| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > > > Sounds like a faith statement to me--"well, we don't know our god yet, but
> > > > he's slowly revealing himself and his creation to us--we just have to work
> > > > harder, and have a better understanding, and over the span of time,
> > > > eventually we'll know all that there is to know for our god knows all
> > > > (eventually)."
> > >
> > > A straw man argument erected by a man of faith -- or so I assume...
>
> > Just because you say it's a straw man, don't make it so.
>
> You are exactly correct. What makes it a straw argument is the fact that
> you made a simplistic caricature of Richard's argument and then addressed it
> as though it was an accurate summation of his position. That is the very
> definition of a straw man argument.
I thought it was an accurate summation of his position, and not a simplistic
caricature at all, and I did not see any proof to the contrary, just the
<delete> 'straw man arguement', and therefore my claim that 'calling it a
straw man arguement does not make it so' still holds true.
>
> > If it's not always, then it's finite, and stuff can exist outside.
>
> That's a tautalogy, and even accepting your assertion, we must acknowledge
> that "stuff can exist outside" the infinite, as well. There are an infinite
> number of prime numbers, but 4 is not among them.
> And if we instead say that God the Infinite is also God the Comprehensive,
> then we have to accept that evil and cruelty are also part of Him.
In theory, *anything* is possible on paper, including 'little green
faeries'--one needs to look no farther than the fantasy section of the
bookstore to know this is true. In the physical world, where things are
'governed' by the 'laws of nature', or even better, that the theories of
science that are used to help us understand nature, also tell us that there
are limitations. It's the scientific concept, the theory of limits. Did
this universe have a beginning? Well, the theory of the Big Bang says this
is probably true. Does the universe have an end? Well, various theories,
all of which say, well, yes, is probably true. So there's the
possibility--a stake in the ground at either end--a beginning *and* an end.
If this is true, if the universe sterted with a big band and will end, the
universe is finite. Today we know the universe to be expanding, therefore
it has an edge--finite. Yes you can travel around the edge of a glass an
infinite number of times in theory, but looky that, once you go around once,
you're just covering the same ol' ground, and since the universe *will* end,
well, no you can't go around the edge of a glass an infinite number of
times, you don't have time to--mathematical constructs that talk about
infinity, by the very finite nature of the universe, cannot apply to the
physical world.
So yes, there are an infinite number of prime numbers.
Let's start numbering every atom in the universe with it's very own prime
number--oh wait, there's only a *finite* number of atoms. Theories are
great on paper, and certain theories can even discuss real world things,
such as the theory of evolution, and such, but you cannot apply theories of
infinity to the universe, for the physical universe is finite.
If you want to talk about the 'divine' nature of God and the 'formation' of
sin, that's a totally differnt topic, one which I was versed in more, but
that's in the realm of religion, and has no bearing or influence on the
scientific domain, or this discussion--it's a tangent from here.
>
> > > I am sorry, but they remain
> > > your unique ideas, wacko or otherwise...and the same is true even if we
> > > expand those holding these unique ideas from a single individual to a whole
> > > group. Even when hundreds of people think a rust stain on a wall is a sign
> > > of the Black Madonna, it's still just a rust stain to science.
> >
> > And is still a rust stain to me. There's a straw man arguement there if you
> > want to know where one is.
>
> Richard knows what it is, but you apparently still do not. He was not
> giving a summation of your argument; he was providing an example of the way
> over-zealous faith can lead to reality-contradicting beliefs.
And I also believe that over-zealous *anybody* can lead to
reality-contradicting beliefs, and further, I agreed with him on this one,
but that had no bearing on the discussion, was just pointing out that there
are some idiots out there who are zealots--we knoew that--it sounded, to me,
as if he was setting up a straw man--that 'believers' believe this. I'm a
believer--I don't believe in the rust stain=Madonna. If that's not what he
meant, then no harm no foul.
>
> > > Please show me something in human experience that is beyond observation and
> > > study. A tautology will not do, nor will statements that "beg the question."
> >
> > I think that if you read that sentence, you would see a logical
> > contradiction--"show" me something that is "beyond observation".
>
> Then, without evidence, you're asking Richard to assume that faith is
> valid, which is hopelessly circular.
I'm not asking richard to assume anything. I'm asking Richard not to deny
*me* my faith, I'm asking him not to bring faith into science, that it can
exist outside science and be perfectly valid, for *me*, to believe. It
seems as if you're trying to apply scientific principles to an area which
they *may* not work, for faith, to me, is outside science. How much clearer
do I have to be?
>
> > Again, no one else has to believe what I believe. But I'm not any stupider,
> > or less right for that belief than you are without that belief.
>
> But do you accept that you might be? I mean, if hypothetically it turns
> out that you have faith in something that truly doesn't exist, do you accept
> that it's possible for belief to be wrong?
And if someone hands me a textbook which undeniably refutes the existence of
God, I have no problem changing my POV--I'm adaptable--I can change my
theories and constructs, for none of them are written in stone, as any
'good' scientist should be like. As a matter of fact, during this very
thread, I went from 'stuff *does* exist outside the scientific domain' to
'stuff *may* exist outside the scientific domain'--there's adaptability for you.
Of course belief can be wrong--just as a scientific principle or theory can
be wrong--who said otherwise? My faith in God is questioned daily--of
course I struggle with it--faith != brainwashing.
> You are most certainly not "stupider" because of your faith, but you are
> really misinformed on some key issues of this debate, as well as on
> fundamental processes of debate itself. That's fine--I am sure that I'm
> more poorly informed than you on any number of subjects, but the problem
> occurs when someone insists that he's right by dint of perspective, when in
> fact he's wrong. That type of behavior is likely to give an impression that
> the person is, if not stupid, then definitely foolishly stubborn or unrealistic.
>
> Dave!
I'm not right. I think if you read any message of mine you will ever read 'I
am right' I think that debating is a process to burn away the extraneous
until the truth of the matter is found, and hopefully all sides can concur.
I think, by reading other posts here, that we are getting down to the crux
of what I wanted to discuss (well, lately anyway), and that is 'science may
not ever encompass or understand *all* that there is to this life'. I think
that this is a perfectly logical scientifically realistic idea, and no one
has yet to prove otherwise.
Once that is accepted, then I can go and live my life without the idea that
you're looking down your nose at me for me having my faith.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) As I said, Richard's identification of your straw man argument doesn't make it so; your argument is a straw man because it caricatures your opponent's position and in so doing you attempt to give yourself an easier target to attack. The fact (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) You are exactly correct. What makes it a straw argument is the fact that you made a simplistic caricature of Richard's argument and then addressed it as though it was an accurate summation of his position. That is the very definition of a (...) (22 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
