Creationists and dynamo theory

[SeebianWurm]

And get no presents, too.

[SirNitram]

In other words, your personal philosophy is an eclectic blend of the philosophies of logical positivism, exclusivism, coherentism and pragmatism. Even the term "worth" and your very syntax rests upon philosophical beliefs.

Get real - you cannot escape philosophy.

...Even if you try to, you are embracing the philosophy of misology.

No, philosophy is only worth it's weight in gold, in other words, not a red cent.

Of course, your whole conceited, misguided little worldview is based on your philosophy being correct, whereas mine simply runs off the world I see holding at least some reality. Even if you wish to get Cartesian and claim it's not reality, that doesn't matter, because what I observe is what I interact with. I have no care about whether I'm a brain in a bottle or the God of Chaos dreaming through an ice age.

As usual, you put up a pansy ass peice of nonsense.

[Lagmonster]

When you say that "science" has disproved "religion," however, you are invoking science-as-philosophy.

Now you listen to me, kid. You get points for dragging this argument into a realm it doesn't belong in, but you are metaphorically getting out of the safari jeep and kicking the lions. Guess what that means, metaphorically?

Science DESCRIBES the universe. I'll repeat that again: DESCRIBE. DESCRIBE. It does so in the simplest possible way. DESCRIBE. Got that? When science DESCRIBES the universe, it DOES NOT OBSERVE GODS OR THEIR ACTIVITIES. It is perfectly capable of logically DESCRIBING the universe without mentioning gods. It can't detect gods, and it can DESCRIBE the universe and its processes without them, so it CONCLUDES THAT THEY AREN'T PART OF THE THE UNIVERSE THAT THEY ARE OBSERVING.

So, science tells us that gods either 1) don't exist, 2) can't be observed interacting with the universe and thus are irrelevant in any SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION of the universe, or 3) are completely impotent. Science doesn't disprove god. Science just doesn't NEED it.

Arguing that science can disprove god is stupid. Arguing that science supports god is stupid. Suggesting that science uses philosophy to justify its claims is an utter abandonment of the definition of the word, and will result in me posting at you again using nasty words, and nobody wants that.

If you're going to debate the value of science in religion, debate whether we have, or can, observe anything that religion tells us is true.

[Durandal]

Is anyone else getting tired of this jag-off's hard-on for philosophy? Who cares whether we're "invoking the philosophy of science"? The fact remains that no published scientific theory or article has ever included supernatural beings as a part of its conclusion. Just fucking get off of it. Your god is a figment of your imagination, and no one needs to hear about your needs for imaginary friends to save you from yourself. We don't care. You have no place discussing philosophy or science if you ask questions like, "What's so bad about circular reasoning, anyway?"

[Darth Wong]

Of course, but religion employs grossly FAULTY logic, hence it is illogical ...

Ah, so religion does employ logic after all! Concession accepted.

You're an idiot. Use of faulty logic does not mean that an argument is logical. From Merriam-Webster, the definition of "illogical" is: "not observing the principles of logic". Sorry, but even though something has the form of a logical argument, it is not logical if it does not use logic properly. Your useless philosophy babble is used to obscure the outlandish absurdities of your argument. You have effectively claimed that it is impossible for any argument to be illogical.

Your problem is that you have confused the terms "logical" and "rational." Though colloquially synonymous, you must learn to distinguish between the two if you wish to assert yourself as a logician.

Speak for yourself: the word "logical" means an argument which observes the principles of logic, not one which butchers them. Use of faulty logic does not make an argument logical. I can't believe you are actually stupid enough to propose such an idea in a public place. Good thing you concealed your true identity, eh?

Formally speaking, "logical" means "of or pertaining to logic." This definition does not allow for you to say that something which may be merely fallacious is "not logical." Hence the term "fallacy of logic" or "logical fallacy." If logical were the same as rational, as you imply, then "logical fallacy" would be a contradiction of terms. Again, formally speaking, "all Chinese are communists, therefore all communists are Chinese" is logical but not rational, a term meaning "reasonable" or "sensible." Try not to conflate "logical" and "rational" any more - remember that anything involving logic is logical by definition.

