Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[mighty_duck]

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.

The difference between an (hard) agnostic and an atheist is mostly to do with how one defines knowledge. Also, a God may be so poorly defined, as to leave Him meaningless, in which case you agnosticism is a justified position (not even knowing what you are asked to disbelieve).
Soft agnostics is a position I have more respect for.

In the case of the Christian God, I consider myself an Atheist. I do not believe such a creature exists.

Are you agnostic about leprechauns? Do you sit and wonder if they in fact exist? How about a million other fantasies I may throw your way?
If you're intellectually honest, you will say you at least lack belief in them.

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?

Are you really comparing oxygen to leprechauns? There is a difference between not seeing something, to having no verifiable proof. I can perform hundreds of test to verify the existence of oxygen. I can build falsifiable hypothesis with regard to the atom, and actually try to falsify it in the real world. I can't do that with either leprechauns or God.

...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.

I agree that evolution is counterintuitive at first. It is likewise counterintuitive seeing a flat earth, but being told it is actualy a sphere.(My daughter keeps disbelieving this, she can't accept that people on the other side don't fall off ) Likewise that the seemingly solid chair I'm sitting on is actually mostly empty space. That I am actually hurtling through space at an amazing speed along with the rest of the planet. First impressions and simple logic can be deceiving

And finally, nature didn't "design" us, we evolved along with other creatures on this earth. There is a subtle difference, we weren't nature's ultimate plan.

 

[mighty_duck]

Hi Sentinel Sith,

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

You are saying one of two things:
a. It is guaranteed as the only possibility because I presupposed it. In which case: how do you guarauntee your presupposition is correct? If you go this route, you will be begging the question very soon.
b. It is guaranteed as a possibility because of your definition of God. In which case how do you guarauntee it is the only possibilty?

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.

Glad to hear it. Keep your intellectual integrity, it is a very underrated quality.

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.

Why is atheism logically self refuting?
See my post above regarding agnostics.

 

[sentientsynth]

Hi Sentinel Sith,

Call me Senile Sentinel for a while.

You are saying one of two things:
a. It is guaranteed as the only possibility because I presupposed it. In which case: how do you guarauntee your presupposition is correct? If you go this route, you will be begging the question very soon.
b. It is guaranteed as a possibility because of your definition of God. In which case how do you guarauntee it is the only possibilty?

I'm saying that the existence of a God which fits this definition would guarantee our epistemological competence. This isn't intended to prove the existence of God. It's intended to provide a non-circular basis for establishing the commensurability of the objective with the subjective. It's my thesis that no other basis does this properly.

Glad to hear it. Keep your intellectual integrity, it is a very underrated quality.

I gotta fortune cookie one time that said: "Sincerety is your greatest asset." We have to be honest with each other if we plan on getting anywhere, I say.

Why is atheism logically self refuting?

It claims to possess infinite absolute knowledge, which no human is capable of having.

I read your definition of atheism, that the "Biblical God" doesn't exist. That's not real atheism. But I can dig what you're saying.


Sincerely,

SS (Silly Satyrist)

 

[jhodgeiii]

The difference between an (hard) agnostic and an atheist is mostly to do with how one defines knowledge. Also, a God may be so poorly defined, as to leave Him meaningless, in which case you agnosticism is a justified position (not even knowing what you are asked to disbelieve).
Soft agnostics is a position I have more respect for.

In the case of the Christian God, I consider myself an Atheist. I do not believe such a creature exists.

Thanks for clarfying this.

Are you agnostic about leprechauns? Do you sit and wonder if they in fact exist? How about a million other fantasies I may throw your way?
If you're intellectually honest, you will say you at least lack belief in them.

I don't; do you? Out of the literally billions of galaxies out there and the infinite creative ability of Evolution, can you honestly say "leprechauns, dragons, and invisible imps" absolutely do not exist?

 

[Highline]

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

Your just not reading from the right sources. Evolution anticipates results (fossil finds) that are proven true again and again.

I doubt cats came from dogs, but they had a common ancestor (that was not either of them) millions of years back.

We have plenty of documented cases, tons of fruit flies for example, but also birds that are seperating into different species in California. There are others. And of course domesticated animals speed up evolution and are a good demonstration: think of the variety of dogs, for example.

A lot theories in physics happen slowly, no one says physics is not science.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Your just not reading from the right sources. Evolution anticipates results (fossil finds) that are proven true again and again.

The global flood anticipates fossil finds as well.

I doubt cats came from dogs, but they had a common ancestor (that was not either of them) millions of years back.

Here you're speaking (purely speculatively) about macro-evolution. There is no evidence that dogs and cats share a common ancestor -- just a belief that they do.

We have plenty of documented cases, tons of fruit flies for example, but also birds that are seperating into different species in California. There are others. And of course domesticated animals speed up evolution and are a good demonstration: think of the variety of dogs, for example.

Now you're talking about micro-evolution, which doesn't help your case. All your fruit flies are still fruit flies. All your birds are still birds. All your dogs are still dogs. They aren't changing into anything else.

 

[mighty_duck]

Sentimental Sith,

It's intended to provide a non-circular basis for establishing the commensurability of the objective with the subjective. It's my thesis that no other basis does this properly.

It is non-circular only because you treat your presuppositions as true.

What we are asking, is for you to prove your "thesis". You have to show that no other God type could possibly fill those shoes. And you must use the same methodolgy, IE presuppose another god, treat that presupposition as true, and see if you encounter any problems. Any inconsistencies should easily be removed with ad hoc explanations, but I welcome you to try.

It claims to possess infinite absolute knowledge, which no human is capable of having.

I read your definition of atheism, that the "Biblical God" doesn't exist. That's not real atheism. But I can dig what you're saying.

I'm not sure which atheists you have encountered, but your skewed understanding of what atheism is seems to come from creationist propaganda, rather than actual atheists.
No atheist worth your time will claim to have absolute knowledge. In fact, you will have to show that absolute knowledge for a human is even possible before you can demand it from anyone. If you give some thought to what we consider "knowledge", you will notice it is often wrong, and certainly not absolute. Demanding such a standard will mean we can't know anything (see radical skepticism), which renders the word meaningless.

I don't; do you? Out of the literally billions of galaxies out there and the infinite creative ability of Evolution, can you honestly say "leprechauns, dragons, and invisible imps" absolutely do not exist?

See my comment above about so called absolute knowledge. In the terms that we can know anything, I know that leprechauns and God don't exist: I've seen zero reliable evidence for either. Carl Sagan put it in better terms with "The Dragon in my Garage"
http://spl.haxial.net/religion/misc/carl-sagan.html

 

[mighty_duck]

Now you're talking about micro-evolution, which doesn't help your case. All your fruit flies are still fruit flies. All your birds are still birds. All your dogs are still dogs. They aren't changing into anything else.

When does a fruit fly stop being a fruit fly? When there's a physical difference? When there is a genetic difference? When they can no longer reproduce with other fruit flies?

What defines a species?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

When does a fruit fly stop being a fruit fly? When there's a physical difference? When there is a genetic difference? When they can no longer reproduce with other fruit flies?

What defines a species?

You tell me.

 

[mighty_duck]

You tell me.

No, you're the one who made the claim that only micro evolution has been observed, so it is up to you to define what you meant by that claim. What would be considered enough evolution to be considered macro-evolution?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

No, you're the one who made the claim that only micro evolution has been observed,

Are you disputing this?

so it is up to you to define what you meant by that claim.

Everybody here knows exactly what that claim means. If you don't, then maybe you need to catch up before you rejoin this conversation.

What would be considered enough evolution to be considered macro-evolution?

You tell me. I don't believe you can get enough.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

No, you're the one who made the claim that only micro evolution has been observed, so it is up to you to define what you meant by that claim.

And come to think of it, I don't recall making this claim. So I'm not obligated to define anything for you.

 

[Agape4Robin]

And come to think of it, I don't recall making this claim. So I'm not obligated to define anything for you.

And another right jab...........mighty_dumb looks confused.:box:

 

[mighty_duck]

And come to think of it, I don't recall making this claim. So I'm not obligated to define anything for you.

Then what were you doing in post 506?? Here's your quote:

Now you're talking about micro-evolution, which doesn't help your case. All your fruit flies are still fruit flies. All your birds are still birds. All your dogs are still dogs. They aren't changing into anything else.

Are you disputing this?.
Everybody here knows exactly what that claim means. If you don't, then maybe you need to catch up before you rejoin this conversation.

I need to understand what you are claiming in order to actually dispute this. Every creationist has a different definition for what constitutes micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Science doesn't really recognize the line between them. So please enlighten us on what you think the difference is. If you can't bother to do so, don't bother to make any claims.
If your answer includes the words "species" or "kinds", then please define what the differences between species are. I am not nitpicking here, and I know the dictionary definitons for them. It is just that if I were to make this definition for you, and then disprove it via observed evolution, you would just claim that you had a different definiton in mind.

You tell me. I don't believe you can get enough.

Finally, a grain of truth. No matter how different a species is produced via observed evolution, you will always claim it is micro-evolution. Even If I turn a dog into a cat

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Then what were you doing in post 506??

Looks like I was pointing out that the documented cases of 'evolution' that Highline was referring to were examples of micro-evolution.

I need to understand what you are claiming in order to actually dispute this.

Apparently, you're wanting to dispute a claim that you made, mighty_duck. If that's what you want to do, explain what you meant, and then dispute it.

