You are not really postulating a "why," you are inventing an ad hoc entity that you project your own motivations into. You can answer why kettles boil in a similar fashion and it's just as reliable, realistic and appealing to anyone that's really thought the issue through.
I don't see the comparison at all? The why I'm suggesting is a potential reason for order instead of chaos, and it's a purely faith based belief. If I choose to believe order indicates a maker, that's my belief system and it's still valid to me as a "why". I never said it was provable.
Ahhhh, there we go. 'IT'S JUST DOGMA!!!!!!'. Define this dogma that apparently exists, or the question cannot be realistically answered.
Depends. What's this 'dogma' that I've apparently got? Without knowing what dogma I am apparently goosestepping to, I can hardly answer the question.
Maybe dogma was a poor choice of words. I was only looking for a word for a fixed set of ideas. Science has that of course. I don't understand why the word is considered insulting to you. You kept referring to science and empiricism and wouldn't hear of any other framework that did not include it's intrusion in their domain of thought. Sounds pretty dogmatic to me.
I'm comfortable accepting most of the major tenets of Catholicism; does this mean that Catholicism's account of the history of the universe is logically plausible? Heavens no.
Of course not. What I laid out though COULD be logically plausible. That's all I said. But it's not evidential because it's not been demonstrated to be that way.
Look, you're simply begging the question again. Just because you think something could possibly might be true doesn't mean that saying it makes a sound argument.
It doesn't make it unsound either. If you're looking for an argument from me in this vein that has to include some factual reference to what I'm saying could be a spiritual force, it isn't going to happen. That's impossible and that's what this is about faith. Why are people pushing me for something that is not possible because it's related to faith? I'm not saying it's true like a fundie would, I'm saying what might be plausible as an opinion. After all, faith is pretty much an opinion is it not?
If you think the reality of "law and order" are sufficient to establish the existence of some primeval cause or other such ill-defined term, then make the argument; otherwise, you're simply committing the same appeal to the appearance of design fallacy creationists use.
I DID make the argument. But it's as far as you can go. I said that people could plausibly choose to believe that the existence of law and order was a sign that there was a "lawmaker" for lack of a better word. What else do you want from me? I haven't professed anything beyond this. It seems like I'M the one that has words being put in my mouth.
We've been over this before. The point of a debate is to hammer out the truth of the matter, not to "meet in the middle" (whatever that means). You've got no business a priori expecting people debating you to give you any slack or to concede even an inch to your position. Debates are battles of ideas, not tea parties.
As I said in a previous post, I meant as far as meeting me with polite discussion for the purpose of understanding each other. If the other side does nothing but nitpick the other person and doesn't really EXPLAIN their side, then how can you know their ideas? I'm suggesting what are to me plausible reasons that would be sufficient for some people to believe in a creator. Nitram admits to believing in one, so he's already further in that camp than I am, but does he explain how he believes and try to show me how my thoughts could harmonize with the way he believes? No. It's just a game of one upmanship and rudeness as I'm seeing very clearly from him now. At least you and the others are being more communicative and polite. There really isn't any need to be rude for the sake of being rude. I don't know why anyone would enjoy just sniping at people. Isn't there enough strife in the world without manufacturing it unecessarily?
And don't go putting thoughts in peoples' minds or words in their mouths just because you don't like the way they're conducting the debate; that's just dishonest.
People are doing the same things to me. Why single ME out? Most posts have taken my relatively minor conclusion of plausible faith, and have tried to drag it out to a statement of proof for a creator.
When I asked those two about their seemingly hostile attitude towards the possibility of a creator, I suggested it and then asked to clarify it if I was wrong. As I just went into detail to you above, I would have expected a better attempt at understanding between our viewpoints from someone already a deist instead of his seemingly total dismissal of the possibility. I'm not a mind reader. I can only interpret what seems to be his position, and he certainly doesn't make it easy to tell sometimes.
No, science is not useless in this matter, as the ongoing search for the Unified Field demonstrates. Your problem seems to be that unless science can definitevely disprove the existence of this so-called "ONE force", the explanation should be taken seriously until it is disproven. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way: the burden is not to disprove the alleged first cause but to demonstrate that such a thing happened or was even necessary in the first place.
