Subject:
|
Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:00:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3426 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > It seems that you are suggesting that the nature of "a god" is to
> > "tell...*everything*?" Or at least that that is one facet of godhood. Yet,
> > the god you follow doesn't do that. So I'm left not clearly understanding the
> > reasoning behind your assertion.
> What does it matter what reasons are behind the assertion--the assertion is
> valid or it isn't, no matter what worldview it comes out of--the theory of
> gravity is still the theory of gravity even to those that don't know what a
> theory or gravity is.
Since you cast aspersions on Chris' reading comprehension in
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=17304
it is inexcusable that you should fail to read his subsequent post
correctly. He is not questioning the "reasons" for your assertion; he's
questioning the "reasoning" for it. Can you see the difference? If not,
then I suggest you sign up for the RC101 class you mentioned.
> > Merely that science is the only rational method of exploration of any
> > phenomena.
>
> I would put it to you that the assertion that *any* phenomena logically
> encompasses *all* phenomena.
>
> If you were to modify your assertion that science is the only rational
> method of exploring rational phenomena, then that's not *everything* then,
> is it?
Chris may be the most adamant proponent of his view, but I share it with
nearly equal verve, and I'll go so far as to state my view thus:
"If a phenomenon exists in the physical universe that can in principal be
explained, then it can be in principal be explained by science."
And as Chris correctly observed, you have yet to demonstrate how that might
be false.
> Is my *faith* a phenomena? I don't know--never thought about it that way.
> But I *do* have it. It might not be scientifically rational, but it is
> there--it *does* exist--I *can* say that my faith exists, therefore
> *something* is *outside* the purview of science. Science cannot, with logic
> and rationality, deny it--it's there, and yet science cannot dispense with
> it, either, for it's not rational--it does not exist within the domain of
> science.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! You are YET AGAIN misstating the case! If you can't
get it together enough to assemble two coherent posts, I don't see how you
can expect anyone to wish to discuss this with you. Here is what you are
saying:
P1: My faith exists
P2: Phenomena can be explained by science
P3: I don't know if my faith is a phenomena [sic]
-----------------------------------
C1: I don't know if my faith can be explained by science
C2: My faith is *outside* the purview of science
This is CLASSIC argument from ignorance, and is a CLASSIC paraphrase of the
God-of-the-gaps that you allege to decry. Because you, in your endlessly
demonstrable misunderstanding of science, cannot figure out or accept how
something might be explained by science, you are ASSUMING (not concluding,
since you are not basing it on anything) that science truly can't explain
it, so therefore it must be outside the purview of science.
Look at it this way:
P1: Perception is a function of the senses
P2: The senses are a function of the brain
--------------------------------------
C1: Perception is a function of the brain
C1: Perception is a function of the brain
P3: The brain is part of the physical universe
P4: In the absence of a better descriptor, science
is the best descriptor of the physical universe
----------------------------------------
C2: In the absence of a better descriptor, science
is the best descriptor of the brain
C1: Perception is a function of the brain
P5: One's awareness of one's faith is a function of perception
---------------------------------------
C3: One's awareness of one's faith is a function of the brain
C3: One's awareness of one's faith is a function of the brain
C2: In the absence of a better descriptor, science
is the best descriptor of the brain
---------------------------------------
C4: In the absence of a better descriptor, science
is the best descriptor of one's awareness of one's faith
That's the key. You can prattle away about how "your awareness of your
faith" isn't "your faith," but the distinction is semantic and trivial. If
there's a real difference between your faith and your perception of it, then
God is potentially condemning you (or someone else) for something of which
you have no awareness, and that's a fundamental contradiction that would
prove the non-existence of an infinitely just God.
> I hope that clears it up.
I'm done beating my head against the impenetrable shell of ignorance in
which you've encased yourself. You don't comprehend the nature of science,
and you certainly don't comprehend the methods of debate, yet still you're
firing randomly into a DEBATE about SCIENCE!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
