Well, that does it. I'm on my way down to hell to get some ice.

That is false, Sky. The rules of logic determine validity and truth value(liklihood based upon the argumentative form and it's relation to fact). A primary premise which contains established fact, along with a secondary premise which contains the same thing that necessarily lead to a conclusion deem that conclusion as necessarily true.

So, truth is not relative to the logic in a broad sense, especially concerning the premises. Without factual premises, there can be no factual conclusions. Therefore, logic does not determine truth/fact.

Do you follow me here?

Yeah.

I said "the rules of logic determine truth".

You said "the rules of logic determine truth value".

Now I’m just not up for slogging through that ole semantic swamp. So suffice it to say that, in the context of my intended meaning, I consider the two statements effectively identical, and I recognize and accept that you may not.

So let’s go back to the original statement and response . . .

First of all, I do not identify “first person perspective” with “first person thought process”. To me “perspective” is a static reference point, whereas “though process” is an action. So from this point on, it seems we were talking about two different things.

Secondly, the logic still does not assign any value/use/worth/relevance. If I correctly understand what you mean by “truth value” (as differentiated from simply “truth”) it has no intrinsic reference point outside the structure of the logical process. The only value it can have outside that process is the value the first-person perspective assigns to the logical process itself.

Do you follow me here?

Bull.
You're constantly saying "I think chance is the only alternative and chance is ridiculous so there must be design." Never all in one sentence but most of you posts progress in that order and the longer ones loop back to further pick at random chance like it's the only possibility besides creator.

Radioactivity is the reason we don't commonly see atoms larger than 92 protons. If not for radioactivity then the energy of a supernova exploding would be the reason we didn't see higher because it takes more and more energy as you count up and the biggest supernovae are rarer than common sized ones (gasp!) so you'd see fewer of the largest ones.

Now I'm focusing on relative amounts because you've used the term abundance. I've had a little more than an introduction to astronomy so I know exactly what "abundance of the elements" refers to.

Nonetheless this is still an explanation for why you wouldn't see infinitely big atoms. Maybe if proton scale particles were irreducible you would see some truly tremendous particles at the centers of black holes but because of that neutron rebound in supernovae we'd have been largely left at iron and you'd be asking why there were only 30 atoms (Iron is number 26.)

And without any particular energy required to stick another proton into a nucleus? Well then we would see atoms just continue on up to arbitrarily large numbers but even then we would see fewer of the larger ones because of the 10 marbles in a jar thing I explained.

And if elements we just irreducible themselves and you had no particular order to count them in? Well f_ck, that's too different from our universe for me to even stab at how many we should see. It would depend entirely on what made an atom a different element but by this point we've stripped all the properties of an atom away to nothing.

It doesn't explain the physical constants but you're radically opposed to the current attempts at figuring those out and nobody here is enough of mathematician to understand that explanation anyway.

Other fields, however, do explain why. Usually in simple math.
Survival of the fittest? Well when you know fitness is measured in reproductive success then it's obvious that those who make lots of healthy babies keep their genes around while people who make only sickly or no babies do not. Those that don't survive aren't, gasp, still around years later.

Or are you going to insist that I explain why having something come to an end should mean that it doesn't continue? I don't think anyone else would agree with you if you tried to say that a non-designed universe shouldn't have any continuity.

What science doesn't do is tell point to a single thing and say it is the explanation for everything.

But hey, if you want to insist that science doesn't explain anything fine. Big deal. It's not like there is anything else that explains anything.

Part of describing cause and effect necessarily involves explaining things.

Because anyone that disagrees with you is just too stupid to understand? Yawn, I've heard better people rattle on about that.

From my perspective it's been more like your cat trying to convert me to the religion of the magical food dispensing hand. Free petting in the afterlife.

You've been insisting you've got solid science in all the posts I had been replying to so I stayed on that track. If you want to talk philosophy let's do it. Present your argument.

JB and you are talking about very different things. You just stick the same title on them so you consider each other allies.

And you keep saying that you see something that couldn't be anything but the work of a designer. Admit that you don't see anything that conflicts with a universe that had no designer and I'll gladly lighten up about that.