Thank you, Mr. Semantics Whore! I have never seen a finer example of splitting hairs in my life. Rather than defend your absurd proposition that religion is no less rational than science, you attempt to nitpick the terminology. BTW, your nitpick is wrong anyway. "Logical" has several definitions, one of which is "in accordance with logic". That is obviously the definition I'm using.

So, to sum up what you folks have told me, explicitly and implicitly, regarding science and objectivity:

Science observes the observable universe, by definition.

The observable universe is objective reality, by definition.

Objective reality is true, by definition.

Therefore, science is true, by definition.

No, you're a blithering idiot. Objective reality is not necessarily absolute truth. However, since absolute truth is unknowable, objective reality is the best we've got, and most people take it pretty seriously. If you don't, I invite you to demonstrate your disbelief in objective reality by taking a flying leap off the Sears Tower.

In other words, science is tautologous, being true because it is defined as true.

Your idiotic strawmen do not constitute a valid argument. Science does not define anything as truth; it merely describes objective reality as accurately as possible, and leaves philosophers to endlessly waste time in the non-productive pursuit of looking for something called "absolute truth".

Whereas science takes this route - "science observes, therefore science is true"? How does that follow?

It is a strawman. Science observes objective reality. There is no "therefore" following that statement.

Here is a crucial area in which you must try to let go of your presuppositions. Do you give any regard to science's inability to justify itself spiritually, by religion's methodology? Probably not, but why? Because religion is bunk and science is clearly true. And how do we know that? Because religion cannot scientifically justify itself. More circular reasoning due to overbearing presuppositions.

Hardly. Science is based on the observable universe, which we know to exist via the evidence of our senses. Religion is based on nonsensical ideas whose very existence must be taken on faith. If you disbelieve that the observable universe exists, then you must disregard science. However, that would also make you insane.

Also regarding internal and external evidence: how exactly do you make this distinction?

The universe outside your mind is external to it. You can pout that you don't believe in the universe if you like, but that's idiocy and you know it.

If a congregation of Christians is kept earthbound by gravity, how is that any more external than the same congregation of Christians experiencing the presence of God during worship? Both are universal.

The latter does not exist but for their subjective belief that it does. It is impossible to measure, observe with instrumentation, or quantify in any way.

I reiterate my longstanding challenge. If you are willing to test the validity of the universe against the validity of your God, I will tempt eternal damnation by blaspheming God and you will tempt the laws of physics by leaping off a tall building without a parachute. Are you willing to take that challenge?

Actually, true humility comes from recognizing that the universe is not defined by our wishes. The religious person seeks something which is greater than us, and in his haste to ensure that he has some modicum of control over this greater entity, he defines it and then worships it. In the process, he overlooks the fact that the universe is already waiting there, already greater than us, and quite easily subject to analysis, unlike his own manufactured deities.

OMG STRAWMAN

No, it's an accurate description of your position. You are so arrogant that you deny the evidence of your senses and refuse to admit that it is in any way more substantive than your own subjectively manufactured beliefs.

[The Apologist]

May I ask what this 'sufficient reason to believe in God' is?

My own experiences, realizations, perceptions of Him, and His speaking to me.

And how is there not enough? Only true believers can see Santa's work in the first place. You are being closed minded.

*religious snicker*

I never said there is not enough reason. I would never say that, because I do not know everything. What I did say is that I myself do not have sufficient reason to believe in Santa Claus.

No, philosophy is only worth it's weight in gold, in other words, not a red cent.

Wow, so logic, being an appurtenance of philosophy, must be even more worthless!

You're an idiot. Use of faulty logic does not mean that an argument is logical. From Merriam-Webster, the definition of "illogical" is: "not observing the principles of logic". Sorry, but even though something has the form of a logical argument, it is not logical if it does not use logic properly.

[data_link] omg u quoted teh dictionnery that is a Apeal to Authorty!![/data_link]

Just kidding.

So, what do you make of "logical fallacy"? If "logical" means "rational," then there can be no such thing.

Your useless philosophy babble is used to obscure the outlandish absurdities of your argument. You have effectively claimed that it is impossible for any argument to be illogical.

Strictly speaking, that is correct. Of course, "illogical" is not a strictly denotative word.

Once again, I think we should speak in technical terms and avoid colloquialisms; logic is highly technical by nature.

Thank you, Mr. Semantics Whore! I have never seen a finer example of splitting hairs in my life. Rather than defend your absurd proposition that religion is no less rational than science, you attempt to nitpick the terminology. BTW, your nitpick is wrong anyway. "Logical" has several definitions, one of which is "in accordance with logic". That is obviously the definition I'm using.

I am as well. I just told you that I am taking "logical" to mean "of or pertaining to logic." This is the same meaning as "in accordance with logic."

It seems to me, though, that your definition is actually "formally true or valid."

After all, the inference "all Chinese are communists, therefore all communists are Chinese" is "in accordance with logic." What you must remember is that logic is not necessarily true or valid. Rather, logic is the study of inference and validity and a supposed means of determining what is true or valid. I say this because you speak as if "in accordance with logic" meant "in accordance with truth."

Do you define "logic" as "what is true"? Unless you do, your position is lost.

No, you're a blithering idiot. Objective reality is not necessarily absolute truth. However, since absolute truth is unknowable, objective reality is the best we've got, and most people take it pretty seriously.

Are you sure that objective reality and absolute truth are not the same thing? I would guess that absolute truth, whatever that is, is the truly objective reality. The terms are practically synonymous.

Also, how do you know that absolute truth is unknowable?

Your idiotic strawmen do not constitute a valid argument. Science does not define anything as truth; it merely describes objective reality as accurately as possible, and leaves philosophers to endlessly waste time in the non-productive pursuit of looking for something called "absolute truth".

Ah! Now we are getting somewhere!

Tell me more of your thoughts here.

So if science does not define anything as true, why do you accept science as true (or do you not?)?

Also, if science does not define anything as true, why do you use scientific criteria to judge religion and assert that it is false?

Are you saying that science is not reliable, or that what science tells us is uncertain?

In other words, are you suggesting that science could be completely false?

Finally, if science does not make any truth claims, why do you make truth claims and use science to support them?

It is a strawman. Science observes objective reality. There is no "therefore" following that statement.

Very well, then - how do we know that science is correct, or that it correctly observes objective reality?

Do you believe that science defines objective reality? I would think that objective reality should define science. What do you think?

Hardly. Science is based on the observable universe, which we know to exist via the evidence of our senses. Religion is based on nonsensical ideas whose very existence must be taken on faith. If you disbelieve that the observable universe exists, then you must disregard science. However, that would also make you insane.

Do you not see how ludicrous this notion is?

Let us compare, using what you have just told me.

You: I know that the observable universe exists because of the evidence of my senses.

Me: I know that God exists because of the evidence of my senses.

You: I know that science is true because it is based on the observable universe.

Me: I know that religion is true because it is based on God.

You: I know that science is "sensical" because it is based on the observable universe (?).

Me: I know that religion is "sensical" because it is based on God.

You: I know that religion is "nonsensical" because it is not based on science (?) and because it must be taken on faith (?).

Me: I know that science is "nonsensical" because it is not based on religion and because it must be taken on faith.

Not entirely accurate on my part, of course, but I think you get the idea. My point is that you have no grounds to say that religion is nonsensical unless you also hold that science is nonsensical. We both took similar routes to arrive at different conclusions:

Sensate evidence > observable universe > science

Sensate evidence > God > religion

How is religion "nonsensical" again? You do not seem to find the observable universe "nonsensical," even though you only believe it exists because of sensory perception, and yet you find religion "nonsensical," even though it is also based on sensory perception. What makes your senses better than mine?

