| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > So no, [Xtian is] not an insult.
>
> You can believe that nigger, or mankind, or squarehead, is an insult--that
> don't make it so. Context is everything.
Then take it as established that I imply no insult by my use of the shortened
form.
> > > Your point about purple and red [preferences] is outside the realm of
> > > science
> >
> > Is it? Is it really? How about this as a hypothetical explanation:
> >
> > Due to a microscopic neurological structure in your brain, certain neurons
> > respond to the chemicals released when your visual center process the color
> > purple. The response of those neurons leads to a more relaxed (or happy, or
> > aroused, or generally pleasant) state of mental activity, even at the deeply
> > subconscious level, and that response in turn leads you to favor the color
> > purple in preference to red or puce or indigo.
> > Granted, that's an off-the-rack and arbitrary summation, but do you see
> > how in principal the topic can be addressed by science?
>
> Yeah, or I could just like it--I frefer Occams Razor thanks.
Then you're accepting that color preference is NOT outside the realm of
scientific inquiry?
In addition, you have yet to apply that Razor in any post I've read by you,
and you certainly didn't do it there. You're saying, in effect, "I believe
that there is some para-physical, unknowable, and non-verifiable force guiding
my color preference" rather than "as evolved biochemical beings, I accept that
neurochemical interaction likely explains my preference for one color over
another." The ability to summarize by excluding necessary detail is not
Occam's Razor; it's simple omission.
You are assuming, time and again, the existence of a supernatural (and frankly
infinite) power overarching everything in the universe. You're ASSUMING its
existence, when you haven't yet demonstrated that it's possible, much less
necessary. Therefore you are absolutely not using Occam's Razor.
And every time someone asks for an example of something other than the
physical universe, you parrot "God" over and over again, somehow failing to
recognize that this, too, is the crux of the argument. So again you are
assuming your conclusion.
> Again, like the busy little beavers who want to go down and chop down all
> the trees 'cause they can, scientists want to find answers to
> *everything*--as such, the premise exists that *everything* can be found out
> with science--now isn't that a nifty little circle, which is circular
> reasoning and fails to take in account that *something* may exist outside
> the scientific framework, which is the actual issue.
And luddites who oppose science--which in this debate you have consistently
done, while somehow maintaining a misunderstanding of its nature--squawk that
science can't prove what it can't prove, which is equally circular.
> > "Given that you've repeatedly demonstrated a misunderstanding of
> > even the most basic and fundamental aspects of science, I am inclined to
> > question what has been your level of formal exposure to scientific thinking."
>
> And my repeated answers is I grasp the basic concepts of science just fine
> thank you.
Well, you've demonstrated a fatal misunderstanding about the nature of
predictability, and you certainly aren't clear on what it means to be
falsifiable or verifiable, so I'd say it's reasonable to conclude that your
familiarity of basic scientific principals is not extensive. Further, every
single time you say "you're making science your god" you are shouting from the
rooftops that you don't understand what science is nor what logical thinkers
recognize it not to be!
> I think that your fallacy was to paint me with the same brush as 'any other
> Christian'.
If I over-generalized unfairly, I apologize, but my conclusion was based on
your repeated invocation of dreadfully misunderstood scientific principals in
exactly the way they are invoked by pretty much "any other Creationist." But
if I'm wrong on that point, then I apologize for that as well.
> My *belief* is there's a God. Since you cannot disprove the existence of God,
> my belief cannot be false--it doesn't make my belief true, but since it's *my*
> belief, I can hold it without having a 'false' principle.
Nonexistence can indeed be proven in several ways. One of them is to
demonstrate an inherent contradiction in the fundamental nature of the entity in
question, such as an infinitely loving and just and good entity that can allow
infinite, eternal damnation for a finite, temporal infraction. I know that the
orthodoxy claims a number of double-talk excuses for this contradiction, but
I've never heard one that convinced me that I'm wrong about it.
> Some logical points for you to try to deal with--
>
> if the universe is infinite, then it cannot be understood by us because we
> are finite (ideas I went into greater depth somewhere else)
If the universe is infinite but is governed by standardized physical laws, and
if we can in principal comprehend those laws, then I'd say the universe can be
sufficiently understood even if it's infinite. You're acting as though Man
needs to itemize every quark in spacetime with uber-Heisenberg precision in
order to claim understanding, but that's simply not the case.
> -the universe cannot be infinite for we already have the theory of the big
> bang which started this mess in the forst place, and we're developing
> theories as to the end of the universe.
The 3-D universe can be infinite in that it has no boundary in space, and one
can theoretically travel for an infinite time in any direction without "running
out" of universe, just as one can endlessly trace the rim of a glass. This
contradicts Lucretius, but they way.
> If the universe is finite, then we have no problem grasping all that there
> is to know with our finite minds.
Untrue as written. Modify it this way: "If the universe is finite AND the
number of possible interactions within the universe is finite, then it is in
principal possible to know the universe with our finite minds" and then you
might be onto something.
> If there's an infinite God, well, as above, our own finite limitation cannot
> understand the infinite.
Then I would point out that its wholly unjust of God to require us to make a
determination without allowing us the capacity for truly informed decision
making. How about if the only physical contact you ever had with another human
was a person biting your nose off? Would it be just or fair to ask you for your
evaluation of the whole spectrum of human physical interaction based solely on
that single anecdotal episode? How much more unjust when one's immortal soul
is at stake?
> QED.
Quantum electro-dynamics?!? Just kidding...
> Again I say unto you (Dave the preacher--whatever) that putting an arrowhead
> at hte end of the line and saying 'Well, that ray goes off into infinity' is
> great, in theory. Mathematical constructs can deal with the mathematical
> idea of infinity just fine--the idea that numbers will go from 0 off into
> infinity is great, on paper. But let's write them all out now. Oops, we
> can't for there is only a finite amount of space in the universe to write
> on, and therefore we cannot actually, in the physical world, have concepts
> of infinity--it can't happen. In principle I throw a ball at a tree, and I
> should be able to divide the distance between the ball and the tree in half
> from now to eternity, 'casue there should always be half left over--but
> guess what--in the physical world, the ball hits the tree.
Good grief, man! That's just Xeno's Arrow, and it's been known to be false
since before the invention of limits! I barely recall my calculus from
freshman year, but even I remember that application!
> > In this post in particular you have lapsed from logical reasoning into
> > emotion-based witnessing, and that sort of testimonialism simply flees the
> > argument, rather than advancing it. You repeatedly assert your fondness for
> > science, or at least the ramifications of it, and I accept that to a point.
> > But it seems that the moment you approach a topic from which you cannot
> > divorce your emotions, you fall back on "science isn't everything," but you
> > don't really give a good explanation or a sound alternative.
>
> God.
You've really raised the bar on the number of times a debater can assume his
conclusion. Are you sure you like Occam's Razor?
> You should focus on the *concept* that science cannot be our universal
> saviour for *everything*. That's all I've been trying to say.
But you've been constantly evangelizing that we pro-science folks are
worshipping the strange god of science before God, and that's simply not the
case. I've never claimed science as a savior of anything, and your conscious
choice of caricature speaks volumes about your underlying need to identify
logical, rational, scientific inquiry as a form of idolatry, and that too is
simply not the case.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Then no problem. (...) I'm saying that many aspects of colour preference is quite inside the realm of scientific inquiry, just as stydying a candle and it's many psychological and physiological impacts on a human can, and *should* be studied (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) God. And to explain that, denies Him. That's *my* faith speaking. Does that make me 'less than' you 'cause I believe and you don't? (...) In principal[sic], God's universe is being explained right now via science. So again, I have no problem (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
