be justified and you have no way to determine if it is true, it can't be knowledge.

Z

Well i have to disagree with "justified, true belief". i dont find that to be the definition of knowledge at all. I would say it is more of a what we know and learn from what we perceive as "reality". do we know its right, well no, except that you do.... But honestly even you cant prove my little scenario wrong.

but as darkwolf said you have proven that atheism is false once. granted im not an atheist, nor do i really care for either of those types of it, i dont have any use for theism either as it is fraught with flaws and contradictions. So im what you call an agnostic, someone who doesnt claim to know it all like you.

Fobra

03-18-2006, 02:47 AM

i dont have any use for theism either as it is fraught with flaws and contradictions.
such as...

black02mustang

03-18-2006, 10:56 AM

Even though I'm really unsure about what to believe, I will say something weird happened last night that made me think.
Going down the highway, gettin on it a little, in 2nd backed off shifted into 3rd, either spun the tires when i shifter or hydroplaned and my car spun out uncontrollably turned completely around, went straight in the ditch sideways, slid, then flipped completely over and landed back on its wheels. My roof was smashed in the glass broke on the front and the back. My car is completely totaled. I had 3 buddies with me at the time and we all walked out without a scratch. The 2 in the back were not wearing seatbelts, but the front passenger and I were. When we got out, either around my friend's neck or in the hood of his sweater was a roserary that I have kept in my console since i had my car. He is the most atheistic person I know also. He proceeded to say "I hate the church" 20mins after it all happened. Anyways, I doubt this will change my doubts about religion and god, but i was very lucky and it does make you wonder.

zorro

03-18-2006, 11:26 AM

I'm simply asking if the universe was created by accident, do we still have proof of a god?

The answer would be no. The question is, is that a rational proposition? It is also true that if the universe was created by accident, there would be no knowledge. If it is true that there is knowledge, then we know that the universe wasn't created by accident.

But is the basic proposition even rational without the counter argument? Accedentalism means that every partical that has a relation with any other partical has it accidentally. So, with accidentalism, we must assert that every partical in the universe just happened, by accident, to relate to every other partical in a coherent way, thus giving us the laws of physics. Now, we are not talking about kinds of particals accidentally interacting with other kinds of particals, but every individual partical accidentally interacting with every other partical in the same way. For instance each and every electron just happened, by accident, to relate to every proton and nuetron in a way that allows us to do chemistry. By accident, not even one of them relates in a different way.

We all know after the universe was created life derived from time, chemical reactions, and probability. I am only asking simple questions here...For example:
If the universe was created out of dumb luck and life formed as it would inevitably, is there a god? Real and simple...

Well, actually we don't know that life derived from time, chemical reactions, and probability. First of all, if you want to assert accidentalism, you can't rely on probablility. Next, time doesn't do anything. It is not an active force, nor is it a mechanism. But since you brought up probability, what is the probability of the universe existing is such a way that any life could actually exist by accident? What is the probability of even a single solar system existing in such a way that would allow for any life to exist by accident? And what are the probabilities for a planet existing in such a way that would allow any life to exist by accident?

Any clue?

Z

zorro

03-18-2006, 11:47 AM

Zorro, you really do amuse me. You've deducted that god exists, in much the same way Kant and Descartes did. Yet you've failed to give more than philosophical arguments. I don't think anyone's refuting that atheism is contradictory. Theism has it's fair share of contradiction as well. What's being refuted is your "proof" that atheism is wrong, based on philosophy alone, but you ignore that, philosophy aside, we're made of chemicals, and whether or not god exists isn't going to change that fact.

What you fail to understand is that my argument is only philosophical because logic is considered part of philosophy. All arguments that are based on logic are considered philosophical. I would agree that what you have said is neither philosophical or logical. That is the point.

I am glad you finally agree that atheism is inherently contradictory on the basic level. You can try and argue that one bible verse contradicts another all you want. It hasn't been proven in over two thousand years, I don't think you will win that one either. However, the theistic cosmology does something that the atheist cosmology can't do even in principle: It provides the elements that allow for a real epistemology. Without that, there can be no knowledge.

So unless you have some physical, real proof that god exists, then you have no hope of ever proving atheism wrong.

What does physical proof consist of? Without logic in play, you can't know anything about the physical universe. Without a real epistemology in place, you can't justify that your sense perceptions are anything like the world around you.

You already admit that you reject logical arguments and you are unable, given any atheistic position, to justify your perceptions are like the world around you. So, how do you know anything is true or anything you perceive as evidence is accurate? Do you just assume it?

We can go around in circles forever on this if you'd like. But I'm bored, and tired of repeating myself.

Great! then we will look forward to not hearing from you.

Z

DarkWolf

03-18-2006, 05:05 PM

What you fail to understand is that my argument is only philosophical because logic is considered part of philosophy. All arguments that are based on logic are considered philosophical. I would agree that what you have said is neither philosophical or logical. That is the point.

I am glad you finally agree that atheism is inherently contradictory on the basic level. You can try and argue that one bible verse contradicts another all you want. It hasn't been proven in over two thousand years, I don't think you will win that one either. However, the theistic cosmology does something that the atheist cosmology can't do even in principle: It provides the elements that allow for a real epistemology. Without that, there can be no knowledge.

What does physical proof consist of? Without logic in play, you can't know anything about the physical universe. Without a real epistemology in place, you can't justify that your sense perceptions are anything like the world around you.

You already admit that you reject logical arguments and you are unable, given any atheistic position, to justify your perceptions are like the world around you. So, how do you know anything is true or anything you perceive as evidence is accurate? Do you just assume it?

I prefer rational arguments. Philosophy alone is not rational. Philosophy is a belief. Thoughts. It really has no bearing on reality.

You continue to adhere to philosophy, even when asked for physical proof. "What is physical proof" is your offer? If you have to ask, you'll never know, I guess. You can go back to living in your fantasy land where nothing's real unless your religious philosophy agrees with it :rolleyes:

Let's see, I can look at my computer table, with my laptop on it, external hard drive, mouse, etc. I can touch it. Tactile response. Without saying a word to anyone about it, I can run out and grab 100 people at random, and ask "what do you see?" I'm willing to bet that 0 of them say "nothing", while all of them will have varying answers from "a desk with a laptop" to a full description of what's on the desk as I listed above.

That, my friend, is reality. It's not something that exists only in my mind. Unlike philosophy, which only exists in your mind, until you share it with others, thus making it exist in their minds too.

And, I never stated atheism wasn't contradictory. It's not "finally admitting", it was never something I alluded to in the first place. I said you failed to prove it wrong, and that still stands.

black02mustang

03-18-2006, 09:48 PM

The answer would be no. The question is, is that a rational proposition? It is also true that if the universe was created by accident, there would be no knowledge. If it is true that there is knowledge, then we know that the universe wasn't created by accident.

But is the basic proposition even rational without the counter argument? Accedentalism means that every partical that has a relation with any other partical has it accidentally. So, with accidentalism, we must assert that every partical in the universe just happened, by accident, to relate to every other partical in a coherent way, thus giving us the laws of physics. Now, we are not talking about kinds of particals accidentally interacting with other kinds of particals, but every individual partical accidentally interacting with every other partical in the same way. For instance each and every electron just happened, by accident, to relate to every proton and nuetron in a way that allows us to do chemistry. By accident, not even one of them relates in a different way.

Well, actually we don't know that life derived from time, chemical reactions, and probability. First of all, if you want to assert accidentalism, you can't rely on probablility. Next, time doesn't do anything. It is not an active force, nor is it a mechanism. But since you brought up probability, what is the probability of the universe existing is such a way that any life could actually exist by accident? What is the probability of even a single solar system existing in such a way that would allow for any life to exist by accident? And what are the probabilities for a planet existing in such a way that would allow any life to exist by accident?

Any clue?

Z
Well given that the probability of life being say .00001% given an infinite amount of time, the result will always be the same. It will happen one way or another. If the universe was started by ways we can't explain yet, or by accident how does that prevent knowledge? Life essentially is nothing more than the probability of the right chemical components being present and an electric charge being induced in the right environment. This probability might be really low, but the universe has been around for quite a few billion years.
Again how do you come up with no knowledge if it was by acident? In reality that doesn't make sense, unless you have some messed up definition of knowledge. BTW what was your definition of knowledge and what are the required elements to get your "knowledge"?

zorro

03-19-2006, 09:45 PM

I prefer rational arguments. Philosophy alone is not rational. Philosophy is a belief. Thoughts. It really has no bearing on reality.

You continue to adhere to philosophy, even when asked for physical proof. "What is physical proof" is your offer? If you have to ask, you'll never know, I guess. You can go back to living in your fantasy land where nothing's real unless your religious philosophy agrees with it.

Yes, I keep asking what is the criteria for physical proof and you can't answer. It seems quite reasonable that if you keep demanding a proof, yet you have no clue what the criteria is for a proof, that you will never know if sufficient evidence is given. All you can hope for is subjective satisfaction. That is neither objective nor a proof of anything.

It is you who live in a fantasy world. You ask for a physical proof, but you don't know what that is. You rely on sense perception, but have no clue if your perceptions actually represent the world around you.