The universe outside your mind is external to it. You can pout that you don't believe in the universe if you like, but that's idiocy and you know it.

All right... God is external and outside my mind too...

The latter does not exist but for their subjective belief that it does. It is impossible to measure, observe with instrumentation, or quantify in any way.

Measurement, instrumental observation, and quantification do not exist but for your subjective belief that they do.

I reiterate my longstanding challenge. If you are willing to test the validity of the universe against the validity of your God, I will tempt eternal damnation by blaspheming God and you will tempt the laws of physics by leaping off a tall building without a parachute. Are you willing to take that challenge?

Sure thing, hypothetically. Kill yourself to see if you go to Hell, and I will jump from the building to see if I fall.

In actuality, though, we have more productive things to do.

No, it's an accurate description of your position. You are so arrogant that you deny the evidence of your senses and refuse to admit that it is in any way more substantive than your own subjectively manufactured beliefs.

No, the evidence of my senses is precisely what I am embracing, hence I am a Christian.

You really ought not presume to know my thoughts and feelings. I do not presume to know yours.

[aerius]

May I ask what this 'sufficient reason to believe in God' is?

My own experiences, realizations, perceptions of Him, and His speaking to me.

I see we've finally arrived at the root of the problem...you are a whack-a-loon.

[The Apologist]

How do you conclude that?

[Darth Wong]

So, what do you make of "logical fallacy"? If "logical" means "rational," then there can be no such thing.

I already explained this, you blithering idiot. For the SECOND time, there are several different definitions of "logical". One is "pertains to logic", the other is "observes the principles of logic". When we say "logical fallacy", we are using the former definition. When we say an argument is "illogical", we are using the latter definition. What the fuck do you find so difficult to understand about this, dumb-ass?

When I say that I'm trying to lend weight to an argument, do you triumphantly pull out the wrong definition of "weight" in that context (ie- pertaining to gravitational force) and scream that I must be wrong? There are lots of words in the English language with more than one definition. Your semantic bullshit is an attempt to deliberately use the wrong definition to claim an opponent's argument is wrong. You may think you're acquiting yourself nicely with these semantic games, but you're actually making yourself look like a complete idiot.

Once again, I think we should speak in technical terms and avoid colloquialisms; logic is highly technical by nature.

So says the idiot who thinks circular logic is a fine way to prove something. Sorry, but there is nothing "colloquial" about it. Logic has two definitions, whose use is dependent upon context.

Do you define "logic" as "what is true"? Unless you do, your position is lost.

Yet again, you are an idiot. Logic is simply a system of determining what conclusions can be legitimately drawn from a premise. It is not necessarily true because a logical conclusion drawn from a false premise is still false. Garbage in, garbage out.

Thank you for demonstrating that your claims of logic study are demonstrably false; you obviously haven't the faintest idea what logic is.

Are you sure that objective reality and absolute truth are not the same thing? I would guess that absolute truth, whatever that is, is the truly objective reality. The terms are practically synonymous.

No, because it is possible for some idiot solipsist to claim that objectivity has no meaning because nothing exists outside your own mind. That is basically what you're doing; denying the evidence of your senses if they conflict with your beliefs.

Also, how do you know that absolute truth is unknowable?

Take some basic philosophy instead of pretending to have already done so. You cannot absolutely prove that anything exists outside of your own thoughts. Therefore, the only "absolute truth" is that your own thoughts exist. Any absolute truth larger than this is unknowable. They cover this sort of thing in any Philosophy 101 class, for fuck's sake; stop pretending to be a philosopher when you've obviously never even taken Philosophy 101.

So if science does not define anything as true, why do you accept science as true (or do you not?)?

Absolute truth is unknowable; how many fucking times do I have to say this before it sinks in? The best we can hope for is an accurate description of the observable universe, which is what science provides. Anything which claims privileged access to something more (such as the Bible) is based on lies and irrationality.