Sort of. Science is the business of working things out backwards every time you don't get a chance to watch it happen yourself. We've watched quite a bit happen and in the fields you scoff at they're trying to work backwards from those things. After we've worked backwards far enough and have potentially figured out the earlier step we go about trying to duplicate it or otherwise check for it in ways we hadn't yet and if we confirm it people throw parties because they just got themselves a big check from an investor that will pay for them working on another step.

So in a sense it takes what already exists for granted but only until it's relatively able to work out why that exists. Turns out the thing before it gets taken for granted for awhile but then people start scratching at that to try and figure out what's under it and so on.

Of course, if we could just start at the beginning and watch everything from there we'd do it in a heart beat but we can't so we're stuck taking the long route of figuring things out backwards.

I can see a larger picture than that. There is at least as much folly in calling it the act of a celestial father figure.

Are you willing to argue that 5+7=12 is evidence of a creator? There are infinite numbers, if it's all just chance why should those two added up just equal one number when they could equal infinite numbers?

I've just been responding to you on the terms you laid out. Present some philosophy and I'll jump right on that train.

Life has the nature it does because atoms have the nature they do because of the four fundamental forces having the nature they do because of, maybe, strings having the nature they do because of membranes having the nature they do and so on. Is your best argument against this that "it's not a religion"?

Oh the irony~

Well no, I don't think mufflers and such assemble themselves (and besides, most of the parts have the name of the manufacturer stamped onto them.)

It's just adorable watching you go through the motions of this argument as if you're talking to someone else who has made different arguments.

Oh I know that. Because of the Calabi Yau manifold and vibrational quanta. I don't understand those well enough to simplify them a whole lot for everyone but they'd be the reasons those particles are as they are.

Ultimately it goes back to stuff like how combining ten marbles into on unit gives you fewer units than if you left each marble as it's own unit.

You seem a bit behind the times. It's time to move that goalpost back.

You haven't asked any mature questions about them. I'm not going to be so condescending to tell you that I know what you meant to ask and go on about that. Ask me questions that actually ask about these things and I'll go into it.

I'm going to give you a check plus anyway because although this argument is basically against the limits we had ten years ago at least you didn't overshoot by two or three decades like most of the people I see arguing this sort of thing.

Well, if you want to point to the fossil record and complain about a gap and then when someone shows you a creature that fits in the gaps through a bigger fit because now there are two gaps, one on each side of it...

Just keep moving that goalpost~

I'd say don't watch it because the author wrote it to be an *******. Seriously, he was pissed off about the Narnia books having some themes similar to the Bible so he decided it was propaganda and then instead of working to unraveling the propaganda he just wrote counter propaganda that was a whole lot less subtle.

Or don't watch it because the main character is a completely unlikable brat who only does anything good randomly against everything the rest of her behavior has established or because the evil organization that's supposed to be the Church doesn't pose a threat so much as a nuisance...[/rant]

No, it shows a problem in rules that were laid out.
Do you even pay attention to what's happening or just look for baseless ways to declare that I've lost the argument?



It's awfully dirty to hang around saying "I'm just explaining my view point. It's only an opinion" and then declare that you've won an argument.

Which is it? Are you arguing or are you just letting people know WHAT you think? Choose one and stick with it.

By that logic God or any original designer would be impossible.

Should I take this as support for the naturalistic origin side of this discussion?

Ooh, but you're not saying you've got any proof for design. *ghost noises*

False dichotomy fallacy. You can't pretend there aren't more options and knocking down one doesn't prop your up. It doesn't matter if you're dealing with science of philosophy here; the fallacy is invalid in both.

So please, give us an argument for any of this without fallacies?


I've been trying to be relatively nice to you but that post deserves a dunce cap. Each and every thing in this thread presented as "evidence" has be fallacious.

It's not "I see no evidence of intelligent design" but rather "Ok, that's not evidence in science of philosophy. Can you show me anything else?"


An argument not based on fallacy would be just lovely.



It feels a lot like being advertised to. "If I hear about those penis pills just a few tens of thousands of times surely I'll eventually decide to buy some!"

So for anyone following this loosely it's ironic how he takes this supposed designer for granted while he levies these complaints against anyone who opposes him.

He doesn't seem to care about being a hypocrite though as he just brushes anything he can't handle under the rug and returns to his habitual argument while declaring it even better than it was before.