Well I shouldn't say it's useless, I suppose I should modify that to presently incompetent.
And I can still profess a faith based on what I gave as a reason for my own personal plausibility. This doesn't mean I'm trying to make an evidential argument. That's involving science again. You can't do that with faith. I know that, everyone here has said this many times in the past, so why does it seem people are trying to blend these two together when referring to my posts??
I see a lot of semantical dancing but nothing resembling a solid logical argument as to why such a thing must have existed at all.
I never said there MUST be. This is putting words in my mouth. I've already explained it was based on faith in its essence because of what would be plausible for me and others who felt that law and order indicated a lawmaker. That's all. There isn't any need to take it further or flesh it out. I'm not trying to claim anything evidential about it.
Wrong. The default logical assumption is always that if a thing's existence cannot be demonstrated, then the thing does not exist. The burden is always upon those to prove otherwise.
That may be, but that is not necessarily TRUE. We couldn't demonstrate gamma rays in the 18th century, but they were still real. That's why 'belief', 'faith' and 'theory' are all words that do not have the same meaning as demonstable, evidenciary and proven.
You can't understand logic and the basics of Empiricism? Why am I not surprised? I laid out why you were talking out of your ass very simply. You failed to come back with any meaningful rebuttal.
Meaningful to you, not to me. I understood myself perfectly.
Except I'm not beleiving for any logical reason. Human beings are irrational, I am irrational, my beleif is mostly irrational.
And what's this 'Meet in the middle' nonsense, from someone who screeched like a spoilt child about 'dogma'?
Well then maybe "logic" is not a word to be used in my posts regarding this, but in any case I've been striving to say plausible and faith-based, so if my words were belying that point, it was unintentional.
And apparently the word 'dogma' was a poor choice. It certainly provoked you in a way I didn't intend.
What, the Miss Manners rules of debate? Fuck that noise. It has no place here.
Why not? What exactly do you have against politeness? It shows maturity and good naturedness. Do you want to deliberately make people angry or make them feel bad about themselves? Is that some kind of pleasure for you? LikeI said before, being rude for the sake of being rude is unnecessary and it certainly doesn't make people wish to cooperate or understand each other. You get more flies with honey than vinegar.
When one debates in the Science LOGIC and Morality forum, one expects logic. Is this bar set too high for you?
We're still referencing science and its limitations. Sometimes logic is not applicable because it's limited.
And unsurprisingly, it's still a load of steaming, fetid bullshit. Logical debating has no room for such stupidity, and I have no patience for it from someone whose dancing like a damned headless chicken to avoid answering what 'bias' I have.
Well you are entitled to your personal opinion that manners are unimportant and your idea of debate has to be hostile when it gets involved, but I disagree. I was asking what your seeming bias was by giving my interpretation of it and then asked for you to clarify. In my books that is not accusatory and condemning, that is questioning. Besides that, it was a very mild thing to suggest that you seemed to be very atheistic and science driven in your beliefs. Whoop te do. That pissed you off? You must have a very short fuse indeed.
'WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!'
Christ. Was that it? That's your big rebuttal outlining my dogma you insist I have? You're stamping your feet like a spanked child because you don't like having to use logic? That you hate philosophy? That debate isn't 'Miss Manners Let's Meet In The Middle' bullshit?
Pathetic. When do I get to see you own up and tell the board you were full of bullshit and frothing crap when you accused me of dogma, shithead? Or is that going to be snipped out so you can go on another tirade about how many big meanie heads there are?
I never even GOT to that part of the discussion until today. I didn't have a lot of time. What is wrong with you? Obviously you don't realize (or care) how histrionic you sound over this entire issue. If you are truly incapable of having a friendly discussion without blowing your stack, I'd rather not bother. I have much better things to with my time than seek out unnecessarily hostile arguments. Who needs it?
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
When you get older and older and work to acquire knowledge on some topic and feel a certain position being affirmed again and again, it's harder to just switch like that to a different opposing position, especially when you see none of the evidence change but find that you've only been drawing the wrong conclusions.