Also, if science does not define anything as true, why do you use scientific criteria to judge religion and assert that it is false?

Because once you accept the premise that the observable universe is real, then science gives us tools with which to falsify theories. It is not "absolute truth", but it is eminently reasonable to believe that the universe exists.

Are you saying that science is not reliable, or that what science tells us is uncertain?

Absolute certainty is a fantasy. Science is the most certain and reliable of all methodologies; far more so than religion.

In other words, are you suggesting that science could be completely false?

Sure. And the entire universe may just be a figment of your imagination, while your brain is sitting in a bottle hooked up to a VR simulation. It is a completely ridiculous proposition, but it cannot be disproven. That is why the accuracy of science is based on the premise that the observable universe is real. Whether you are willing to seriously contest that premise is the question.

Finally, if science does not make any truth claims, why do you make truth claims and use science to support them?

Because I assume that the observable universe is real. This is admittedly an assumption, however I consider it a reasonable one.

Do you believe that science defines objective reality? I would think that objective reality should define science. What do you think?

You're an idiot. Science is a description of objective reality; it does not "define" it.

You: I know that the observable universe exists because of the evidence of my senses.

Me: I know that God exists because of the evidence of my senses.

Did you see him? Hear him? Touch him? Smell him? If not, then you do NOT have any evidence of your senses. Moreover, the inputs of many of those senses can be duplicated via equipment, which is wholly impartial and which has never produced observations of God.

You: I know that science is true because it is based on the observable universe.

Me: I know that religion is true because it is based on God.

Are you seriously arguing that your belief in God is just as tangible and "real" as the physical universe?

You: I know that religion is "nonsensical" because it is not based on science (?) and because it must be taken on faith (?).

Me: I know that science is "nonsensical" because it is not based on religion and because it must be taken on faith.

You think that the existence of the universe "must be taken on faith", as much as the existence of God? You're being an idiot.

Not entirely accurate on my part, of course, but I think you get the idea. My point is that you have no grounds to say that religion is nonsensical unless you also hold that science is nonsensical. We both took similar routes to arrive at different conclusions:

Wrong. I have grounds to say that religion is nonsensical the moment you acknowledge that the universe is real. If you seriously doubt that the universe is real, I repeat my challenge for you to take a flying leap off the Sears tower.

You really ought not presume to know my thoughts and feelings. I do not presume to know yours.

You have just spent the greater part of a post presuming to know my thoughts, you idiot.

Your entire thesis is that you don't think the universe is any more real than your beliefs, hence science is no more reliable than religion. You even claim to be able to see, hear, and touch things which are invisible to equipment and to others. This is clinical insanity, folks.

[SeebianWurm]

I tire of his long-term tapdancing around the questions.

Can we shoot him yet?

[aerius]

After being presented with my conclusion that he's a whack-a-loon,

How do you conclude that?

Simple really, you are hearing voices in your head from a non-existent entity. It is not possible to hear voices from something which does not exist, and since you say you can, you are delusional. Whack-a-loon. Take your Vitamin Q, it'll help with the voices in your head.

[SWPIGWANG]

so this is how wong spends xmas.....

A question: if some one sees god with his senses, what do we do? (aside from labling him as a delusional loonie)

[SeebianWurm]

The funny thing about religion is that small coincidences combined with personal imagination prove to the person that it is a rational belief.

Life is a series of coincidences with idiots like Apologist stuffed in between them.

[Darth Wong]

so this is how wong spends xmas.....

A question: if some one sees god with his senses, what do we do? (aside from labling him as a delusional loonie)

Attempt to indepedently verify with instrumentation, since his sense of vision works on the exact same optical principles as a camera and any claims to have seen something should therefore be independently verifiable.

[LordShaithis]

Apologist has long since ceased being worthy of conversation. He talks exactly like every jackoff who ever took a philosophy course, and decided he could be Master of the Universe by questioning every concept beyond the point of sanity EXCEPT the ones that make him feel good.