Here is a hint for you: there is no such thing as a "physical proof." A "proof" requires deductive certainty and any kind of inductive (physical) evidence can only offer probability. This is why I laugh every time you ask for a physical proof and I ask you what that entails. I already know that there is no answer that you could possibly give, and of course, you have not been able to give one. Now, everyone else can get a good laugh the next time you ask of a "physical proof."

Let's see, I can look at my computer table, with my laptop on it, external hard drive, mouse, etc. I can touch it. Tactile response. Without saying a word to anyone about it, I can run out and grab 100 people at random, and ask "what do you see?" I'm willing to bet that 0 of them say "nothing", while all of them will have varying answers from "a desk with a laptop" to a full description of what's on the desk as I listed above.

That, my friend, is reality. It's not something that exists only in my mind. Unlike philosophy, which only exists in your mind, until you share it with others, thus making it exist in their minds too.

You think you are looking at a computer and that you can touch a mouse, but people also have vivid dreams, that at the time they are dreaming, seem just as real as what you are experiencing now; yet no computer or mouse or anything else is there. If a dream can fool us for a time, what makes you think other things can't fool you too, and over an extended period.

You want to appeal to others, yet you only know what they say through your senses. But it is your senses that are in quesition. This brings anything that your friends say into question too. Your friends could be just as non-existent as your computer. People have vivid dreams about other people and what they say and do. Some dreams are so vivid that, after a while, people have trouble remembering if it was a dream or it actually happened.

So, just because you say, "I know its true, I know it true," really does not mean much, especially since you have no workable theory of reality or theory of knowledge. So, thanks for sharing your mere opinion, but no thanks; Not interested. Propositions are not true just because YOU say so.

So, one more time, how do you justify any of your perceptions are like the world around you?

And, I never stated atheism wasn't contradictory. It's not "finally admitting", it was never something I alluded to in the first place. I said you failed to prove it wrong, and that still stands.

By definition, if it is contradictory, it is wrong. That is unless you want to through out logic. Well, do you?

Z

zorro

03-20-2006, 11:41 AM

Well given that the probability of life being say .00001% given an infinite amount of time, the result will always be the same. It will happen one way or another. If the universe was started by ways we can't explain yet, or by accident how does that prevent knowledge? Life essentially is nothing more than the probability of the right chemical components being present and an electric charge being induced in the right environment. This probability might be really low, but the universe has been around for quite a few billion years.
Again how do you come up with no knowledge if it was by acident? In reality that doesn't make sense, unless you have some messed up definition of knowledge. BTW what was your definition of knowledge and what are the required elements to get your "knowledge"?

1) you have already admitted that the universe came into existence, so you don't have an infinite amount of time, but a finite amount of time. Physicists tell us the universe has been around for about 12 to 15 billion years. Earth has been here about 4.5 billion years, but the conditions for the first 3.7 billion years would not support life. The first signs of life occur right around 3.7 billion years. So, you have virtualy NO time to come up with life by accident.

How did you determine .00001%?

Here is a partial list of factors that are needed for life and the probability that feature will fall in the required range for physical life:

