View Single Post
Old 04-06-2007, 04:10 PM   #95
Nicato
Next-Gen Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle View Post
Faith in God is, in part, the result of the clear limitations of our knowledge as well as what we perceive when we observe the world around us.
The problem with your description of what "faith in God" is is that one does not have to have "faith in God" to realize the limitations of knowledge nor perception.

Furthermore--well, we'll get to that for later...

Quote:
Belief in God has arisen out of every culture in the history of the world. There's an intrinsic connection we have to the spiritual.
Fun fact: The same simulation software which causes us to have lucid hallucinations in our sleep comes with the side effect of assigning agency to our environment. It's why we mistake a coat rack in the dark for a person. If ideas can replicate themselves, infect other minds, and evolve, then it is no mystery how this "connection to the spiritual" has arisen--through clearly natural causes.

Quote:
Since you didn't respond to what I said and instead just tried to accuse me of some sort of fallacy, I'm just going to assume that we'll both be accusing each other of circular arguments. So let's move on rather than beating a dead horse.
Contrary to your notion that I haven't shown your fallacy, you've actually conceded it when you said that your premises couldn't be proven.

You, on the other hand, have attempted to say I was making a circular argument by saying I was relying on naturalistic evidence to demonstrate what is or is not supernatural. In response I've challenged you to prove it in the abstract, but you've falsely stated that logic is a part of naturalism (when in fact it is the other way around), a priori, and refuse to make a coherent, consistent, and exhaustive (which is all logic really is, btw) case for it.

I will get to why logic and philosophy are distinct later on...

Quote:
Sure there is resistance to evolution. But that doesn't mean fundamentalism should be taken as a majority world view – questioning evolution does not make someone a fundamentalist. And if there is resistance to evolution, it's certainly not helping that people like Dawkins and Wilson are trying to turn evolution into an humanist agnostic religion. It's like Rod Liddle said: Maybe God exists, maybe he doesn't. Why can't we just leave it at that? I love Dawkins' work on evolutionary biology. I think his writings on religion are laughably bad.
First of all, I wasn't saying that fundamentalism should be taking as a majority world view, I was saying that it has it's sympathizers in the US. And whatever the agenda of Dawkins or E.O. Wilson are is not evident to me, or relevant to this discussion.

Quote:
You said: "They also believed, as a fundamental concept, that they were created by god in his image. The theory of Evolution flat refuted that claim."

No, it didn't.
Yeah, Creationists (the "they" in my quote) believe that man was made directly from God while Evolution says that we were made indirectly from a process spanning some billions of years and that our "image" is only such because of environmental pressures (not theological influences).

Quote:
You'll have to elaborate, particularly on what you mean by "pure" why.
I think you should elaborate because I got the "pure" part from you.

Quote:
You have been continually distorting my position, and I've been repeatedly correcting you to no avail. It's getting old.
What is getting old is your double standard. You've gotten my position wrong a number of times (by your own admission) and yet we I accuse you of distortion, you're quick to say it was an honest misunderstanding. Yet, whenever (if ever) I get your position wrong, I'm being all malicious.

It is you who have repeatedly said that I believe that anything which exists must be necessarily be observable--a strawman I've had to tear down several times--lest we forget. And only through firmly addresses the point did you capture the subtly in my belief...by falsely accusing me of believing in nothing. So, if you want sit around and bitch about who got whose position wrong then we can go back and forth.

Quote:
No, it doesn't. They are intrinsically bound.
You're confused. It isn't that logic isn't separate from naturalism, it's just that naturalism is a logical philosophy. If it were proven tomorrow that there was a supernatural creator of the universe, then naturalism would die--but logic would remain (in part because logic would have been the killer). Whereas if there were intrinsically bound, they would have both necessarily have been slain.

What I am saying is that naturalism uses logic like a carpenter uses a hammer, and in most cases, the hammer would have been survived from the death of the carpenter. The deaths of many philosophies, many of which were based on a logical foundations, should be evidence of this.

So now that I've demonstrated that logic is distinct from naturalism, you can demonstrate how your god is logical.

Quote:
We can see logical evidence of a supernatural.
The "evidence" in question is non-exhaustive at best and at worst unwarranted, assuming you're talking about the first-uncaused cause paradox.

Quote:
We can see logical evidence of order and design.
We see order, and our perception gives us the illusion of design (just as it did for life on Earth), but we don't see purpose, not objectively anyway.

Quote:
We can see logical evidence that there are things beyond our capacity of understanding.
I've already demonstrated (and you've already conceded) that limitations essentially say nothing as to the requirement of anything beyond, yet you continue to boast it about as if it were evidence of anything. And please don't say you don't, because this liddle diddy clearly affirms that you do: "Faith in God is, in part, the result of the clear limitations of our knowledge as well as what we perceive when we observe the world around us."

Please drop this line of reasoning because it isn't the least bit persuasive.

Last edited by Nicato; 04-06-2007 at 07:53 PM.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote