Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 137

Thread: "What if you're wrong?" - Richard Dawkins

  1. -61
    overworkedirish's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    1,038
    vCash:
    5206
    Loc:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    “The circle had four corners”
    Circles have an infinite number of corners. So technically they have 4. And more. I'll respond to your other post later - watching the Fins preseason right now.

    Quote Quote  

  2. -62
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,489
    vCash:
    9285
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    You asserting something is “circular logic” does not make it so, my conclusion is not a restatement of either one of my premises, so it is certainly not circular at all.

    P1 If knowledge is possible, then God exists
    P2 Knowledge is possible
    C Therefore God exists
    Is this really your reasoning? Your first premise isn't factual... Knowledge is possible whether or not God exists... You've just sort of decided in your own head that God is necessary for knowledge to exist.

    P1 If knowledge is possible, then Santa Claus exists
    P2 Knowledge is possible
    C Therefore Santa Claus exists

    ^See how silly that is?

    Here's how this works:

    P1 Humans are 90% right-handed
    P2 Joe is Human
    C Joe has a 90% chance of being right-handed

    Inductive reasoning; you're doing it wrong.
    Quote Quote  

  3. -63
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    I'm not criticizing you for not understanding it, but next time you want to try to make a smart comment, make sure you have your facts straight first.
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post

    It might seem paradoxical to someone who's not familiar with the 4th dimension. Go watch the video I posted and let Carl Sagan teach you a thing or two.


    Well Carl Sagan asserting that logical contradictions exist doesn’t make it so. Did you even watch your little video? What evidence for a 4th dimension does he give? To think that you accept his “proof” in the video and then turn around and criticize Christians for not having any proof is downright laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by overworkedirish View Post
    Circles have an infinite number of corners. So technically they have 4. And more. I'll respond to your other post later - watching the Fins preseason right now.


    Attacking the analogy rather than understanding the point of the analogy seems pretty absurd, but I can play along. Have you observed the corners of a circle before?

    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Is this really your reasoning? Your first premise isn't factual... Knowledge is possible whether or not God exists...

    If it is, then justify the preconditions of intelligibility in a manner that is consistent with your naturalism. I have challenged you to do this several times and you seem to be incapable of doing so which completely supports my first premise. This is the only way you can refute my first premise, just asserting it is not factual means nothing.


    P1 If knowledge is possible, then Santa Claus exists
    P2 Knowledge is possible
    C Therefore Santa Claus exists

    ^See how silly that is?


    Nope, not the same proof. I can justify the preconditions of intelligibility without Santa Claus; you have yet to do the same without God. Cute syllogism though.

    Here's how this works:

    P1 Humans are 90% right-handed
    P2 Joe is Human
    C Joe has a 90% chance of being right-handed

    Inductive reasoning; you're doing it wrong.

    My syllogism was a deductive proof, not an inductive proof. You can’t justify the use of either given your atheism though. Justify your use of induction in a manner that is consistent with your atheism. As a Christian I know that God upholds His Creation in a predictable and consistent manner, therefore I can justify using induction, you cannot and yet you use it anyways. You have to assume Christianity is true in order to argue against it, therefore you refute your own atheism.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  4. -64
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,489
    vCash:
    9285
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    If it is, then justify the preconditions of intelligibility in a manner that is consistent with your naturalism. I have challenged you to do this several times and you seem to be incapable of doing so which completely supports my first premise. This is the only way you can refute my first premise, just asserting it is not factual means nothing.


    Nope, not the same proof. I can justify the preconditions of intelligibility without Santa Claus; you have yet to do the same without God. Cute syllogism though.


    My syllogism was a deductive proof, not an inductive proof. You can’t justify the use of either given your atheism though. Justify your use of induction in a manner that is consistent with your atheism. As a Christian I know that God upholds His Creation in a predictable and consistent manner, therefore I can justify using induction, you cannot and yet you use it anyways. You have to assume Christianity is true in order to argue against it, therefore you refute your own atheism.
    Holy hell. You keep using the phrase "preconditions of intelligibility", the only precondition of intelligibility is that you have a being capable of intelligence. Some of the Dinosaurs were intelligent beings long before God & the Bible were thought up by Humans. Oh but wait, you probably think Dinosaurs don't exist as the infallible Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old.