local abundance and distribution of dark matter 0.1
relative abundances of different exotic mass particles 0.01
decay rates of different exotic mass particles 0.05
density of quasars 0.1
density of giant galaxies in the early universe 0.1
galaxy cluster size 0.1
galaxy cluster density 0.1
galaxy cluster location 0.1
galaxy size 0.1
galaxy type 0.1
galaxy mass distribution 0.2
size of galactic central bulge 0.2
galaxy location 0.1
variability of local dwarf galaxy absorption rate 0.1
quantity of galactic dust 0.1
giant star density in galaxy 0.1
frequency of gamma ray bursts in galaxy 0.05
star location relative to galactic center 0.2
star distance from corotation circle of galaxy 0.005
ratio of inner dark halo mass to stellar mass for galaxy 0.1
star distance from closest spiral arm 0.1
z-axis extremes of star’s orbit 0.02
proximity of solar nebula to a normal type I supernova eruption 0.01
timing of solar nebula formation relative to a normal type I supernova eruption 0.01
proximity of solar nebula to a type II supernova eruption 0.01
timing of solar nebula formation relative to type II supernova eruption 0.01
timing of hypernovae eruptions 0.2
number of hypernovae eruptions 0.1
masses of stars that become hypernovae 0.1
flux of cosmic ray protons 0.1
variability of cosmic ray proton flux 0.1
gas dispersal rate by companion stars, shock waves, and molecular cloud expansion in the Sun’s birthing star cluster 0.1
number of stars in birthing cluster 0.01
star formation rate in parent star vicinity during history of that star 0.1
variation in star formation rate in parent star vicinity during history of that star 0.1
birth date of the star-planetary system 0.01
number of stars in system 0.7
number and timing of close encounters by nearby stars 0.01
proximity of close stellar encounters 0.1
masses of close stellar encounters 0.1
density of brown dwarfs 0.1
distance from nearest black hole 0.2
absorption rate of planets and planetismals by parent star 0.1
star age 0.4
star metallicity 0.05
ratio of 40K, 235,238U, 232Th to iron in star-planetary system 0.02
star orbital eccentricity 0.1
star mass 0.001
star luminosity change relative to speciation types & rates 0.00001
star color 0.4
star rotation rate 0.3
rate of change in star rotation rate 0.3
star magnetic field 0.1
star magnetic field variability 0.1
stellar wind strength and variability 0.1
short period variation in parent star diameter 0.1
star’s carbon to oxygen ratio 0.01
star’s space velocity relative to Local Standard of Rest 0.05
star’s short term luminosity variability 0.05
star’s long term luminosity variability 0.05
amplitude and duration of star spot cycle 0.1
number & timing of solar system encounters with interstellar gas clouds and cloudlets 0.1
galactic tidal forces on planetary system 0.2
H3+ production 0.1
supernovae rates & locations 0.01
white dwarf binary types, rates, & locations 0.01
structure of comet cloud surrounding planetary system 0.3
planetary distance from star 0.001
inclination of planetary orbit 0.5
axis tilt of planet 0.3
rate of change of axial tilt 0.01
period and size of axis tilt variation 0.1
planetary rotation period 0.1
rate of change in planetary rotation period 0.05
planetary revolution period 0.2
planetary orbit eccentricity 0.3
rate of change of planetary orbital eccentricity 0.1
rate of change of planetary inclination 0.5
period and size of eccentricity variation 0.1
period and size of inclination variation 0.1
precession in planet’s rotation 0.3
rate of change in planet’s precession 0.3
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon abundance in solar nebula 0.1
number of moons 0.2
mass and distance of moon 0.01
surface gravity (escape velocity) 0.001
tidal force from sun and moon 0.1
magnetic field 0.01
rate of change & character of change in magnetic field 0.1
albedo (planet reflectivity) 0.1
density 0.1
density of interstellar and interplanetary dust particles in vicinity of life-support planet 0.3
reducing strength of planet’s primordial mantle 0.3
thickness of crust 0.01
timing of birth of continent formation 0.1
oceans-to-continents ratio 0.2
rate of change in oceans to continents ratio 0.1
global distribution of continents 0.3
frequency, timing, & extent of ice ages 0.1
frequency, timing, & extent of global snowball events 0.1
silicate dust annealing by nebular shocks 0.02
asteroidal & cometary collision rate 0.1
change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1
rate of change in asteroidal & cometary collision rates 0.1
mass of body colliding with primordial Earth 0.002
timing of body colliding with primordial Earth 0.05
location of body’s collision with primordial Earth 0.05
position & mass of Jupiter relative to Earth 0.01
major planet eccentricities 0.05
major planet orbital instabilities 0.05
drift and rate of drift in major planet distances 0.05
number & distribution of planets 0.001
distance of gas giant planets from mean motion resonances 0.02
orbital separation distances among inner planets 0.01
mass of Neptune 0.1
total mass of Kuiper Belt asteroids 0.1
mass distribution of Kuiper Belt asteroids 0.2
average rainfall precipitation 0.01
variation and timing of average rainfall precipitation 0.01
atmospheric transparency 0.01
atmospheric pressure 0.01
atmospheric viscosity 0.1
atmospheric electric discharge rate 0.01
atmospheric temperature gradient 0.01
carbon dioxide level in atmosphere 0.01
rates of change in carbon dioxide levels in atmosphere throughout the planet’s history 0.001
rates of change in water vapor levels in atmosphere throughout the planet’s history 0.01
rate of change in methane level in early atmosphere 0.01
oxygen quantity in atmosphere 0.01
nitrogen quantity in atmosphere 0.01
carbon monoxide quantity in atmosphere 0.1
chlorine quantity in atmosphere 0.1
aerosol particle density emitted from forests 0.05
cobalt quantity in crust 0.1
arsenic quantity in crust 0.1
copper quantity in crust 0.1
boron quantity in crust 0.1
cadmium quantity in crust 0.1
calcium quantity in crust 0.4
fluorine quantity in crust 0.1
iodine quantity in crust 0.1
magnesium in crust 0.4
manganese quantity in crust 0.1
nickel quantity in crust 0.1
phosphorus quantity in crust 0.1
potassium quantity in crust 0.4
tin quantity in crust 0.1
zinc quantity in crust 0.1
molybdenum quantity in crust 0.05
vanadium quantity in crust 0.1
chromium quantity in crust 0.1
selenium quantity in crust 0.1
iron quantity in oceans 0.1
tropospheric ozone quantity 0.01
stratospheric ozone quantity 0.01
mesospheric ozone quantity 0.01
water vapor level in atmosphere 0.01
oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere 0.1
quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01
rate of change in greenhouse gases in atmosphere 0.01
poleward heat transport in atmosphere by mid-latitude storms 0.2
quantity of forest & grass fires 0.01
quantity of sea salt aerosols in troposphere 0.1
soil mineralization 0.1
quantity of anaeorbic bacteria in the oceans 0.01
quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans 0.01
quantity of anaerobic nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the early oceans 0.01
quantity, variety, and timing of sulfate-reducing bacteria 0.00001
quantity of geobacteraceae 0.01
quantity of aerobic photoheterotrophic bacteria 0.01
quantity of decomposer bacteria in soil 0.01
quantity of mycorrhizal fungi in soil 0.01
quantity of nitrifying microbes in soil 0.01
quantity & timing of vascular plant introductions 0.001
quantity, timing, & placement of carbonate-producing animals 0.00001
quantity, timing, & placement of methanogens 0.00001
phosphorus and iron absorption by banded iron formations 0.01
quantity of soil sulfur 0.1
ratio of electrically conducting inner core radius to radius of the adjacent turbulent fluid shell 0.2
ratio of core to shell (see above) magnetic diffusivity 0.2
magnetic Reynold’s number of the shell (see above) 0.2
elasticity of iron in the inner core 0.2
electromagnetic Maxwell shear stresses in the inner core 0.2
core precession frequency for planet 0.1
rate of interior heat loss for planet 0.1
quantity of sulfur in the planet’s core 0.1
quantity of silicon in the planet’s core 0.1
quantity of water at subduction zones in the crust 0.01
quantity of high pressure ice in subducting crustal slabs 0.1
hydration rate of subducted minerals 0.1
water absorption capacity of planet’s lower mantle 0.1
tectonic activity 0.05
rate of decline in tectonic activity 0.1
volcanic activity 0.1
rate of decline in volcanic activity 0.1
location of volcanic eruptions 0.1
continental relief 0.1
viscosity at Earth core boundaries 0.01
viscosity of lithosphere 0.2
thickness of mid-mantle boundary 0.1
rate of sedimentary loading at crustal subduction zones 0.1
biomass to comet infall ratio 0.01
regularity of cometary infall 0.1
number, intensity, and location of hurricanes 0.02
intensity of primordial cosmic superwinds 0.05
number of smoking quasars 0.05
formation of large terrestrial planet in the presence of two or more gas giant planets 0.1
orbital stability of large terrestrial planet in the presence of two or more gas giant planets 0.01
total mass of Oort Cloud objects 0.2
mass distribution of Oort Cloud objects 0.2
air turbulence in troposphere 0.1
quantity of sulfate aerosols in troposphere 0.1
quantity of actinide bioreducing bacteria 0.01
quantity of phytoplankton 0.001
hydrothermal alteration of ancient oceanic basalts 0.01
quantity of iodocarbon-emitting marine organisms 0.01
location of dislocation creep relative to diffusion creep in and near the crust-mantle boundary (determines mantle convection dynamics) 0.1
size of oxygen sinks in the planet’s crust 0.2
size of oxygen sinks in the planet’s mantle 0.2
mantle plume production 0.1
number and mass of planets in system suffering significant drift 0.2
mass of the galaxy’s central black hole 0.3
timing of the growth of the galaxy’s central black hole 0.5
rate of in-spiraling gas into galaxy’s central black hole during life epoch 0.05
distance from nearest giant galaxy 0.5
distance from nearest Seyfert galaxy 0.9
amount of mass loss by star in its youth 0.1
rate of mass loss of star in its youth 0.3
rate of mass loss by star during its middle age 0.3
quantity of magnetars (proto-neutron stars with very strong magnetic fields) produced during galaxy’s history 0.05
variation in coverage of star’s surface by faculae 0.5
ratio of galaxy’s dark halo mass to its baryonic mass 0.2
ratio of galaxy’s dark halo mass to its dark halo core mass 0.2
galaxy cluster formation rate 0.1
proximity of supernovae and hypernovae throughout history of planet and planetary system 0.1
tidal heating from neighboring galaxies 0.5
tidal heating from dark galactic and galaxy cluster halos 0.5
intensity and duration of galactic winds 0.3
density of dwarf galaxies in vicinity of home galaxy 0.1
amount of photoevaporation during planetary formation from parent star and other nearby stars 0.2
orbital inclinations of companion planets in system 0.1
variation of orbital inclinations of companion planets 0.2
inclinations and eccentricities of nearby terrestrial planets 0.3
in-spiral rate of stars into black holes within parent galaxy 0.7
strength of magnetocentrifugally launched wind of parent star during its protostar era 0.2
degree to which the atmospheric composition of the planet departs from thermodynamic equilibrium 0.01
delivery rate of volatiles to planet from asteroid-comet belts during epoch of planet formation 0.1
amount of outward migration of Neptune 0.1
amount of outward migration of Uranus 0.1
Q-value (rigidity) of planet during its early history 0.2
variation in Q-value of planet during its early history 0.3
injection efficiency of shock wave material from nearby supernovae into collapsing molecular cloud that forms star and planetary system 0.1
number of giant galaxies in galaxy cluster 0.2
number of large galaxies in galaxy cluster 0.2
number of dwarf galaxies in galaxy cluster 0.2
number and sizes of planets and planetesimals consumed by star 0.3
distance of galaxy’s corotation circle from center of galaxy 0.1
rate of diffusion of heavy elements from galactic center out to the galaxy’s corotation circle 0.2
outward migration of star relative to galactic center 0.3
degree to which exotic matter self interacts 0.01
migration of planet during its formation in the protoplanetary disk 0.1
viscosity gradient in protoplanetary disk 0.1
variations in star’s diameter 0.1
average quantity of gas infused into the universe’s first star clusters 0.1
frequency of late impacts by large asteroids and comets 0.1
level of supersonic turbulence in the infant universe 0.05
number and sizes of intergalactic hydrogen gas clouds in galaxy’s vicinity 0.1
average longevity of intergalactic hydrogen gas clouds in galaxy’s vicinity 0.2
minimization of chloromethane production by rotting plants and fungi that are exposed to the atmosphere (life’s survival demands very efficient burial mechanisms and relatively low temperatures) ..01
avoidance of apsidal phase locking in the orbits of planets in the planetary system 0.03
number density of the first metal-free stars to form in the universe 0.02
epoch during which the first metal-free stars form in cosmic history 0.1
level of spot production on star’s surface 0.2
variability of spot production on star’s surface 0.2
size of the carbon sink in the deep mantle of the planet 0.05
average circumstellar medium density for white dwarf red giant pairs 0.2
number densities of metal-poor and extremely metal-poor galaxies 0.1
rate of growth of central spheroid for the galaxy 0.05
amount of gas infalling into the central core of the galaxy 0.1
level of cooling of gas infalling into the central core of the galaxy 0.1
ratio of dual water molecules, (H2O)2, to single water molecules, H 2O, in the troposphere 0.03
heavy element abundance in the intracluster medium for the early universe 0.1
quantity of volatiles on and in Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone 0.001
rate of infall of intergalactic gas into emerging and growing galaxies during first five billion years of cosmic history 0.1
pressure of the intra-galaxy-cluster medium 0.1
proximity of solar nebula to a type I supernova whose core underwent significant gravitational collapse before carbon deflagration 0.01
timing of solar nebula formation relative to a type I supernova whose core underwent significant gravitational collapse before carbon deflagrataion 0.01
sizes of largest cosmic structures in the universe 0.01
level of spiral substructure in spiral galaxy 0.2
mass of outer gas giant planet relative to inner gas giant planet 0.05
Kozai oscillation level in planetary system 0.7
triggering of El Nino events by explosive volcanic eruptions 0.1
time window between the peak of kerogen production and the appearance of intelligent life 0.1
time window between the production of cisterns in the planet’s crust that can effectively collect and store petroleum and natural gas and the appearance of intelligent life 0.1
reduction of Kuiper Belt mass during planetary system’s early history 0.1
efficiency of stellar mass loss during final stages of stellar burning 0.3
efficiency of flows of silicate melt, hypersaline hydrothermal fluids, and hydrothermal vapors in the upper crust 0.2
supernova eruption rate when galaxy is young 0.2
range of rotation rates for stars are on the verge of becoming supernovae 0.2
quantity of dust formed in the ejecta of Population III supernovae 0.1
chemical composition of dust ejected by Population III stars 0.3
time in cosmic history when the merging of galaxies peaks 0.2
efficiency of ocean pumps that return nutrients to ocean surfaces 0.1
sulfur and sulfate content of oceans 0.3
density of extragalactic intruder stars in solar neighborhood 0.4
density of dust-exporting stars in solar neighborhood 0.3
average rate of increase in galaxy sizes 0.1
change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history 0.1
proximity of solar nebula to asymptotic giant branch stars 0.05
timing of solar nebula formation relative to its close approach to asymptotic giant branch stars 0.05
orientation of continents relative to prevailing winds 0.3
quantity and proximity of gamma-ray burst events relative to emerging solar nebula 0.01
proximity of superbubbles to planetary system during life epoch of life-support planet 0.03
proximity of strong ultraviolet emitting stars to planetary system during life epoch of life-support planet 0.02
number, mass, and distance from star of gas giant planets in addition to planets of the mass and distance of Jupiter and Saturn 0.01
quantity and proximity of galactic gamma-ray burst events relative to time window for intelligent life 0.1
infall of buckminsterfullerenes from interplanetary and interstellar space upon surface of planet 0.3
quantity of silicic acid in the oceans 0.1
heat flow through the planet’s mantle from radiometric decay in planet’s core 0.002
water absorption by planet’s mantle 0.01
timing of star formation peak for the universe 0.2
timing of star formation peak for the galaxy 0.2

When you add it all together and make allowance for dependency factors and longevity requirements, will find that consevatively the odds of there being any life in the universe is 1 in 10 to 282nd power. That would be 10 with 282 zero's behind it.