"Trying to be nice?" Yeh, it really shows.. since there is no "try" there is only "do or do not do." (Wisdom from Yoda, Star Wars )

As I said before, I have never claimed to have "scientific evidence" and I don't expect my evidence to be valid scientifically. I simply produced and gave examples of the evidence that I see and accept from my philosophical point of view.

It has never been my intention (or goal) to convince s/he who does not want to be convinced. (That includes all of my conversations on this entire club.)

It has never been my intention or goal to prove anything to anyone.

My sole intention and agenda for any of my conversations in this club is an attempt to understand another person's point of view. Sometimes that is done via 'argument' and other times it is done via expressing my opinion and reasoning.

I am willing to leave myself completely open for criticism and ridicule from anyone who feels they should or desire to do so. (Even if it makes you feel better by telling me that I deserve a "dunce" cap.)

Now I understand more about your point of view. I hope you feel gratified and justified and have accomplished whatever it is that you are 'trying' to accomplish by posting your views and opinions.

If you have a problem with my rules, then make up your own rules, I don't care.


No, I never pay attention to what's happening. I just look for baseless ways to declare that I've lost the argument.

Thus sayeth the pot.

Your last sentence says it all. Logic can only be applied to known facts. You, yourself have rejected the extrapolation of "known facts" that exist within the universe, to properties of anything that might exist "outside" of the universe. You had no choice but to do that, other wise my logical argument for design would be valid. The only reason that it's not a valid argument is because extrapolation of known facts within the universe cannot be extrapolated outside of the universe.

On this point I'm in total agreement. And this is why I recognize that my "evidence" for design (i.e. my evidence that this universe is not happenstance) cannot be extrapolated outside of the universe because it's based on fact contained within the universe.

So, in short, all you've verified in your above comments is that logic cannot be applied to the question of evidence for designer because it requires that we already know the facts that exist outside of the universe. Since that is impossible to know, then logical cannot even be applied to the problem at all.

So why even demand that speculations about this question are restricted by logic when by your own analysis logic isn't even applicable?




Again, all you're confessing here is that logic cannot be brought to bear on this question since we cannot know any facts concerning any hypothesized original source

With this I agree, however, I disagree with your following comments:



So what?

The very question of original source assumes that an original source exists. And the very reason we assume this is because we can't imagine how the universe could come into existence without an original source.

So all you need to do is take that one step further and recognize that many people cannot imagine how anthropomorphic could come into being if they didn't have an original source.

What's there difference? I claim that the only difference here is a matter of personal intuition and opinion,.

Moreover, let's go back to your earlier comment about logic:



But logic is absolute in some situations. For example, within mathematical formalism. Mathematical formalism is a formalism in which starting premises have been carved in stone so-to-speak, via community acceptance. Those very special premises are called axioms. Once that has been done mathematics had become 'absolute'. Although even that had been shown by Kurt Godel to have been a false assumption (but that's a whole other story).

The point being that the only thing that even had a chance at making logic absolute was to force everyone to accept that same starting premises.

In the case of logic outside of the formalism of mathematics the choice of premises becomes open to personal opinion and intuition.

We been through this so many times in the past. Where logic leads can depend entirely on the premises chosen.

For example you choose the premise that the properties of anthropomorphism that we observe within this universe should not be considered when considering the nature of its source.

I, on the other hand, choose the premise that all of the properties exhibited by this universe should be considered when considering questions concerning the nature of its source.

Both of these could potentially be considered "logical" views.

You might argue that you believe that the properties of "anthropomorphism" arose purely by random chance within the universe and therefore do not in anyway reflect back on the nature of its source.

So your "logic" is then based upon your assumptions. Because you're very premises are based on your assumptions. And so it is your premises are what dictate how your particular choice of logical reasoning must unfold.

The same could be said of my logic. I see no reason to dismiss the observed properties of this universe when considering the nature of it's source.

You have no right to tell me that this is an 'illogical' approach. From my point of view, your total dismissal of the observed anthropomorphic properties of this universe as being irrelevant to the question of the nature of its source appears to be utterly illogical and absurd to me.

I could just as easily argue that you're the one who's being utterly illogical.

