BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
You must be a professional comedian! Perhaps one of these explains your peculiar viewpoint...
Posted on 08/19/2006 6:39:43 AM PDT by RaceBannon
You seem to forget these verses:
NIV Romans 8:20-21
20. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
21. that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Mass genocide, euthanasia, and abortion are the logical and inevitable outworkings of atheist Darwinist theory left to the devices of its proponents. There simply is no moral impediment to any of these horrors in the world of aimless, pointless, materialist natural selection. Quite the opposite. The moral imperative is to allow these factors free sway to ensure the survival of the fittest.
Here we have another post-and-run full of useless, unsupported rhetoric. Even if all that you said was true, what affect would it have on the theory of evolution?
Haha, oh wow. That should be "effect." I'm going to go out back and give myself 20 lashes.
You have not demonstrated that your supposed "inconsistency" is reasonable to begin with. It has nothing to do with my worldview (about which you are also presumptuous, but that is neither here nor there) and a lot to do with your use of false dichotomies, the use of invalid presumption as though it were obviously true, and an apparent unfamiliarity with Occam's Razor even if your dubious presumption was true. All of which makes your reasoning about what is and is not "inconsistent" consequentially doubtful. You've dodged addressing these obvious problems with your argument every time, instead choosing to feign insult.
BTW, pointing out that a line of reasoning is grossly and obviously flawed is not "pedantic" and apparently a dictionary was not available when you used "petulant". And yes, you could argue that this is being pedantic, but it does highlight what appears to be a more general problem with your attempts at rigor, never mind rational discourse. If you are going to make a logical argument, you better make damn sure that it actually is logical if you do not want it to be dismissed by reasonable people.
Oh my!
(I know, I know, you are just a friend of Dorothy...)
When the "reputable creation scientists" are doing CS or ID they are no longer scientists, they are apologists.
Scientists look at the natural world and try to figure it out.
Apologists defend existing religious beliefs.
You didn't address any of the points I just raised. I'll quote myself:
"No, it isn't. IC specifically states, and I quote, "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution." (Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p. 39)
That we observe precursor systems, variations, and evolution of IC systems invalidates IC. Since specified complexity proposes that these complex systems are specified in advance, there cannot be an evolutionary pathway nor should they be selectable for other functions, in that they are *specified* for specific functions. That we can show evolutionary pathways and observe evolution of complex biochemical systems invalidates IC AND CSI. Since these are *crucial* components of positive evidence for ID, the *entire* theory collapses."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
You must be a professional comedian! Perhaps one of these explains your peculiar viewpoint...
I believe in a sovereign creator/redeemer and can give an account for said axioms. I don't have to say, "They just ARE!!!" but can instead point to the reason.
Not sure what is so humorous or "obviously flawed" about this... this fact of your incoherent worldview.
Remember: per the topic of this thread, it is your views that on on trial... not mine. Your comments/tone/love for your neighbor bolster the theme of the article quite well (The antagonists certainly did not love their neighbors...)
Monsterboy, the last part goes for you too.
"What we've done, or attempted to do, is show how science itself is dependent on that which cannot itself be subjected to scientific inquiry, such as the laws of logic."
Yes, methodological naturalism is the philosophical framework of science. It's very easy to understand - it ensures falsifiable explanations. What's your contention?
"We've then posed a probability: given that science depends on something unobservable and antecedent, either we must assume that A) these transcendental principles/facts/truths stand on their own, or B) their very existence points to an ultimate transcendental Cause. From these two choices, we have an irrational one (A) and a rational one (B)."
What transcendental truths? God, et cetra? Those are philosophical propositions that aren't testable. Raising them as falsifications of evolution is meaningless.
"In effect, what we have accomplished is effectively the proving of God's existence by way of elimination, to wit, the absurdity/impossibility of the contrary. The next scientific fact or anecdote someone throws out will rest on the very a prioris that point to that conclusion. Actually, that applies not just to science but to all communication and meaning."
How did you give evidence for God? I don't see it anywhere. Also, dichotomies do not exist in science - elimination and negative arguments against a theory does not validate another *unless* positive evidence is provided for said theory.
"In proving God's existence we have destroyed the possibility of a key logical implication of Darwin's theory, were it true: that there is no need for God for life as we know it. In doing that we have not entirely disproved Darwinism, mind you, but have eliminated one of its primary appeals."