You see, you need a finely tuned universe, a finely tuned galaxy, a finely tuned solar system and a finely tuned planet. And all these things must happen by accident.

2) You ask, "Again how do you come up with no knowledge if it was by acident?" I answer, again read my paper that is exactly what it discusses.

3) You ask, "BTW what was your definition of knowledge and what are the required elements to get your 'knowledge.'" Once again it is explained in detail in my paper

Z

zorro

03-20-2006, 12:09 PM

Well given that the probability of life being say .00001% given an infinite amount of time, the result will always be the same.

After reviewing the list of factors needed for life in our universe, I realized that what I was getting at may not be as clear as it could be. So, here is a partial list of the factors and why they are important. Let this serve as a sampling for the rest:

1. galaxy cluster type
* if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit
* if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time

2. galaxy size
* if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun’s orbit and ignite too many galactic eruptions
* if too small: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for long enough time

3. galaxy type
* if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy element build-up for life chemistry
* if too irregular: radiation exposure on occasion would be too severe and heavy elements for life chemistry would not be available

4. galaxy mass distribution
* if too much in the central bulge: life-supportable planet will be exposed to too much radiation
* if too much in the spiral arms: life-supportable planet will be destabliized by the gravity and radiation from adjacent spiral arms

5. galaxy location
* if too close to a rich galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
* if too close to very large galaxy(ies): galaxy would be gravitationally disrupted
* if too far away from dwarf galaxies: insufficient infall of gas and dust to sustain ongoing star formation

6. decay rate of cold dark matter particles
* if too small: too few dwarf spheroidal galaxies will form which prevents star formation from lasting long enough in large galaxies so that life-supportable planets become possible
* if too great: too many dwarf spheroidal galaxies will form which will make the orbits of solar-type stars unstable over long time periods and lead to the generation of deadly radiation episodes

7. hypernovae eruptions
* if too few not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets
* if too many: relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary system
* if too soon: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets
* if too late: leads to a galaxy evolution history that would disturb the possibility of advanced life; relative abundances of heavy elements on rocky planets would be inappropriate for life; too many collision events in planetary system

8. supernovae eruptions
* if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
* if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets
* if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets
* if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
* if too soon: heavy element ashes would be too dispersed for the formation of rocky planets at an early enough time in cosmic history
* if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

9. white dwarf binaries
* if too few: insufficient flourine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed
* if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated
* if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient flourine production
* if too late: flourine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet

10. proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
* if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed
* if closer: nebula would be blown apart

11. timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
* if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
* if later: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements

12. number of stars in parent star birth aggregate
* if too few: insufficient input of certain heavy elements into the solar nebula
* if too many: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed

13. star formation history in parent star vicinity
* if too much too soon: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed

14. birth date of the star-planetary system
* if too early: quantity of heavy elements will be too low for large rocky planets to form
* if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratio of potassium-40, uranium-235 & 238, and thorium-232 to iron will be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet

15. parent star distance from center of galaxy
* if farther: quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets; wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet core characteristics
* if closer: galactic radiation would be too great; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits; wrong abundances of silicon, sulfur, and magnesium relative to iron for appropriate planet core characteristics

16. parent star distance from closest spiral arm
* if too large: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great

17. z-axis heights of star’s orbit
* if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet
* if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life

18. quantity of galactic dust
* if too small: star and planet formation rate is inadequate; star and planet formation occurs too late; too much exposure to stellar ultraviolet radiation
* if too large: blocked view of the Galaxy and of objects beyond the Galaxy; star and planet formation occurs too soon and at too high of a rate; too many collisions and orbit perturbations in the Galaxy and in the planetary system

19. number of stars in the planetary system
* if more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbit of life support planet
* if less than one: heat produced would be insufficient for life

20. parent star age
* if older: luminosity of star would change too quickly
* if younger: luminosity of star would change too quickly

21. parent star mass
* if greater: luminosity of star would change too quickly; star would burn too rapidly
* if less: range of planet distances for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the life planet’s rotational period; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen

22. parent star metallicity
* if too small: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist
* if too large: radioactivity would be too intense for life; life would be poisoned by heavy element concentrations

23. parent star color
* if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient
* if bluer: photosynthetic response would be insufficient

24. galactic tides
* if too weak: too low of a comet ejection rate from giant planet region
* if too strong too high of a comet ejection rate from giant planet region

25. H3+ production
* if too small: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry will not form
* if too large: planets will form at wrong time and place for life

26. flux of cosmic ray protons
* if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet’s troposphere
* if too large: too much cloud formation in planet’s troposphere

27. solar wind
* if too weak: too many cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too much cloud formation
* if too strong: too few cosmic ray protons reach planet’s troposphere causing too little cloud formation

28. parent star luminosity relative to speciation
* if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
* if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop

29. surface gravity (escape velocity)
* if stronger: planet’s atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane
* if weaker: planet’s atmosphere would lose too much water

30. distance from parent star
* if farther: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
* if closer: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle

If you would like to see more of these and their implications I would be happy to provide another hundred and twenty or so.

Let me know.

Z

Rob Nasty

03-20-2006, 05:38 PM

Zorro -
Do you have a job?

DarkWolf

03-20-2006, 06:44 PM

Yes, I keep asking what is the criteria for physical proof and you can't answer. It seems quite reasonable that if you keep demanding a proof, yet you have no clue what the criteria is for a proof, that you will never know if sufficient evidence is given. All you can hope for is subjective satisfaction. That is neither objective nor a proof of anything.

It is you who live in a fantasy world. You ask for a physical proof, but you don't know what that is. You rely on sense perception, but have no clue if your perceptions actually represent the world around you.

Here is a hint for you: there is no such thing as a "physical proof." A "proof" requires deductive certainty and any kind of inductive (physical) evidence can only offer probability. This is why I laugh every time you ask for a physical proof and I ask you what that entails. I already know that there is no answer that you could possibly give, and of course, you have not been able to give one. Now, everyone else can get a good laugh the next time you ask of a "physical proof."

Ahh, more fantasy world babble. Vivid dreams indeed. Funny though, I'm aware that the dream is over once the alarm clock goes off in the morning, and it's time to get ready for work. Yet another example of how philosophy and reality tend to clash on certain things. Sure, there are the fringe cases where fantasy (dreams) overtakes reality (you might want to consult a psychiatrist, by the way, you seem dangerously close to doing this yourself), but that's the point of fringe cases. Minority. If, say 50% ... or hell, even 25% of the population regularly confused their dreams with reality, then you might be onto something with this whole "how to we know what we see is real" line of defense you're futily attempting to mount. If you've got some studies to support that claim, by all means, let's see them. And that's not to say, thinking the dream is real as it's occuring, I mean even while awake the dream is still active and consuming their senses. I'd say it's safe to say nearly everyone thinks their dreams are real, as they're occuring. Unless they're proficient in lucid dreaming.

You think you are looking at a computer and that you can touch a mouse, but people also have vivid dreams, that at the time they are dreaming, seem just as real as what you are experiencing now; yet no computer or mouse or anything else is there. If a dream can fool us for a time, what makes you think other things can't fool you too, and over an extended period.

You want to appeal to others, yet you only know what they say through your senses. But it is your senses that are in quesition. This brings anything that your friends say into question too. Your friends could be just as non-existent as your computer. People have vivid dreams about other people and what they say and do. Some dreams are so vivid that, after a while, people have trouble remembering if it was a dream or it actually happened.

So, just because you say, "I know its true, I know it true," really does not mean much, especially since you have no workable theory of reality or theory of knowledge. So, thanks for sharing your mere opinion, but no thanks; Not interested. Propositions are not true just because YOU say so.

So, one more time, how do you justify any of your perceptions are like the world around you?

Ah, so the 100 people I run out and grab at random are figments of my imagination? Interesting. So if that's the case, then it's ok if I shoot them? I mean, if they're only in my imagination, surely the cops won't be out for me. Or would they also be figments of my imagination? Maybe I should run across a major highway without stopping to look first? I mean, since all the cars are just imaginary, if I don't see them, they're not there, right?

