Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[SUTG]

Johnny,

Read this several times before responding.

Hilston isn't arguing evolutionary biology. Keep up. This was never what this debate was about, though some desperately wanted it thus. I expected it, but didn't get it. (So no shenanigans, right?)

Scientia=Knowledge=Epistemology. A=A=A. If the quantum physicist philosophically undermines his own competence to verify truth, then nothing and absolutely nothing that ever comes out of his mouth can be said to be a justifiable representation of reality within that quantum physicist's schemata of understanding reality. He must borrow from another worldview in order to lay claim to any truth, whether it be evidenced a thousand times over or not. (The Japanese solved x^2 + y^2 = z^2 where x, y, and z are the legs of a right triangle up to the tens of thousands, yet never proved the theorem mathematically. The man who did, Pythagoras, is who we credit with the theorem, and justified the use of this theorem universally within mathematics.)

The Evolutionist does just this sort of "worldview borrowing." Hilston has handed all of you sound reasoning on a palatable platter repeatedly, yet all of you stumble over this very treasure as if it were hidden in the darkness of a cave. Then, once you realize your face is in the floor of the Earth, you rise complaining because you never saw this. Open your eyes and look around. The truth is plain to all, as it has been sufficiently manifested to all by what has been created, the order of the material and the immaterial.

Johnny, you said that I had to say such and such and what not. You were talking out of the wrong side of your mouth. Where's your spidey-senses, Peter Parker? Wrongo....you assumed. Pie in the face number two. The term "scientific thinking" is what must be fully defined. It is the definition of this term that is the crux of this debate.Science=Knowledge. Scientific thinking = A method of ratiocination that accurately and precisely represents reality, giving knowledge of facts beyond the mere subjective perception of such. Outside of a Creator that fashioned the subjective psyche to represent objective reality accurately and precisely, there is no rational foundation for presupposing the commensurability of the noumenal and the phenomenal. The man who doesn't presuppose such a pre-fashioning of the psyche to the non-psyche throws the monkey wrench in his ratiocination at step one of the process. Why haven't you yet grasped it, fellow Christian?

Blithering nonsense. Of course, you're using a rhetorical device to aggravate a dichotomy. I must presuppose this, or else you statement should be viewed as completely non-sensical. Kind of like saying "The color of this ice creams sounds hot on Tuesdays." Science isn't science? Are you presupposing a presupposition on the part of a man you say isn't justified in any presupposition?

Um..sorry...maybe I got carried away... :darwinsm: I presuppose that your similarly human psyche will induce the truth of the objective reality beyond your subjective phenomenological perceptions in space-time which includes the perhaps unverifiable existence of once-removed subjects existing in this same space-time, allowing you to intuit what I just meant. Now that was getting carried away.

Johnny, call it quits. My species has evolved beyond your species so that my species may perceive the existence of such realities. Such justifications are warranted within an Evolutionary worldview. Within a Creationist worldview, they aren't. So go ahead and bum from a Creationist worldview, as Stratnerd has to even carry on the previous "debate", and say that my species has no preceptual advantage beyond your species. Or [do I possess the bravery] go ahead and claim that my species hasn't yet evolved to understand the realities that your species has. Go ahead. Doing so will undermine the very existence of truth, which in itself is the fatal blow to any philosophical house of cards.

I have no expectation of you to actually consider one word of what I just said. That would be an unjustified presupposition. The existence of a transcendent Infinite which possesses the characteristics capable of ontologically grounding the existence of both the material and the immaterial is not, however.

The Evolutionists have lost this debate.

Show's over folks.


SS

SentinelSynth,

Sorry, I missed the spot in your post where you justified induction. Can you please point it out to me?

thanks,
SUTG :yawn:

 

[sentientsynth]

SentinelSynth,

Hm..Sentinel synth

Etymology: Middle French sentinelle, from Old Italian sentinella, from sentina vigilance, from sentire to perceive, from Latin.

1. To watch over as a guard.
2. To provide with a guard.
3. To post as a guard.


I could dig that. Don't see how it could go with synthesizer though. Maybe I should change my handle to sentientsentinel. That's pretty cool. Probably too big though.

Sorry, I missed the spot in your post where you justified induction. Can you please point it out to me?

thanks,
SUTG :yawn:

It's about mid-way down. I'll give you the one calorie version.

1. Induction is justified only within a universe that is uniform in its phenomenology and identity
2. Induction is justified only within the framework of a psyche that accurately and precisely portrays this phenomenology.
3. (1) and (2) are guaranteed only within the framework of a Creator who fashioned the universe and the psyche thus. (humans = finite beings = incapable of infinite knowledge so as to be able to claim otherwise.)
4. Presupposing the existence of God, therefore, justifies the use of induction.

Even reading this sentence makes you a Creationist. Congratulations on your conversion. Just kidding.

I'm not sure if that's TAG, or just what it is. Hilston's probably got a ball-ping hammer ready for my head. He's done such a better job than I could do probably even after I studied TAG'ers.

