Evolution Won't Do - Page 5 - Science, Math and Philosophy Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Science, Math, and Philosophy

Evolution Won't Do

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

08-08-2008 , 09:36 AM

#101

Splendour

banned

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 18,896

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

I wish I'd said that.

Yes me too.

Quote

08-08-2008 , 09:49 AM

#102

KotOD

old hand

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,983

Quote:

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard

If you refuse to see validity in statements outside the paradigm of scientific materialism then you've made up your mind already.

There are many big words here that simply mean "I believe mystical things that I can't prove."

You could have saved yourself a bunch of keystrokes.

Quote

08-08-2008 , 09:57 AM

#103

vhawk01

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,866

Quote:

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard

This use of the unicorn analogy is a prime example of an atheist argument hiding the premise that god positively does not exist. If god exists then god Is needed to "fully explain" all aspects of life's development, regardless of how well science explains the mechanical aspect of the process. The atheist unicorn argument amounts to inserting the hidden atheist premise that god doesn't exist. It amounts to saying, "believing god exists is as silly as believing unicorns exist". The funny thing is watching how some self described weak atheists will try to deny this observation by claiming they are also weak about unicorns. It's like pulling teeth getting them to admit they have a postive belief that unicorns do not exist.

"You can't disprove it but what's the reason to believe it?"

Theists do think that believing god exists is reasonable. So that's another debate. With that in mind it is a non sequitor by Dawkins when he says that science explains the mecanical aspect of life's develoment so it "fully accounts" for all aspects of life's development and there is no need for god. If god exists, there is a need for god to fully account for all aspects of life's development. And many points can be brought to bear by theists to argue the reasonableness of faith in such a god with many highly intelligent people practicing such a faith.

PairTheBoard

Meaning that anyone who ever says anything but Glory be to God is making some sort of grievous fallacious error. Ok. Is it ok for me to thank the baker for my bread, or is that insinuating the hidden assumption that God wasnt ultimately responsible for that bread? Can I say "widgets are made by widgeteers" or is that also loaded with hidden atheistic assumptions?

Quote

08-08-2008 , 09:59 AM

#104

vhawk01

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,866

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-In Flynn

I don't disagree majorly with any of this. If god exists, then it may be necessary to explain aspects of life's development other than the purely mechanical – assuming that these super-mechanical aspects themselves exist. The parsimony principle neither proves nor claims to prove anything, but it's certainly a compelling enough reason for me to shelve the idea, and be a 'teapot agnostic' awaiting further evidence. Albeit with no particular expectation of any to come.

Exactly. Rejecting hidden assumptions, not crafting your own.

Quote

08-08-2008 , 10:31 AM

#105

luckyme

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,800

Quote:

Originally Posted by KotOD

There are many big words here that simply mean "I believe mystical things that I can't prove."

You could have saved yourself a bunch of keystrokes.

That's roughly how it reads to me. I fail to see how pointing to several understood events points to anything that has no connection to them.

Essentially, it's a claim that emotional experiences belong to some mysterious realm ( without any evidence that they do, naturally).

Quote

08-08-2008 , 10:48 AM

#106

bunny

will feast on your soul

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 11,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckyme

Do you think materialism has been established as fact? Do you think it should be the working hypothesis unless demonstrated false? Something else?

Quote

08-08-2008 , 11:17 AM

#107

luckyme

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 5,800

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunny

Do you think materialism has been established as fact? Do you think it should be the working hypothesis unless demonstrated false? Something else?

Just because it was the death of bambi's mother that made John McCain cry doesn't mean it wasn't produced in the same way as the rest of the movie.

Quote

08-08-2008 , 09:21 PM

#108

bunny

will feast on your soul

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 11,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckyme

Just because it was the death of bambi's mother that made John McCain cry doesn't mean it wasn't produced in the same way as the rest of the movie.

I'll take that as a yes. It is pretty obvious that, given materialism, God is silly (since he's supposed to be non-material). So if you're interested, but struggling to understand what theists are talking about it might be useful to remember that they do not accept materialism.

You focus on emotions - I personally dont find them a particularly strong argument for dualism. Mathematics is much more of a stumbling block to a materialist position, in my view.

Quote

Page 5 of 5

First

1 2 3 4 5

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 5 of 5

First

1 2 3 4 5

Last