Reality doesn't exist only in ones mind. Everyone else experiences it as well, simultaneously. Philosophy is the work of dreams. Only you can know what you're thinking, until you actually tell someone else what you're thinking. If I go on a shooting rampage, people experiencing reality will naturally scatter for cover and try to get away. People stuck in your philosophical dreamworld will assume I don't exist, that I'm just a product of their imagination. Until they have a hole in their head, and finally get to see for certain whether or not god exists.

Philosophy only gets you so far before reality starts getting in the way.

By definition, if it is contradictory, it is wrong. That is unless you want to through out logic. Well, do you?

Contradictory in philosophy does not corrolate to right or wrong in reality. Again, because I so love repeating myself, philosophy only gets you so far.

Philosophies rise and fall based upon the willingness of people to adhere to them. Reality doesn't.

zorro

03-20-2006, 07:16 PM

Zorro -
Do you have a job?

Besides apologetics?

Yes, I guess I do, but it is not as much fun.

Z

zorro

03-20-2006, 08:36 PM

Ahh, more fantasy world babble. Vivid dreams indeed. Funny though, I'm aware that the dream is over once the alarm clock goes off in the morning, and it's time to get ready for work. Yet another example of how philosophy and reality tend to clash on certain things. Sure, there are the fringe cases where fantasy (dreams) overtakes reality (you might want to consult a psychiatrist, by the way, you seem dangerously close to doing this yourself), but that's the point of fringe cases. Minority.

So, your proof that your senses are accurate is an alarm clock? It it because it is impossible to dream about alarm clocks and it is impossible for crazy people to imagine alarm clocks?

[QUOTE=DarkWolf]If, say 50% ... or hell, even 25% of the population regularly confused their dreams with reality, then you might be onto something with this whole "how to we know what we see is real" line of defense you're futily attempting to mount. If you've got some studies to support that claim, by all means, let's see them. And that's not to say, thinking the dream is real as it's occuring, I mean even while awake the dream is still active and consuming their senses. I'd say it's safe to say nearly everyone thinks their dreams are real, as they're occuring. Unless they're proficient in lucid dreaming.

The only way you have of saying that other people don't continually confuse their dreams with reality is through your senses, you perceive what they say and do through your senses, but your sense perception is what is in question.

But it is not only dreaming people or insane people that have problems with their senses. When you observe a reed in a pond and the reed looks bent, does that observation correspond to reality? Is the reed truly bent or is that an optical illusion? In other words, isn’t it the case that his observation does not correspond to reality? You and I know that it is more likely than not that the observation is faulty. That it does not correspond to reality. When you look up at the night sky and see the full moon, then lift your hand and hold out your thumb, do you not see that your thumb blocks out the entire moon? Should you not conclude from this observation that your thumb is larger than the moon? Or should he understand that his observation does not correspond with reality and needs to be tempered with knowledge of distance, optics and physics? When you see the Sun “rise,” is your perception that the Sun is moving around the earth correct or do you understand that the earth is really rotating and it just looks like the Sun is moving across the sky?

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that your senses are actually wrong in most cases, just that given an atheist worldview, you have no way of justifying that your senses have any relationship to the world around you. I think you and I agree on this. You have offered no justification for your sense perception corresponding to the world around you; other than an alarm clock and that is not really a deductive proof is it? That too requires that you justify your sense perception prior to using it as a defense.

Philosophy only gets you so far before reality starts getting in the way.

Contradictory in philosophy does not corrolate to right or wrong in reality. Again, because I so love repeating myself, philosophy only gets you so far.

So, in your world square circles really do exist on architecture plans? Also 2 apples +2 apples =4 apples and 2 apples +2 apples also =5 apples at the same time, in the same way in your worldview.

Do you think that a square circles in several places in a foundation plan will cause the the building to be more or less stable? How about on your bank statement? You say that your balance is $50,000 and your bank says your balance is $5.00 Are you both right, even though your positions contradict, or is one of you WRONG? When you write a check for $20.00 what is going to happen? Will the bank tell you that you are wrong? Will you tell the bank that it is wrong?

What nonsense.

Z

Rob Nasty

03-20-2006, 09:49 PM

I'm curious as to your field of employment, and your age....

zorro

03-20-2006, 09:56 PM

I'm curious as to your field of employment, and your age....

I am 50, I have worked in sales and computers since 1978. I have been sales director and national sales manager of several companies over the years. I am currently working for a nationally recognized computer company.

My major in college was philosophy, with a focus on logic. I have learned far more outside of college than I ever did in.

Regards,

Z

DarkWolf

03-20-2006, 11:12 PM

So, your proof that your senses are accurate is an alarm clock? It it because it is impossible to dream about alarm clocks and it is impossible for crazy people to imagine alarm clocks?

The only way you have of saying that other people don't continually confuse their dreams with reality is through your senses, you perceive what they say and do through your senses, but your sense perception is what is in question.

But it is not only dreaming people or insane people that have problems with their senses. When you observe a reed in a pond and the reed looks bent, does that observation correspond to reality? Is the reed truly bent or is that an optical illusion? In other words, isn’t it the case that his observation does not correspond to reality? You and I know that it is more likely than not that the observation is faulty. That it does not correspond to reality. When you look up at the night sky and see the full moon, then lift your hand and hold out your thumb, do you not see that your thumb blocks out the entire moon? Should you not conclude from this observation that your thumb is larger than the moon? Or should he understand that his observation does not correspond with reality and needs to be tempered with knowledge of distance, optics and physics? When you see the Sun “rise,” is your perception that the Sun is moving around the earth correct or do you understand that the earth is really rotating and it just looks like the Sun is moving across the sky?

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that your senses are actually wrong in most cases, just that given an atheist worldview, you have no way of justifying that your senses have any relationship to the world around you. I think you and I agree on this. You have offered no justification for your sense perception corresponding to the world around you; other than an alarm clock and that is not really a deductive proof is it? That too requires that you justify your sense perception prior to using it as a defense.

Methinks you took "The Matrix" a little to seriously. I know the reed most likely isn't bent, because I know how light refracts in water. Should I feel the need for definitive proof, I can either pull the reed out, or go into the water, and check. I know the moon isn't smaller than my thumb, because I know a little about depth perception. I know that the sun doesn't rotate around the earth, because it's been observed that the earth rotates along it's axis as it's orbiting the sun.

Reality is neat, huh? All your examples actually DO corrospond with reality. Optical illusion, depth perception... real things. Observed by everyone, defined by science. It's not something that only exists in your head.

So, in your world square circles really do exist on architecture plans? Also 2 apples +2 apples =4 apples and 2 apples +2 apples also =5 apples at the same time, in the same way in your worldview.

Do you think that a square circles in several places in a foundation plan will cause the the building to be more or less stable? How about on your bank statement? You say that your balance is $50,000 and your bank says your balance is $5.00 Are you both right, even though your positions contradict, or is one of you WRONG? When you write a check for $20.00 what is going to happen? Will the bank tell you that you are wrong? Will you tell the bank that it is wrong?

What nonsense.

Ok... really... WTF? You lost me on this, because not only does it not have anything to do with what you quoted, it's completely random... moreso than any of your other examples in the past.

Wow.

zorro

03-21-2006, 09:25 AM

Methinks you took "The Matrix" a little to seriously. I know the reed most likely isn't bent, because I know how light refracts in water.

So, you are agreeing with me that your sense perception is faulty and you must rely of knowledge outside of your perception. If you relied on your perception alone you would be forced to say that the reed is bent, and most likely you would be wrong.

Should I feel the need for definitive proof, I can either pull the reed out, or go into the water, and check. I know the moon isn't smaller than my thumb, because I know a little about depth perception. I know that the sun doesn't rotate around the earth, because it's been observed that the earth rotates along it's axis as it's orbiting the sun.

Once again, on both of these issues you agree that your sense perception is faulty and you must rely on other data. Why do you have to pull up the reed? It seems if your perceptions could be trusted, you wouldn't need to pull it up or go under water to find out. But, seeing it out of the water is still another perception. Can you justify that the secondary perception is correct? The first perception was wrong, why not the second too? You just assume it is correct, you have no justification.

Reality is neat, huh? All your examples actually DO corrospond with reality. Optical illusion, depth perception... real things. Observed by everyone, defined by science. It's not something that only exists in your head.

Since you have to reject the perception itself, how do they actually correspond to reality?

The next question will be, if your basic perception is faulty, what makes you think that the perceptions that led you to conclusions about depth perception are not also faulty? They are all perceptions supposedly of the world around us. But we know that effects are usually not like there causes. So, how do you know that any of your perceptions (the effects) are anything like the world around you (the cause)? The fact is, from the atheist position it just can't be done. There can be no justification of sense perception. All you have is, "It's true because I say so." And that has been all you gave us to this point.

Ok... really... WTF? You lost me on this, because not only does it not have anything to do with what you quoted, it's completely random... moreso than any of your other examples in the past.

