| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> 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.
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 that you fail to recognize it is more the pity.
Science is not my god nor Richard's god nor Larry's god nor Bruce's god
nor anyone else's god, despite your ardent desire that it be so. Therefore,
when you lampoon science by calling it our god, you are no longer addressing
our points but are instead forming a straw man to attack.
That's it. That's all. Honestly, this is one of the most basic
principals of rhetoric and logical discourse, so I'm not interested in
elucidating it further for you. But please understand that your adamant and
apparently deliberate effort to misunderstand this is the very thing that
frustrates everyone else in the debate.
As I pointed out in another post, every time you declare that science is a
god, you are broadcasting your own ignorance, and I urge you to stop it. I
expect you'll say something along the lines of "I was using it in an ironic
sense," and maybe you were, but that doesn't change the fact that you (and
only you) have been focusing your debate on your perception of science as
someone's god.
> 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.
Not if you understood it in context; I was demonstrating that it is very
possible to prove the non-existence of something, which seems to be central
to at least part of the larger debate.
> 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.
"This life" is kind of vague, so let's instead say "the physical
universe." To that end, I would say that science is, in principle, able to
explain everything in the physical universe. By "in principle" I mean that
we might not literally be able to explain the motion of every quark in the
history of the universe, but there is no phenomenon in the physical universe
that is inherently--ie, by its fundamental nature--inexplicable by science.
For the last time, give me an example of something in the physical
universe that science cannot in principal explain, and please please please
don't parrot "God" yet again, and here's why: If he interacts with the
physical universe then he's part of the physical universe. By your own
repeated assertion the universe is not infinite. Therefore, even God can be
explored through science. If he isn't part of the physical universe and
doesn't interact with it, then you have no way to detect him whatsoever,
except by some as yet undocumented super-sense that allows you to transcend
the boundaries of the physical universe.
> 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.
For the love of [insert deity here]!!!! You are using a straw man AGAIN!
I do not look down at you because you have faith; I consider you poorly
informed and willfully ignorant because you cling to flawed rhetorical
techniques regardless of how many times they are pointed out to you. I
don't doubt that you're intelligent; you're reasonably articulate(even if
you rely too much on pop culture for your anecdotal references(!)), but your
stubborn refusal to abandon falacious reasoning (ie, appeals to emotion,
straw man, questionable analogies, receeding targets, et al) is inexcusable.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) K, lets look at the one quotatoin that this is directly in resonse to, and let me try to show you how I interpreted it without any straw men in sight: Quoteth Richard (I think): (...) "My (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