Your continued stance that your logical reasoning somehow trumps everyone else's is truly pathetic.

It's ok for you to suggest that this is cool logic for you. If your happen with dismissing observed properties of the universe when considering the nature of its source more power to you.

However, your continued and relentless arguments always appear to be of the form that everyone else is using logic incorrectly and that you're the only one who is using logic properly. That's just baloney.

Logic is driven by the premises we accept at the onset.

IMHO, you're starting with the premise that you can ignore major properties of the universe when considering the nature of its source.

Where's the logical justification in that?

"We've concluded" doesn't match with "for him, that's all that matters."

Do any of you understand what fallacies are?

I'm referring to all of the sciences put together without a creator from outside of "the box" having any involvement in it.

I guess, to condense it down to a single phrase, I'm talking about order without intention.

When people told me it wasn't possible for my opinion to be right.

I'm not particularly fond of people flipping between "it's just my opinion" and "well it's proven now" anyway though so even if you had been agreeing with me and doing that I'd call it if I saw it.

That is what Abra has been saying. I tell him it's neither of his options and he tells me if it's not a designer then it's random chance no matter how much I protest. If he would actually pose a philosophical argument for why it must be that way we might get somewhere but he is behaving as if he is some higher authority and we just have to accept that without explanation.

He is very much telling me that I don't get to choose my own opinion. Just look and it's visible whether you delve into the psychology of it or not.

You should probably look at what Abra has actually been saying. You're against using the term creator but he's all for it and has very much posed his view as exactly that.

He refers to all of existence as "God's dirt" and insists that our universe couldn't have any kind of order if a supreme being hadn't personally made it so. This isn't even compatible with what Sky has been talking about because the "where are all the failed universes" question necessarily means that you can have physical rules that can result in order if combined appropriately and that it should be possible for all combinations to exist but with the caveat that that's only an idea until we start finding other universes.

You three would really be at each other's throats if you didn't view each other as support to help you appear as the majority in here.

Do you worship that consciousness we are all connected to?

If you count faulty evidence then I agree. There's no legitimate evidence though, or would you like to list all of your arguments again so I can tell everyone which fallacies they fall into again?

Science or philosophy? You really can't go jumping back and forth between the two so frequently.

Can you present a single piece of evidence without using fallacies?


But for pages and pages you've been insisting that it is the argument that everything around us is random. I much prefer this newer stance of yours though so I will request you stick to it.

You're confusing when we use it with what it is.

-

Almost all of my posts are rather huge. Why do you keep dropping the majority of what I say? I would think it was to make it look like you're saying ten times as much as I am but I'm in the interest of not just saying that I'm open minded but actually giving people the chance to present a case for themselves,
so here you go~

But it doesn't really work. What you must mean is that it is something you are willing to accept.

But you shouldn't. As we heard awhile ago humans are mortal. Dogs are mortal. Dogs are humans.

Now abra has been arguing in the form of A then B, B only if A and that would work much better but I'm disputing the B only if A part. He's constantly swapping between whether he's talking about science of philosophy though as if to make things so difficult to follow that anyone chasing him would veer off into a canyon or something.

It's ok though. He's much easier to follow when you realize the bulk of his argument is "my argument is awesome." It gets a bit repetitive telling him that it's not and that I've answered all of his science questions with science while he hasn't formally posed any philosophy questions but if I keep at it he'll either do that or look like an idiot when it becomes clear to everyone that he's not able to. I personally prefer the first option but at least the second would give some closure to this and I could get back to just talking to you and JB.



Sorry, Sky, unless you accept what "works" for Creative you'll forever be deemed to be an illogical person by him. Or like the original Hindu people I will, gasp, have an effect on his thinking as I continue to show how formal logic works and that it's a good thing.
*They had their civilization taken over by barbarians but their culture conquered the barbarian one from within.

This thread wasn't about establishing proof for not-creation. I've only gone on about how atoms work to try and teach you what a false dilemma is and why it's fallacious,
you sh_t for brains narcissist.

Now, you already get how ad hominems aren't real arguments. That's what fallacy means. As I've said all of your arguments for a designer are easily identifiable fallacies. They aren't arguments for your position any more that the italicized thing there was an argument for mine.