You said "Contradictory in philosophy does not correlate to right or wrong in reality." I simply pointed out examples of contradictions and they are always wrong. It should be clear to all at this point you have lost the argument. Your attempt to try and bifurcate philosophy and reality is the proof of that. If your philosophy didn't completely contradict reality there would be no need to separate the two. That is the point of my paper. The atheist view does not correspond to reality, but there is a view that does correspond to reality, the theistic cosmology. It accounts for knowledge, sense perception and optical illusions. The elements needed to get to knowledge are all there.

So, the choice is, hold to a position that contradicts reality or hold to a position that doesn't contradict reality. You choose to hold a position that does contradict reality, I don't. What more needs to be said?

Z

DarkWolf

03-21-2006, 01:02 PM

So, you are agreeing with me that your sense perception is faulty and you must rely of knowledge outside of your perception. If you relied on your perception alone you would be forced to say that the reed is bent, and most likely you would be wrong.

Once again, on both of these issues you agree that your sense perception is faulty and you must rely on other data. Why do you have to pull up the reed? It seems if your perceptions could be trusted, you wouldn't need to pull it up or go under water to find out. But, seeing it out of the water is still another perception. Can you justify that the secondary perception is correct? The first perception was wrong, why not the second too? You just assume it is correct, you have no justification.

Since you have to reject the perception itself, how do they actually correspond to reality?

The next question will be, if your basic perception is faulty, what makes you think that the perceptions that led you to conclusions about depth perception are not also faulty? They are all perceptions supposedly of the world around us. But we know that effects are usually not like there causes. So, how do you know that any of your perceptions (the effects) are anything like the world around you (the cause)? The fact is, from the atheist position it just can't be done. There can be no justification of sense perception. All you have is, "It's true because I say so." And that has been all you gave us to this point.

You're still stuck in philosophy land. If the reed appears bent, without further investigation, one can safely assume it's not bent, because of physics, caustics, light refraction, etc. These are real things. Defined. Repeatable. Provable.

You can keep trying, but you're not going to prove atheism wrong based on philosophy alone. And if you keep arguing philosophy alone, the argument is going to go nowhere but in circles, as it's currently doing.

You said "Contradictory in philosophy does not correlate to right or wrong in reality." I simply pointed out examples of contradictions and they are always wrong. It should be clear to all at this point you have lost the argument. Your attempt to try and bifurcate philosophy and reality is the proof of that. If your philosophy didn't completely contradict reality there would be no need to separate the two. That is the point of my paper. The atheist view does not correspond to reality, but there is a view that does correspond to reality, the theistic cosmology. It accounts for knowledge, sense perception and optical illusions. The elements needed to get to knowledge are all there.

So, the choice is, hold to a position that contradicts reality or hold to a position that doesn't contradict reality. You choose to hold a position that does contradict reality, I don't. What more needs to be said?

You pointed out contradictions in reality, that have nothing to do with philosophy. Hence why it had no relavance to what you quoted.

And... my god man, do I have to spell it out for you? You read (presumably), but you don't comprehend. You know what they say about assuming things...

zorro

03-21-2006, 03:59 PM

You're still stuck in philosophy land. If the reed appears bent, without further investigation, one can safely assume it's not bent, because of physics, caustics, light refraction, etc.... You know what they say about assuming things...

So, is assuming things a good thing or a bad thing? Or is assuming good only when you do it?

I really don't know why we are still discussing this. We agree on so much. We agree that atheism is self contradictory. We agree that YOU can't justify knowledge, you just assume it. We agree YOU can't justify sense perception, you just assume it. We agree that sense perception in dreams is false, that sense perception in many mentally ill people is false and that our own sense perceptions often fools us and can't be trusted. So, you simply assume that your sense perceptions are mostly true and offer no justification for them.

You want to bring in science, but science is based on our ability to know and accurate perceptions. Since those prerequisites are unjustified and mere assumption, then everything based on them, including science, are also unjustified and mere assumption.

And you know what they say about assuming things.

You can keep trying, but you're not going to prove atheism wrong based on philosophy alone. And if you keep arguing philosophy alone, the argument is going to go nowhere but in circles, as it's currently doing.

But, we have come such a long way. The list of agreements above demonstates that. And everyone else reading these posts can readily see that the atheistic world view contradicts reality. Hence, your attempt to seperate YOUR philosophy from reality. My philosophical position has no problem with reality and in fact offers justification for it.

If athiesm contradicts reality, as you readily admit, I would say that was a sound reason to say that atheism is false.

It is not all philosophy that is the problem, just yours.

Z

black02mustang

03-21-2006, 07:27 PM

How can their be no "knowledge" if the universe was created by accident?

DarkWolf

03-21-2006, 07:57 PM

So, is assuming things a good thing or a bad thing? Or is assuming good only when you do it?

I really don't know why we are still discussing this. We agree on so much. We agree that atheism is self contradictory. We agree that YOU can't justify knowledge, you just assume it. We agree YOU can't justify sense perception, you just assume it. We agree that sense perception in dreams is false, that sense perception in many mentally ill people is false and that our own sense perceptions often fools us and can't be trusted. So, you simply assume that your sense perceptions are mostly true and offer no justification for them.

You want to bring in science, but science is based on our ability to know and accurate perceptions. Since those prerequisites are unjustified and mere assumption, then everything based on them, including science, are also unjustified and mere assumption.

And you know what they say about assuming things.

But, we have come such a long way. The list of agreements above demonstates that. And everyone else reading these posts can readily see that the atheistic world view contradicts reality. Hence, your attempt to seperate YOUR philosophy from reality. My philosophical position has no problem with reality and in fact offers justification for it.

If athiesm contradicts reality, as you readily admit, I would say that was a sound reason to say that atheism is false.

It is not all philosophy that is the problem, just yours.

One more trip 'round the circle, I see. The problem with your dismissal of our perceptions, is the fact that everyone else perceives the same (we'll exclude the mentally ill for now). Ie: our perceptions aren't just in our heads.

Sure, you can try to use philosophy to argue that we can't know if our perceptions are real. But then the problem comes up in justifying what's real from a philosophical standpoint. And that's impossible to do, due to numerous philosophies, some more popular than others, and some entirely personal and bearing no regard to past or present philosophies. Here's where reality and philosophy collide. Reality has a set of laws that all things follow. Philosophy being the product of thoughts and dreams, has no such laws. In otherwords, you can believe the sky is green, I believe it's blue, and some random fellow off the street can believe it's red. From a philosophical standpoint, none of us are wrong, because our perceptions are only in our heads. I don't know that you believe the sky is green, or the random guy thinks it's red. And I won't know that, until you tell me.

In reality, however, regardless of what you want to believe, the sky is blue, you perceive it as blue, though your mind may tell you blue = green (philosophy vs. reality). In such case, all you've done is change the name of the color, you haven't actually changed the color itself.

Hence, your attempt to seperate YOUR philosophy from reality.

This still cracks me up :D

black02mustang

03-21-2006, 11:32 PM

The answer would be no. The question is, is that a rational proposition? It is also true that if the universe was created by accident, there would be no knowledge. If it is true that there is knowledge, then we know that the universe wasn't created by accident.

But is the basic proposition even rational without the counter argument? Accedentalism means that every partical that has a relation with any other partical has it accidentally. So, with accidentalism, we must assert that every partical in the universe just happened, by accident, to relate to every other partical in a coherent way, thus giving us the laws of physics. Now, we are not talking about kinds of particals accidentally interacting with other kinds of particals, but every individual partical accidentally interacting with every other partical in the same way. For instance each and every electron just happened, by accident, to relate to every proton and nuetron in a way that allows us to do chemistry. By accident, not even one of them relates in a different way.

Well, actually we don't know that life derived from time, chemical reactions, and probability. First of all, if you want to assert accidentalism, you can't rely on probablility. Next, time doesn't do anything. It is not an active force, nor is it a mechanism. But since you brought up probability, what is the probability of the universe existing is such a way that any life could actually exist by accident? What is the probability of even a single solar system existing in such a way that would allow for any life to exist by accident? And what are the probabilities for a planet existing in such a way that would allow any life to exist by accident?

Any clue?

Z

How many solar systems have you analyzed? How many galaxies have you analyzed? How can you preach the fallacy of probability without having first analyzed even a fraction of the solar systems and galaxies in the universe? Mankind has analyzed one solar system to date and has found life on one planet and the possibility of life on several moons of other planets. What is your definition of life? What is your definition of knowledge? You have yet to define them and until you do there is no reason to accept anything you have said.

Any comments?

Fobra

03-21-2006, 11:42 PM

What is your definition of knowledge?
Did you read the article? It's stated quite clearly in it.

black02mustang

03-21-2006, 11:59 PM

1) you have already admitted that the universe came into existence, so you don't have an infinite amount of time, but a finite amount of time. Physicists tell us the universe has been around for about 12 to 15 billion years. Earth has been here about 4.5 billion years, but the conditions for the first 3.7 billion years would not support life. The first signs of life occur right around 3.7 billion years. So, you have virtualy NO time to come up with life by accident.

How did you determine .00001%?

.......

You see, you need a finely tuned universe, a finely tuned galaxy, a finely tuned solar system and a finely tuned planet. And all these things must happen by accident.

2) You ask, "Again how do you come up with no knowledge if it was by acident?" I answer, again read my paper that is exactly what it discusses.