I'm sure you have some questions. Of course, that would mean that you reject what I said earlier, so allow me to pre-empt you and provide a fitting non-inductive reply:

:Hits Infinite Improbability Drive:

q$po 3&r a1zy6v*st m2arl on9me m`an ex? eq~@.

NORMALITY RESTORED

whew, glad that's over.


SS

 

[mighty_duck]

3. (1) and (2) are guaranteed only within the framework of a Creator who fashioned the universe and the psyche thus. (humans = finite beings = incapable of infinite knowledge so as to be able to claim otherwise.)

SenileSynth, (jk )

Please justify this line. It doesn't follow from the first two.
It also seems to be contradictary. The absolute confidence you seem to have when you claim "only" your solution is possible, and then claim that humans are incapable of such absolutes.

 

[SUTG]

I'll give you the one calorie version.

1. Induction is justified only within a universe that is uniform in its phenomenology and identity
2. Induction is justified only within the framework of a psyche that accurately and precisely portrays this phenomenology.
3. (1) and (2) are guaranteed only within the framework of a Creator who fashioned the universe and the psyche thus. (humans = finite beings = incapable of infinite knowledge so as to be able to claim otherwise.)
4. Presupposing the existence of God, therefore, justifies the use of induction.

Even reading this sentence makes you a Creationist. Congratulations on your conversion. Just kidding.

I'm not sure if that's TAG, or just what it is. Hilston's probably got a ball-ping hammer ready for my head. He's done such a better job than I could do probably even after I studied TAG'ers.

That definitely qualifies as low calorie! You've just moved your assertion into statement (3) and put the word 'guarantee' in boldface as if that somehow does the guaranteeing! What does this type of justification-by-assertion accomplish? How is this any different than not justifying it at all? What problem has been solved? Certainly not the problems made famous by Hume.

I'm sure you have some questions. Of course, that would mean that you reject what I said earlier, so allow me to pre-empt you and provide a fitting non-inductive reply:

:Hits Infinite Improbability Drive:

q$po 3&r a1zy6v*st m2arl on9me m`an ex? eq~@.

NORMALITY RESTORED

Save your typing. We get it. We know all about Hume's Thesis of Inductive Skepticism. You and Hilston present it in about every post you make. I get it. I know how it works. I understand the problem as stated. I've read Hume. I know that all humans must use induction. You've made your point over and over and over and over. Other presuppositionalists have made this point over and over and over. Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Greg Bahnsen, and Nelson Goodman have made this point over and over and over again. It is a safe bet that you don't have to give any more examples of this after the previous 30 plus pages. We can move on now...

Your thoughts on the issue are in disagreement with all of the thinkers I have mentioned above, with the exception of Hilston and Bahnsen. How did you refute them so easily? Is sentence number 3 above the magic bullet? It contains nothing except a promise of a guarantee.

We want to see how this is guaranteed.

 

[mighty_duck]

SS or Clete,

Let me make it easy for you. I have made this challange to Hilston, but he has stopped answering this thread.

You presuppose 1. God of the Bible. 2. Inerrancy of the Bible.
I ask:
MD1: How do you know these presuppositions are true?
TAGer1: <Insert any logical statement> (some are: The impposibility of the contrary, Without God knowledge is impossible, etc.>
MD2: How do you justify using logic to answer the last question? We can't accept the validty of the conclusion of TAGer1, without first accepting the validity of logic.

This leads to the whole argument becoming circular, and therefore meaningless as proof.

Hilston's last repsonse was that he has faith. So much for being rational...

I hope some TAGer out there has a better response for MD2.

 

[Agape4Robin]

It takes just as much faith to believe that God doesn't exist as it does to belive that He does.

 

[SUTG]

It takes just as much faith to believe that God doesn't exist as it does to belive that He does.

No.

 

[mighty_duck]

It takes just as much faith to believe that God doesn't exist as it does to belive that He does.

To elaborate a bit on what SUTG correctly pointed out..Not quite. For most atheists, nonbelief in God is a conclusion, rather than an a-priori faith based belief. If we were to see evidence of God today, then our worldview would be able to encompass and accept Him, without changing any of our presuppositions.

Please compare your non-belief in leprecauns, dragons, and an invisible imp on your shoulder, to your belief in God. It isn't quite the same is it? I feel the same way about that invisible imp as I do about the Christian God.

 

[Agape4Robin]

To elaborate a bit on what SUTG correctly pointed out..Not quite. For most atheists, nonbelief in God is a conclusion, rather than an a-priori faith based belief. If we were to see evidence of God today, then our worldview would be able to encompass and accept Him, without changing any of our presuppositions.

Please compare your non-belief in leprecauns, dragons, and an invisible imp on your shoulder, to your belief in God. It isn't quite the same is it? I feel the same way about that invisible imp as I do about the Christian God.

Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God? Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is?

 

[mighty_duck]

Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God? Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is?

Please ask yourself the exact same questions regarding leprechauns. I think our answers will line up perfectly.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Please ask yourself the exact same questions regarding leprechauns. I think our answers will line up perfectly.

:loser:

 

[Just Tom]

This debate has been the worst one yet..

Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo...