I sank your battleship and you can say that you wanted the water in there all you want but it won't make it real.

It's odd how you recognize that knocking down arguments on "your side" doesn't amount to a win while you've been doing exactly that and declaring victory from the start. By odd I of course mean ironic but I'm trying to be subtle about pointing out your personality flaws because I don't have anything against you; I just want to show that your arguments don't hold water and that's got nothing to do with who you are as a person, or at least not within the confines of this thread.

Well yes, definitely. Solipsism is philosophy so it can't be wrong but it's definitely a weak and useless philosophy.

No intention behind it? Ok, I don't have any problem with saying that. We've definitely got at least some intelligence on at least one rock in this galaxy so that's all the criteria right there.

Too bad that's never what people mean by ID though.

That's very nearly what JB has been saying. If she'd just drop that surrogate god out of the picture she'd have...
well, a worthless position that doesn't really say anything. Not wrong but definitely weak.

I'm not so prideful that I couldn't argue that but I feel it would be too great a tangent for this thread and honestly I don't think you have the philosophical maturity to make it interesting.

Computers aren't intelligent. Why should anyone care about how they photons at you from their screens?

If not intelligent that means it would essentially be automatic and as the argument was that there is no intelligence period that means your caring about it is equally automatic. As non-intelligent beings any "why should" question would be irrelevant. It all becomes do or do not.

Shoku, just for your own information you might want to read the rules of this forum. Stalking specific individuals for the purpose of attempting to humiliate them is against the rules.

I see that your posts clearly have this goal in mind, and in your above quote you proclaimed that this would be your mission.

You appear to have become totally obsessed with twisting my quotes out of context for the sole purpose of making it appear that you are achieving your personal vendetta above.

I can assure you that no intelligent person is buying into your plot.

If you have something constructive to offer with respect to the topic please feel free to offer it. In the meantime I suggest that you abandon your personal vendetta, as it will serve you no good purpose.

Do you often have yourself doing this when discussing philosophy or science in these forums?

Shoku asked:




I guess that would depend on what you mean by "worship."

I appreciate life. I am grateful for my existence.

I am joyful always.

Amen to that!

But I respect that he lets his 'agenda' be known. LOL

What is he doing, taking a crap? LOL

Ok, I understand that you hold that opinion. And as I said, I have no problem with that.

You’ve stated it as an absolute, but it’s not.

Fact 1: It works for “me” (which is what I said).
Fact 2: It doesn’t work for “you”
Corollary to Fact 2: It doesn’t work for “us”.

So we’re right back at “We think differently” and I don’t see any way to move forward from there other than for one of us to change the way we think. And I don’t think you’re any more likely to change the way you think than I am to change the way I think.



Nope. That’s not what I mean. I mean exactly what I said.

I didn’t say “It works for us”, I said “It works for me.”

I shouldn’t what?

“Mean it is something I am willing to accept”? I don’t, as stated above.

“Be willing to accept it?” No one has given reason not to that is sufficient for my purposes. (And “sufficient for my purposes” is what defines what “works for me”.)

I don't recall ever taking a crap while sitting on a rock - in these forums.

I read somewhere once that the original etymology of the word "Worship" actually simply means "Love".

So by that definition I would hope that anyone who views reality as a cosmic consciousness of which we are all facets would indeed "worship" it. At least in the sense of love.

I do believe that many religions have given negative connotations to the word 'worship' imply that it means to cower down in fear, guilt, and shame and beg for mercy from the wrath of a judgmental personified godhead.

IMHO, it's a shame that a word like "Love" has come to have such a distorted meaning. But that seems to be what has happened to the word "worship" in some religion. You either bow down and grovel, or face the wrath of the god. That's what 'worship' has become, unfortunately. Worship or be condemned! It's not a choice.

That would be like god saying "Love me, or I'll cast you into hell!"

That would be pretty empty love would it not?

It is called the flushing syndrom that I started in the "Blackhole" thread.

I bet many of the greatest thinkers in the world got their best idealogies out while taking a crap. They simply shouted "Eureka!" By gone darn it, I got it!

True.

But I’m curious as to where you might think I said that. And if I did, exactly who “We” referred to.

Yes, some of us do.