3) You ask, "BTW what was your definition of knowledge and what are the required elements to get your 'knowledge.'" Once again it is explained in detail in my paper

Z

You again answered a question with a question. The .00001% was just a number thrown out there. Given "enough" time the probability of something happening will always equal 1. Do you agree? If you do then you would also admit that even if the probability of life forming was close to zere given enough time it will inevitably happen. That is simple math even you should understand.
My definition of knowledge by what we define it as is as follows
"the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning" ,

"Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning (a posteriori), or through introspection (a priori). Knowledge is an appreciation of the possession of interconnected details which, in isolation, are of lesser value" , "arrange, define, duplicate, label, list, memorize, name, order, recognize, relate, recall, repeat, reproduce state"
these were pulled straight from the dictionary. With life comes knowledge thats it. knowledge evolved as life did. Hell, dogs have knowledge according to these definitions. Since knowledge is just a mixture of instinct, memories, past experiences, and effects from society there does not need to be a certain way for things to happen. Just because we have the same type of atoms bouncing around inside our bodies does not mean we experienced the same things, were taught the same things, were given the same intellectual oppurtunities, etc. Knowledge is just a byproduct of time and life. The farther we go in time the more knowledge we will inevitably have as a race, society or individual. Just because the elements of life started with a few very slim probabilities and possibly by accident does not mean we can't get to "knowledge". If the matter that comprises this world aligned itself over billions of years in a way that promotes the development of life and life developed that is just the way it happened. No god, no outside source, just probability and enough time. Things we thought were impossible are now possible with advances in science and our "knowledge". Again, this knowledge was created with time, expereinces, trial and error, research, etc. Because i can think and you cannot or you believe you can and i believe you cannot, does not justify the assumptions you have made. We can start life ourselves given the right chemical compositions, conditions, etc. Does that make us god? No that just means we can recreate the conditions set forth before our time that brought us to the state that we are in now. Hence we need not a god to get life, knowledge, feelings, thoughts, or even a universe for that matter. Because you can't explain why this universe exists or why we think the way we do does not mean you can claim that the only explanation for these things is "God". Once there is a definite answer as to how the universe was created will you still believe a god created it? Or will there still be that famous question as to why?

zorro

03-22-2006, 09:19 AM

One more trip 'round the circle, I see. The problem with your dismissal of our perceptions, is the fact that everyone else perceives the same (we'll exclude the mentally ill for now). Ie: our perceptions aren't just in our heads.

Please reread my last post. I didn't dismiss our senses, I merely pointed out that from an atheist position they aren't justfiable. I clearly pointed out that from a theistic position they are justified. The problem is not with our senses but with your worldviews inability to justify. As I said in past posts, I affirm that your senses and mine are for the most part accurate. The problem is from your worldview, you have absolutely no reason to affirm that. Your inability to offer anything other than a circular argument demonstrates that. Let's look at this circle:

Darkwolf: Sense perceptions are accurate.
Zorro: How do you know?
D: Other people agree that they are.
Z: How do you know they agree?
D: Through my accurate sense perception.

It should be clear that if sense perception is the question at hand, it can't be the answer, without begging the question. In other words, you must justify your senses prior to using them to justify anything else. The question becomes, can you justify sense perception without committing this fallacy. The clear answer is, No!

Sure, you can try to use philosophy to argue that we can't know if our perceptions are real. But then the problem comes up in justifying what's real from a philosophical standpoint. And that's impossible to do, due to numerous philosophies, some more popular than others, and some entirely personal and bearing no regard to past or present philosophies. Here's where reality and philosophy collide. Reality has a set of laws that all things follow. Philosophy being the product of thoughts and dreams, has no such laws. In otherwords, you can believe the sky is green, I believe it's blue, and some random fellow off the street can believe it's red. From a philosophical standpoint, none of us are wrong, because our perceptions are only in our heads. I don't know that you believe the sky is green, or the random guy thinks it's red. And I won't know that, until you tell me.

Once again, you missed my point. It is not the case that all philosophies are unable to justify sense perceptions, but yours is one of those that cannot. It seems a pretty easy call to me that we should reject those philosophies that can't justify knowledge and sense perception in favor of those that can. I agree that any philosophy that says you can't really know anything should be rejected, and one philosophy that does that is atheism. So, since we agree on this, why is it you refuse to reject atheism?

Z

zorro

03-22-2006, 09:31 AM

"Knowledge is the awareness and understanding of facts,.....

All of this is addressed in my paper. If you are going to refuse to read it, I will not rewrite it all here.

Here is the link, one more time:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/atheism1.htm

Z

DarkWolf

03-22-2006, 10:24 AM

Please reread my last post. I didn't dismiss our senses, I merely pointed out that from an atheist position they aren't justfiable. I clearly pointed out that from a theistic position they are justified. The problem is not with our senses but with your worldviews inability to justify. As I said in past posts, I affirm that your senses and mine are for the most part accurate. The problem is from your worldview, you have absolutely no reason to affirm that. Your inability to offer anything other than a circular argument demonstrates that. Let's look at this circle:

Darkwolf: Sense perceptions are accurate.
Zorro: How do you know?
D: Other people agree that they are.
Z: How do you know they agree?
D: Through my accurate sense perception.

It should be clear that if sense perception is the question at hand, it can't be the answer, without begging the question. In other words, you must justify your senses prior to using them to justify anything else. The question becomes, can you justify sense perception without committing this fallacy. The clear answer is, No!

First, how is that any different than "I think, therefore I am", or more specifically "I have an idea of a Perfect Being in my imperfect mind. Only a Perfect Being could put that idea into my imperfect mind. God exists."

Second, you could've ended your example as such:

Darkwolf: Sense perceptions are accurate.
Zorro: How do you know?
D: Other people agree that they are.

The problem with your example is this is only circular, because you've forced philosophy on it. Confirmation through repeatable phenomena (such as the laws of physics), is not confirmation through popular belief. My argument isn't that "other people agree that perceptions are accurate", my argument is that reality is experienced by others, because it adheres to a set of laws that are definable, provable, and repeatable.

Once again, you missed my point. It is not the case that all philosophies are unable to justify sense perceptions, but yours is one of those that cannot. It seems a pretty easy call to me that we should reject those philosophies that can't justify knowledge and sense perception in favor of those that can. I agree that any philosophy that says you can't really know anything should be rejected, and one philosophy that does that is atheism. So, since we agree on this, why is it you refuse to reject atheism?

This will never get old :D

As I've said before, contradiction in philosophy != contradiction in reality.

I could spell it out for you, but I get too much amusement seeing you just not getting it. And I hope you never do, because this is too amusing. It's the one thing that keeps me coming back to this argument.

black02mustang

03-22-2006, 10:36 AM

All of this is addressed in my paper. If you are going to refuse to read it, I will not rewrite it all here.

Here is the link, one more time:

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/atheism1.htm

Z
WTF? I just answered your question on what my definition of knowledge is...What does that have to do with your paper? Your paper is logic nased on bullshit. Bullshit being the connections you have made between how the universe was created, interactions of other planets and knowledge. Please quit avoiding the questions I have asked.

black02mustang

03-22-2006, 10:47 AM

“An understanding of words, concepts and ideas that are independent or transcendent from deterministic necessity....”

How can you prove that? Just because some things in nature cannot and do not follow in any specific laws they and are only governed by probability (quantum physics), does not mean that all things have to follow that same approach. Its not saying that electrons choose to follow a different orbit, we just cannot explain why we simply...."can't explain why they behave the way that they do". In a larger scale atoms, molecules and up...we can however determine the position of planets and other large objects using classical physics. The definition of knowledge has nothing to do with some of the deterministic properties of nature...period. We are a collection of atoms, molecules etc, but that does not mean we cannot think on our own. That is the difference between life that has evolved and atoms and basic chemicals.

black02mustang

03-22-2006, 11:11 AM

Maybe this will clear a few things up...
This is off of a site I found earlier.
Heres the site if you need it (http://rwor.org/a/032/avakian-big-bang-evolution.htm)

...Let's take what has been said here—contrasting the scientific method with a religious worldview, and contrasting in particular the leap from perceptual to rational knowledge with "leaps of faith"—and apply this to examples the writer of this letter emphasizes: evolution and the Big Bang. It is a fact that evolution and the Big Bang have in common that they are scientific theories that provide explanation for fundamental aspects of the development of the known universe (the universe that is known to human beings) and of our earth and the living things, including human beings, on this earth. (In very basic terms, the Big Bang theory says that the universe, as we know it today, including our earth, originated with a cataclysmic [sudden and violent] explosion of matter billions of years ago.) At the same time, while there is substantial scientific evidence supporting the theory of the Big Bang, the theory of evolution is even more firmly established and has been confirmed by over 150 years of scientific testing and review, since the time that Charles Darwin first systematized the theory of evolution in the 19th century. This includes the understanding that human beings evolved out of a long succession of life-forms that have evolved over several billion years, and it includes clear evidence that human beings and the great apes are closely related biologically, and that in fact they shared common ancestor species from which they diverged along separate evolutionary paths only a few million years ago. The very important series The Science of Evolution, by Ardea Skybreak, which appeared in our Party's newspaper (and which I understand will be published in the not-too-distant future as a book by Insight Press), provides a thorough explanation of the theory of evolution and how it has been demonstrated—repeatedly, from many different directions, and by the application of the scientific method in many different fields—to be true; how continuing scientific investigation and summation, from many different fields of science (including genetics as well as the fossil record and many other "fields of scientific inquiry") continue to validate and provide further evidence for evolution; how there has not ever been a single scientific discovery or verified fact which in any way would disprove evolution or call it into question; how, in sum, evolution is one of the most well-established and fundamental theories in all of science, one of the most fundamental components of a true understanding of reality. And The Science of Evolution also thoroughly exposes and refutes attempts by religious fundamentalists and some others to call evolution into question or to challenge its fundamental truths, through putting forward literal Biblical "Creationism" or "more sophisticated" distortions of reality, such as "Intelligent Design," which is in fact another variant of "Creationism."