Every creationist has a different definition for what constitutes micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Whatever gave you that idea?

Science doesn't really recognize the line between them.

Sure it does. Myopic evolutionists haven't got a lock on science.

So please enlighten us on what you think the difference is. If you can't bother to do so, don't bother to make any claims.

Like I said -- if you don't know the difference then you need to do some more research before you rejoin this conversation.

If your answer includes the words "species" or "kinds", then please define what the differences between species are.

Why don't you define the difference between species?

I am not nitpicking here, and I know the dictionary definitons for them.

Then don't bother asking me.

It is just that if I were to make this definition for you, and then disprove it via observed evolution, you would just claim that you had a different definiton in mind.

You're gonna disprove species via observed evolution? I've gotta see this -- go ahead and present your definition.

Finally, a grain of truth. No matter how different a species is produced via observed evolution, you will always claim it is micro-evolution.

I'm not aware of any that turned out to be that different. What are the biggest change you know of? Hair color? Size? Fertility cycle? These aren't exactly major changes.

Even If I turn a dog into a cat

You're not going to turn a dog into a cat.

 

[mighty_duck]

This is like pulling out teeth, but not quite as enjoyable. I'll give it one last try. :bang:

Looks like I was pointing out that the documented cases of 'evolution' that Highline was referring to were examples of micro-evolution.

Define what you mean by micro-evolution. If there is only one definiton it should be easy for you, but we both know it isn't so cut and dry. I am not a mind reader, I can't tell you what you meant, you will have to do that. It is painstakingly clear that you are avoiding this definition at all costs, even though you brought it up. As it stands, your assertion is meaningless.

 

[Agape4Robin]

This is like pulling out teeth, but not quite as enjoyable. I'll give it one last try. :bang:


Define what you mean by micro-evolution. If there is only one definiton it should be easy for you, but we both know it isn't so cut and dry. I am not a mind reader, I can't tell you what you meant, you will have to do that. It is painstakingly clear that you are avoiding this definition at all costs, even though you brought it up. As it stands, your assertion is meaningless.

Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Swing and a miss!!!!!!!!!!!!:dizzy:

 

[Hilston]

I'm not sure where I left off, or where I should pick up. I did a search on my name and hit upon this particular post by might_duck:

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?

Why does it matter how I know? Aren't you more concerned about how you can know?

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?

My use of logic in answering that or any question is justified by the existence and attributes of God.

We can't accept the validty of the conclusion of TAGer1, without first accepting the validity of logic.

Do you question the validity of logic?

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

It only seems that way to you, m_d, because, as I've pointed out to you previously, you to readily conflate separate arguments and proofs.

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

All rationality, all knowledge, all science, all logic is based on faith, m_d. The foundation of faith does not invalidate or make irrational the use of logic that is based upon, provided that faith does not itself undermine logic or the intelligibility of human experience.

I'll try to catch up slowly at first. A lot has gotten away from me.

Cheers,
Jim

 

[Agape4Robin]

I'm not sure where I left off, or where I should pick up. I did a search on my name and hit upon this particular post by might_duck:

Why does it matter how I know? Aren't you more concerned about how you can know?

My use of logic in answering that or any question is justified by the existence and attributes of God.

Do you question the validity of logic?

It only seems that way to you, m_d, because, as I've pointed out to you previously, you to readily conflate separate arguments and proofs.

All rationality, all knowledge, all science, all logic is based on faith, m_d. The foundation of faith does not invalidate or make irrational the use of logic that is based upon, provided that faith does not itself undermine logic or the intelligibility of human experience.

I'll try to catch up slowly at first. A lot has gotten away from me.

Cheers,
Jim

HIlson lands one square on mighty_dumb's nose!:box:

 

[mighty_duck]

Hi Jim,

Glad to have you back. When you have time, please reply to post 437, where we last left off.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=973365&postcount=437

Why does it matter how I know? Aren't you more concerned about how you can know?

Of course. I'm asking how you can prove it.

Do you question the validity of logic?

No. I question how you can justify using it. Using logic to prove your presuppositions is circular, since your presuppositions are used to justify your use of loigc.

All rationality, all knowledge, all science, all logic is based on faith, m_d. The foundation of faith does not invalidate or make irrational the use of logic that is based upon, provided that faith does not itself undermine logic or the intelligibility of human experience.

This would all be cleared up if you could make your argument plain, preferably in the form of a syllogism.

How can you say that faith is rational? By definiton, it is belief without proof, so is by nature irrational. This makes your whole argument irrational by your own definition.

Unless I misunderstood you. If faith is a valid foundation, then your presuppositions are in fact axioms. If that is so, then we can finally discuss which axioms are "better", since both our worldviews are logically valid. How is faith in "magic" axioms logically different than your faith in your presuppositions?