    It's exactly the same, I have as much proof of Santa Claus as you do of God.

    I also don't know why you keep using the word "justify" (justification is a subjective matter), but if you want me to 'explain' how beings capable of intelligence arose, then just look at the evolutionary model put forth by all the Biologists; I'm sure you're familiar with it.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -65
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Holy hell. You keep using the phrase "preconditions of intelligibility", the only precondition of intelligibility is that you have a being capable of intelligence.


    What? No way. A person must assume numerous things are true before they can know anything for sure including, uniformity in nature, laws of logic exist, the senses are generally reliable, memory is generally reliable, and classes and types of events exist. If you do not assume any one of these are true then you cannot know anything, and yet there is absolutely no reason to assume any of them are true in an atheistic universe, only the Christian has a reason to make these assumptions. Atheism undermines our very ability to know or prove anything, it’s a self-refuting position.


    Some of the Dinosaurs were intelligent beings long before God & the Bible were thought up by Humans. Oh but wait, you probably think Dinosaurs don't exist as the infallible Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old.


    The dinosaurs were only able to use their intelligence because they lived in a universe created by the Creator God of Scripture.

    It's exactly the same, I have as much proof of Santa Claus as you do of God.


    Nope, that’s a baseless assertion. Please explain how Santa would account for the laws of logic, uniformity in nature, objective morality, and the reliability of one’s senses and memory? God accounts for every one of these, a fat man living at the North Pole who delivers presents on Christmas does nothing to account for any of these things. You fail.

    I also don't know why you keep using the word "justify" (justification is a subjective matter), but if you want me to 'explain' how beings capable of intelligence arose, then just look at the evolutionary model put forth by all the Biologists; I'm sure you're familiar with it.


    According to the principle of sufficient reason you have to provide a sufficient logical justification for all of your axioms in your system of beliefs. You assume every of the preconditions I mentioned above are true, and yet you cannot provide any form of justification for making these assumptions given your atheism. For example, If atheism were true you would have no reason to use induction because you have no reason to assume that natural laws in the future will resemble the natural laws of the past. Yet, you seem to have no problem appealing to science which is completely inductive, and therefore based on an assumption that has no merit if atheism were true. So every time you appeal to science you are banking off of assumptions that only make sense in a Christian theistic universe. Your worldview is fatally flawed; it collapses under its own weight.

    Evolutionary mechanisms cannot be used to explain where human’s ability to reason properly came from since the ability to reason properly is not necessary for survival. An irrational person can make the appropriate choices to survive for irrational reasons just as easily as a rational person can make the wrong choices in a survival situation, natural selection doesn’t “care” either way. Be that as it may, I didn’t ask for you to explain where human rationality came from, I asked for you to explain how you can account for any of the preconditions in a manner that is logically consistent with a purely natural universe. I have heard nothing that even approaches a defensible position thus far.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -66
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,489
    vCash:
    9285
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    What? No way. A person must assume numerous things are true before they can know anything for sure including, uniformity in nature, laws of logic exist, the senses are generally reliable, memory is generally reliable, and classes and types of events exist. If you do not assume any one of these are true then you cannot know anything, and yet there is absolutely no reason to assume any of them are true in an atheistic universe, only the Christian has a reason to make these assumptions. Atheism undermines our very ability to know or prove anything, it’s a self-refuting position.


    You know what makes for uniformity in nature? The laws of physics.

    The dinosaurs were only able to use their intelligence because they lived in a universe created by the Creator God of Scripture.

    If you say so, but riddle me this; how long ago did those dinosaurs live? Was it 6000 years ago, or 65 million years ago? If it's the latter than you'd have to concede that the bible was wrong.

    Nope, that’s a baseless assertion. Please explain how Santa would account for the laws of logic, uniformity in nature, objective morality, and the reliability of one’s senses and memory? God accounts for every one of these, a fat man living at the North Pole who delivers presents on Christmas does nothing to account for any of these things. You fail.