With this in mind, let's look at the claim by the writer of this letter that evolution, no less than the Big Bang, is "just as much a leap of faith as the biblical version of creation." From all that has been said so far, it should be clear that this statement is utterly and completely false. Evolution has been shown to be true and has been continually further verified, by application of the scientific method — which, again, involves definite leaps from perceptual to rational knowledge but involves nothing of a "leap of faith." In fact, "leaps of faith" are alien to, and are in direct conflict with and violation of, the scientific method—and if it can be shown that, as opposed to a logical leap from perceptual to rational knowledge, a scientific theory actually involved "a leap of faith" which by definition could not be substantiated, or even tested, by scientific methods, that theory would immediately be understood to be invalid according to the standards of science and the scientific method. There are no "leaps of faith" in the scientific method, and there is no "leap of faith" in the theory of evolution; its findings and the means by which they have been arrived at (and are continually being further verified and validated), are in direct opposition to "leaps of faith" and to the notion of an understanding of reality that relies on such "leaps of faith" and on "faith" as some kind of means for arriving at the truth about reality. Therefore, when I (and, more significantly for this discussion, the overwhelming, overwhelming majority of scientists in the field of biology and more generally people in the scientific community) declare, without hesitation, that "Evolution is a fact!"—this may annoy the writer of this letter and upset his religious prejudices, but that does not make it any less true that evolution is, indeed, a fact.

And by now it should also be clear what is fundamentally wrong with the comment by the writer of this letter that, "since no one was there to record the Big Bang, it too is just as much a leap of faith as the biblical version of creation." While (at least to my understanding) the Big Bang, as a scientific theory, is not as well substantiated and verified as evolution—and while there is definitely much more to be learned about the origins and developments of the universe (or perhaps many different universes), and people in the field of physics (or other sciences) would be the first to say this—it is not at all the case that the theory of the Big Bang is just as much a matter of a "leap of religious faith" as the myth of biblical creation. First of all, the story of creation, as told in the book of Genesis in the Bible, is simply wrong—it is clearly contradicted by many scientifically established facts in many particular details and in its overall presentation—not the least of which is the fact that it can be shown, scientifically, that the earth is billions of years old, not a few thousand years old, that the earth revolves around the sun, and that many other forms of plant and animal species existed long before human beings first appeared on earth. In opposition to this biblical creation myth, while (again, to my understanding) the Big Bang theory has not been as thoroughly verified by scientific methods as evolution has, it is certainly not the case that the Big Bang theory is, at this point at least, contradicted, in its main features, by scientific understanding and by results arrived at through the scientific method—as, again, is definitely the case with the biblically based myth of creation.

It is of course true that no human being was around at the time of the Big Bang. But this does not invalidate the Big Bang theory or reduce it to "an article of faith" like the biblically based myth of creation. Human beings come to know many things about reality which we do not directly experience or witness. The Big Bang theory has in fact been formulated and developed through a process (which is ongoing) of proceeding from things that have already been clearly established and demonstrated, from many directions, to be true, and "putting these things together" to draw a conclusion about the larger reality that these things are part of. In other words, there is indeed a leap involved here—but, once again, it is not a "leap of faith," or anything like it, but a leap from evidence to a conclusion about what the evidence shows to be true.

In short, in developing the Big Bang theory, scientists in the fields of astronomy and physics, and other fields, have proceeded from what they do know—what has been scientifically established and tested and verified—about the universe to draw further inferences and conclusions about the universe, including its origins. And at every stage in the development of this scientific theory (as in all scientific theories), these inferences and conclusions have to be, and are, subjected to further testing in reality before they can be raised to the level of a verified theory and gain general acceptance. The Big Bang theory is a work in progress, but it is not idle speculation: the very questions it poses and explores, the research it stimulates, and the concrete facts it has so far helped to uncover are based on previously accumulated scientific evidence about reality. And this once again marks a profound difference between the scientific method and "religious faith"—since the latter, by definition, does not draw its conclusions, or make its assertions, based on a scientific investigation of and summation of actual reality and cannot, by definition, be tested by scientific methods. In contrast to the biblical creation story of the origin of the universe, the fact is that the Big Bang theory is being continually subjected to further scientific "probing" and analysis. Even though it is true that no human being was present at the time that scientists have calculated that the Big Bang occurred (about 15 billion years ago) the development of new technology—including more powerful telescopes and related instruments, which can be sent into space to record things—has enabled scientists to learn much more about what happened at a time which was shortly after the time when the Big Bang is believed to have occurred, at a point in space far from where our earth now exists. ("Shortly" in this context means something like a billion years, which is not that great a time span in the context of the universe and its development. The reason that scientists are able, in this way, to "see far into the past" in the universe's development has to do with the relation between time and space. Since things that are observed by human beings—directly or with the aid of telescopes and similar instruments—are "transmitted" to us through the medium of light, and at the speed of light, things that occurred long ago but also a long distance from the observer take a long time to reach the observer, even though the speed of light is very fast compared to other everyday movements we are familiar with. For example, if you are in a thunderstorm, you will see a lightning bolt before you hear the thunder connected with it, even though the two actually are part of one phenomenon and actually occurred at the same time. The reason you see the lightning first is that lightning travels at the speed of light, which is much faster than the speed of sound which brings the noise of the thunder.)

What scientists have learned through this "looking back in time," getting ever closer to the time when the Big Bang is believed to have occurred, has tended to substantiate (to back up and further confirm) the Big Bang theory, even while it has raised new questions relating to all this. But once more the crucial fact here, in relation to what is raised by the writer of this letter—and, more importantly, in relation to fundamental questions concerning what is truth and how human beings arrive at knowledge of the truth, and test that knowledge—is that in no way does this increasing knowledge relating to the origins of the known universe have anything to do with the application of religious principles or "leaps of faith." In fact, once again this increasing knowledge—arrived at through scientific methods and logical leaps from perceptual to rational knowledge that are consistent with and part of the scientific method—is in contradiction to,and refutes the biblically based myth of creation, further providing evidence that it is exactly that: a myth, invented several thousand years ago, by human beings who lacked knowledge of how the universe (as we know it), the earth, and the living things on the earth (including human beings) actually came into being.

*****

Knowing about actual reality—and continually learning more about it—is vitally important for humanity and its future; it is vitally important not only for people in the sciences and the academic world but for the brutally oppressed and exploited people of the earth, who must and can be the backbone and driving force of a revolution to throw off and put an end to all forms of exploitation and oppression, throughout the globe—to be the emancipators not only of themselves but ultimately of all humanity. Confronting reality as it actually is—and as it is changing and developing—and understanding the underlying and driving forces in this, is crucial in order to play a decisive and leading role in bringing about this revolution and ushering in a whole new era in human history, which will shatter and remove forever not only the material chains—the economic, social and political shackles of exploitation and oppression—that enslave people in today's world but also the mental chains, the ways of thinking and the culture, that correspond to and reinforce those material chains. In the "Communist Manifesto," Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, who founded the communist movement over 150 years ago, declared that the communist revolution, and its emancipating principles, methods, and aims, involves a "radical rupture" not only with the traditional property relations that enslave people, in one form or another, but also a radical rupture with all traditional ideas that reflect and reinforce those traditional property relations.

The struggle in the realm of epistemology —the theory of knowledge and how it is acquired by people, the theory of what is true and how people come to know the truth—is a crucial arena in the overall battle for the emancipation of the oppressed and exploited majority of humanity, and ultimately of humanity as a whole. Grasping the defining characteristics and the importance of the scientific method—and, most of all, the most consistent, systematic and comprehensive scientific approach to reality, the communist world outlook and method, which can embrace without replacing or suffocating the many fields of human knowledge and endeavor and can give expression to the richest process of learning about reality and transforming it in the interests of humanity—is of vital importance for this emancipatory struggle. Understanding the profound difference between the attempt to impose "faith-based" notions on reality and, in opposition to that, pursuing a scientific understanding of reality, including of religion and its origins and effects—understanding the radical difference between "leaps of faith" and the ongoing acquisition of knowledge through continual leaps from perceptual knowledge to rational knowledge—this is a crucial part of carrying forward the struggle to achieve the two radical ruptures that mark the communist revolution as the leap to a whole new, liberating era in human history.

I also suggest reading this article as well...
here... (http://rwor.org/a/031/avakian-leap-faith-rational-pt2.htm)