How or by what mechanism that has been demonstrated, does evolution produce a cat from a dog or a alligator from a fish.

Evolution can't give an example, all it can to is conjecture about how but no science. no documented cases thus it don't pass the muster. And if they say that it accures to slowly to see then it fails on the non-falseafiable clause of the definition of what science is.

So it is not science but fantasy.. a nice one though

 

[Agape4Robin]

This debate has been the worst one yet..

Just a bunch of mumbo jumbo...

How or by what mechanism that has been demonstrated, does evolution produce a cat from a dog or a alligator from a fish.

Evolution can't give an example, all it can to is conjecture about how but no science. no documented cases thus it don't pass the muster. And if they say that it accures to slowly to see then it fails on the non-falseafiable clause of the definition of what science is.

So it is not science but fantasy.. a nice one though

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Just Tom again.:bang:

 

[mighty_duck]

:loser:

How can I compete with such a witty retort. But it is expected of an aleprechaunist. :wave:

 

[Agape4Robin]

How can I compete with such a witty retort. But it is expected of an aleprechaunist. :wave:

A what?

 

[Metalking]

Spell checker.

Spell checker.

Is that a formula for apple or blueberry "pie".
If someone else had written that I might think it was a typo; however...

Oh, and lazer is pretty cool too.

Seriously, I apologize for the one liners but you really have no concept of science.

Shadily (thanks OEJ) yours
Jukia

I will never recieive any awards for my lazy spelling. Pi or Laser....etc...
You don't like my views on science , I just hope you
understand..neener neener neener..: )

 

[Agape4Robin]

I will never recieive any awards for my lazy spelling. Pi or Laser....etc...
You don't like my views on science , I just hope you
understand..neener neener neener..: )

This works well too.................:nananana:

 

[Metalking]

This works well too.................:nananana:

Thanks..I needed that..: ) :second:

 

[jhodgeiii]

To elaborate a bit on what SUTG correctly pointed out..Not quite. For most atheists, nonbelief in God is a conclusion.

The reason why you don't believe in God is because He does not behave in a way you think He should. Period. Being an agnostic would be more intellectually honest.

Please compare your non-belief in leprecauns, dragons, and an invisible imp on your shoulder, to your belief in God. It isn't quite the same is it? I feel the same way about that invisible imp as I do about the Christian God.

You should also feel the same about the oxygen you breathe. Have you, personally, ever seen an oxygen atom? How do you know that oxygen atoms are truly filling your lungs in the very breaths you're taking right now? How would you convince the layman standing next to you as you breathe that oxygen atoms exist? He could easily blow off all your assertions saying that this substance that you call "oxygen" is a figment of your imagination unless you can show him the atoms. But seeing isn't always believing, is it?

Blessed are those who believe in Christ, yet never saw Him. God knew there would be people like you who lead people to doubt His existence. The ones who love Him will seek and find Him...

...some others would go against their own logic believing that blind forces of nature could even design an animal with complete systems allowing it to safely and efficiently vault to the moon and back to take advantage of a resource there that became sparce here on earth.

Sadly, I wouldn't put it past you that you actually believe that this can happen given eons of time. I'll go with believing in my invisible Creator God way before this kind of lunacy.

Some of you guys have been watching too much Star Trek.

 

[sentientsynth]

Howdy folks,

In this reply I'll be addressing both mighty_duck and SUTG.

You had both asked about...

3. (1) and (2) are guaranteed only within the framework of a Creator who fashioned the universe and the psyche thus. (humans = finite beings = incapable of infinite knowledge so as to be able to claim otherwise.)



___________________________________________



m_d --

It doesn't follow from the first two.

This line is intended to stand alone from (1) and (2).

It also seems to be contradictary. The absolute confidence you seem to have when you claim "only" your solution is possible, and then claim that humans are incapable of such absolutes.

Saying that humans do not possess infinite knowledge is qualitatively different than saying we don't possess the ability to know a particular datum absolutely. I maintain that humans may possess absolute knowledge, yet may not possess infinite absolute knowledge. So my statement isn't contradictory.



________________________________________




SUTG --

We want to see how this is guaranteed.

It is guaranteed by the competence of a powerful Creator to fashion the psyche so as to represent objective reality accurately and precisely.



___________________________________________



m_d --


You had made this open post --

You presuppose 1. God of the Bible. 2. Inerrancy of the Bible.

Sorry m_d. I think this qualifier disqualifies me. I do not presuppose these. I'm new to presuppositionalism. My apologetic includes evidentiary/deductive argumentation. I can't speak for TAG'ers. That's why I had said earlier that Hilston probably has a ball-ping hammer ready to take to my forehead. I don't want to speak for presup'ists when I'm not one. At least I don't think I am.

_______________________


Also posted by m_d --

For most atheists, nonbelief in God is a conclusion, rather than an a-priori faith based belief.

You must have a different definition of atheism than I do. In its purest form, atheism is logically self-refuting. Most atheists are really soft-agnostics who don't like calling themselves ignoramuses. Such is more rational and intellectually honest, to my mind.



Barrels of Monkeys,

the Senile One