    My God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he accounts for "laws of logic", uniformity in nature, morality, and intelligibility. I don't have much proof of him, I do however have a couple thousand year old book though that's been translated so many times it's sure to be the biblical version of the game "telephone"; but I mean after-all it is on paper so it must be true. He is the one true God, now disprove him.

    According to the principle of sufficient reason you have to provide a sufficient logical justification for all of your axioms in your system of beliefs. You assume every of the preconditions I mentioned above are true, and yet you cannot provide any form of justification for making these assumptions given your atheism. For example, If atheism were true you would have no reason to use induction because you have no reason to assume that natural laws in the future will resemble the natural laws of the past.


    Yes I do, it's called the laws of physics. Which we've observed whether or not God exists.

    Evolutionary mechanisms cannot be used to explain where human’s ability to reason properly came from since the ability to reason properly is not necessary for survival. An irrational person can make the appropriate choices to survive for irrational reasons just as easily as a rational person can make the wrong choices in a survival situation, natural selection doesn’t “care” either way.
    What a load of hogwash. Right, I'm sure a planet of irrational people would figure out how to cultivate plants, hunt, move with herds, raise the young, care for the sick, build cities, domesticate animals.... We aren't Lions bro, we're a different type of animal. We aren't 2000 lbs with razor sharp teeth, we use our enlarged brains to use tools and alter our environment. It's a survival strategy, and one that's worked out quite well so far.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -67
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    You know what makes for uniformity in nature? The laws of physics.


    This is incorrect for two reasons: first of all the laws of physics are descriptive not normative, so you cannot say they are the reason we assume uniformity in nature. Secondly, you have no reason to assume the laws of physics we observe right now will resemble the laws of physics we will observe in the future; so that still can’t be used to justify your use of induction.

    If you say so, but riddle me this; how long ago did those dinosaurs live? Was it 6000 years ago, or 65 million years ago? If it's the latter than you'd have to concede that the bible was wrong.


    That’s not true, there are plenty of Christians who believe scripture is infallible but believe the Dinosaurs pre-dated man. That question is still not relevant to our discussion, and I can’t let you try to take this down some rabbit hole about the age of the earth.

    My God is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he accounts for "laws of logic", uniformity in nature, morality, and intelligibility. I don't have much proof of him, I do however have a couple thousand year old book though that's been translated so many times it's sure to be the biblical version of the game "telephone"; but I mean after-all it is on paper so it must be true. He is the one true God, now disprove him.


    There are no ancient manuscripts that speak of the FSM; are you really incapable of holding a serious discussion about these matters? This really looks like a desperation ploy because you know you’re beaten. How would the FSM account for any of these things? Be specific.

    Yes I do, it's called the laws of physics. Which we've observed whether or not God exists.

    I already pointed out above that the laws of physics are descriptive not normative, so they cannot be used to justify induction. Secondly, saying “we can assume the laws of physics will be the same in the future as they were in the past because we have observed them to remain the same in the past” is an inductive argument. So you would be using induction to justify your use of induction, which of course is begging the question and completely fallacious.
    What a load of hogwash. Right, I'm sure a planet of irrational people would figure out how to cultivate plants, hunt, move with herds, raise the young, care for the sick, build cities, domesticate animals.... We aren't Lions bro, we're a different type of animal. We aren't 2000 lbs with razor sharp teeth, we use our enlarged brains to use tools and alter our environment. It's a survival strategy, and one that's worked out quite well so far.

    No, you’re missing the point. If “person A” believes that swamp water contains magical nymphs that will make him sick unless he boils the water in order to kill the nymphs that person just made the correct survival decision for completely irrational reasons. This person will then survive and pass on his genes and teach his children how to boil water in order to kill the nymphs, and voila we just preserved irrational behavior through natural selection. In fact, there are infinitely more irrational reasons to boil the water than there are rational ones (to kill microbes), so the probability of irrational thinking being preserved by natural selection is in fact far greater than rational thinking. It is for this same reason that neo-Darwinism cannot be used to explain why we believe our senses and memory are reliable, because Natural Selection is only “concerned” with survival, not truth.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -68
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,489
    vCash:
    9285
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    My syllogism was a deductive proof, not an inductive proof. You can’t justify the use of either given your atheism though. Justify your use of induction in a manner that is consistent with your atheism. As a Christian I know that God upholds His Creation in a predictable and consistent manner, therefore I can justify using induction, you cannot and yet you use it anyways. You have to assume Christianity is true in order to argue against it, therefore you refute your own atheism.
    Proof you say? What proof do you have that God does the things you claim other than 'the bible says so'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf
    You asserting something is “circular logic” does not make it so, my conclusion is not a restatement of either one of my premises, so it is certainly not circular at all.