You haven't given evidence for God. Please raise such a contention. And, mind you, they should be falsifiable contentions because to raise philosophical contentions over a non-falsifiable subject is meaningless.
I want to ask you something: Can you offer a proof of the law of non-contradiction?
Isn't it an axiom? I'm not exactly that familiar with Aristotle. But, from what I understand of formal propositional logic, it is an axiom.
The reason I asked you that is to illustrate something: We use it, yet we cannot prove it under emprical models. We not only use it, we need it - to make sense.
God is like that. Sometimes called the "uncaused cause", He provides a transcendental unifying origin for all of the axioms/trasncendentals that we take for granted. In unifying He provides a rational basis, a reason for reality as we know it. To my mind, He provides a logical basis for the pursuit of knowledge. No God leaves me without a reason (for reality, transcendental truth/axiom - in short anything not directly verifiable by the scientific method), and seems to me quite irrational.
I'm a student myself; this board is a good reality check. Most have been very patient and kind even in disagreement.
"The reason I asked you that is to illustrate something: We use it, yet we cannot prove it under emprical models. We not only use it, we need it - to make sense."
No, that philosophical contention is not used in science. Formal logic isn't used in science. For example, light's ability to act like a wave and a particle violates the law. Quantum mechanics in its entirety violates the law.
"God is like that. Sometimes called the "uncaused cause", He provides a transcendental unifying origin for all of the axioms/trasncendentals that we take for granted."
But, these transcendentals remain unfalsifiable. I believe the problem with constructing these philosophical arguments is the lack of contingency. While we may construct formal arguments for a proposition, it is not necessarily true *unless* actual evidence suggest so. However, since God is not testable, He remains a belief that cannot be objectively considered, in a scientific context, therefore, using him as a basis to falsify scientific entities is, in my opinion, fallacious. I politely disagree with you on this contention.
"In unifying He provides a rational basis, a reason for reality as we know it. To my mind, He provides a logical basis for the pursuit of knowledge."
Certainly, belief in God may provide the framework for your life and so on. But, my main point of disagreement is that we cannot construct philosophical arguments to refute scientific entities.
"No God leaves me without a reason (for reality, transcendental truth/axiom - in short anything not directly verifiable by the scientific method), and seems to me quite irrational."
Possibly. It's a matter of opinion and belief. I don't really think that God, if truly existent and transcendental, can be rationalized into formal philosophical arguments. His Nature seems too wondrous for humans to comprehend.
"I'm a student myself; this board is a good reality check. Most have been very patient and kind even in disagreement."
As am I and it's pleasure talking with you.
We use it because it seems to make sense, and if it did not we would not use it. The core axioms were selected for their utility, not because they have some transcendent philosophical significance. As long as you presume otherwise, you will be wandering blindingly. As I mentioned previously, there is not even perfect agreement among mathematicians as to which axioms we should and should not be using.
God is like that. Sometimes called the "uncaused cause", He provides a transcendental unifying origin for all of the axioms/trasncendentals that we take for granted.
So you invent another axiom ("God") to create a relationship between the other axioms. What you have just stated not only is semantically null in that you are shuffling axiom deck chairs to no substantive consequence (it creates no new derivations), your particular deck chair arrangement violates Occam's Razor. Per your argument above (using a unifying God axiom), the mathematical proof of Occam's Razor still holds and so your argument can be tidily invalidated from your own premises. Any hypothesis that fails the test of Occam's Razor is ipso facto irrational as a belief.
Get it now?
Deos Mio!
WHY?????
(I think the emphasis is on 'was'!)
It is fundamentally opinion-based. You have obviously expended enormous energy to assuage your fear of consequences in the next life. I respect that - your emotional involvement is quite evident. May I point out the following: Your own reductionist reasoning is circular at the top as well - in (negatively) not assuming God's existence you implicitly, POSITIVELY, assume His non-existence. Your use of Ockham's Razor fails to account for built-in prejudice. There is no such thing as neutrality - yours is pretended and the product of the cumulative experiences that comprise your noetic make-up.
Your real motives, from what I can see, are emotional in nature. Which is quite understandable...
Pays the bills.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.