    P1 If knowledge is possible, then God exists
    P2 Knowledge is possible
    C Therefore God exists


    "Inductive Reasoning

    The first thing you need to do is make sure your premises or general principles are true. In determining truth from an inductive point of reference, you need to ask 3 questions (1) Is it provable? (2) Is it testable? (3) Can it be set into practice?"

    No, No, & No.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=P3imOZcUk3oC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=inductive+reasoning+must+be+provable&source=bl&ots=dNpIulJ-Go&sig=T8_iVwcVU4spNr2KlG0gCWrPP8o&sa=X&ei=xe4wUN-kN4Os9AS6u4CYDQ&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=inductive%20reasoning%20must%20be%20provable&f=false


    "Deductive Reasoning - It begins with a general hypothesis or known fact and creates a specific conclusion from that generalization."

    Also no.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf
    Nope, that’s a baseless assertion. Please explain how Santa would account for the laws of logic, uniformity in nature, objective morality, and the reliability of one’s senses and memory? God accounts for every one of these, a fat man living at the North Pole who delivers presents on Christmas does nothing to account for any of these things. You fail.


    How does God account for those things? Because the bible says so? Your assertion is equally baseless and that's what I'm trying to point out to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf
    That’s not true, there are plenty of Christians who believe scripture is infallible but believe the Dinosaurs pre-dated man. That question is still not relevant to our discussion, and I can’t let you try to take this down some rabbit hole about the age of the earth.


    Please just tell me you think the Earth is 6000 years old already.
    Last edited by rob19; 08-19-2012 at 10:15 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -69
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,489
    vCash:
    9285
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Quote  

  10. -70
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Proof you say? What proof do you have that God does the things you claim other than 'the bible says so'.


    I already gave a perfectly valid syllogism; please try to keep up.



    The first thing you need to do is make sure your premises or general principles are true. In determining truth from an inductive point of reference, you need to ask 3 questions (1) Is it provable? (2) Is it testable? (3) Can it be set into practice?"

    No, No, & No.


    Why are you trying to apply principles of inductive reasoning to a DEDUCTIVE syllogism? Seems like you’re grasping at straws now, I don’t really blame you though; it’s all you’ve got.

    "Deductive Reasoning - It begins with a general hypothesis or known fact and creates a specific conclusion from that generalization."

    Also no.


    Actually you’re wrong again, as I have clearly demonstrated it’s a known fact that atheists cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility in a manner that is consistent with their atheism, Russell couldn’t, Hume couldn’t, and you certainly have demonstrated that you cannot either. So my syllogism is completely sound even given your definition above.



    How does God account for those things? Because the bible says so? Your assertion is equally baseless and that's what I'm trying to point out to you.


    He easily accounts for every one of those things…

    The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, that’ explains why they are immutable, immaterial, and universal, which is something you cannot account for.

    God upholds His creation in a predictable manner, hence why we can use induction because the manner in which the universe is governed will be consistent in the past, present, and future. Again, as a naturalist, you cannot account for this axiom.

    And the list goes on and on…


    Please just tell me you think the Earth is 6000 years old already.


    Why? You’re just trying to change the subject because your atheism is not philosophically defensible as you have demonstrated throughout this discussion.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. marlon wayans to play richard pryor in "biopic"
    By dreday in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-24-2010, 02:55 PM
  2. video: what "shoe bomber" Richard Reid could have done to a plane
    By CharlestonPhan in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-06-2007, 08:42 PM
  3. Replies: 196
    Last Post: 12-13-2006, 05:25 PM
  4. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-10-2006, 04:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •