View Single Post
Old 04-11-2007, 12:46 AM   #114
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
Yes! Finally, you got something.
Good. So you agree that then that, like strings and multiverses, yours is a god hypothesis?

Quote:
I didn't ask you to prove a negative, I pointed out that your perception of the "un-design" of the byproducts of evolution is based on an inherent assumption you have about evolution.
Can you read?

I said that there was no evidence of design. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. I didn't say there was no design ("un-design"). Please tell me you know the difference. I'm saying that if it is designed then there are many redundancies and inefficiencies that which need to be accounted for.

Quote:
Again Nic, you're simply misunderstanding. You misconstrue a lack of "positive evidence", as in observable, measurable naturalistic proof, to conclude that there is no rational reason to skeptically (rather than conclusively) assume the existence of something. But science can't inquire about things that may or may not exist, only observe that which is known to exist.
You should really get off the NOMA before it kills the last of your braincells. But in case it's too late, I'll go slow:

That science can only explain what we can observe by no means necessitates an equally inquisitive medium which can explain what we can't. Again and again, you relying on limitations to positively assert the existence of a beyond. What you continue to miss is that unless you can first establish that there is a beyond you are in no position to draw any boundaries. It's like I said before, it is not the case that where science ends an equally qualified method takes over. Where science ends is where pure speculation begins. That science can't inquire about what we can't know is not only obvious, but it should tell you something.

Quote:
In this case, the sponaneous coming-into-existence of an ordered universe that allows for us to exist, and its finite points of being, are not "positive evidence" of anything because "positive evidence" merely observes that which is already contained within the universe. That doesn't mean we can't see reason why something extrinsic might and should exist.
Yes it does. I'm sorry, but the fact that you can't observe X means that you can't, with any amount of objectively, ascribe any characteristics (intentions, existence) to X.

Quote:
We're getting somewhere here, because I mostly agree. Except, you should understand by now, with my previous dark matter analogy, that science does in fact direct us to the plausible existence of things that are unobservable and immeasurable.
Really? Mike Doolittle of five minutes ago, any comments?

"You misconstrue a lack of "positive evidence", as in observable, measurable naturalistic proof, to conclude that there is no rational reason to skeptically (rather than conclusively) assume the existence of something. But science can't inquire about things that may or may not exist, only observe that which is known to exist."

The intellectually consistency continues.

Quote:
If you subject that claim to your own criteria, it falls apart – what positive evidence do you have that the natural universe is all there ever was?
You're looking at it, smart guy. You'll continue to look at it tomorrow, and the next day, until you die and burn in an eternal lake of fire. We have evidence that the natural world exist because here we are existing in it. This evidence is substantially greater than your supernatural which we can't see, by any means whatsoever, ever.

Quote:
Indeed. Faith is reasonable. We can see why God might and should exist. But we can also see that we have limitations in understanding God.
And as we all know, faith in God is a recognition the limitations of our understanding...even though you don't have to have faith in god to acknowledge said limitations. But fact was obvious, even though it wasn't.

Quote:
For something that is just an example, you sure like to spend a lot of time telling me that's what I'm arguing, then responding to what you're telling me I'm arguing. Straw. Man.
Do you know what a strawman is? It's when a person presents a weaker argument of his opponent just to tear it down later. If I were to say something like "I don't care what you think, Mike, children aren't your sex slaves and they shouldn't be kept in cages. It just isn't right." that would be a strawman. If, however, I were to copy and paste my previous comments so that you can read the entire thing (to no avail, apparently), then you can't rightly accuse me of erecting a straw man--but in your response, I can accuse you.

Quote:
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently: To suggest the point is outside of the universe seems to suggest that it was supernatural. But rather, the point itself was the universe and all that is in it.
So being that it "was" the universe, is a first-cause required or not? (Do think carefully because there will be a follow-up.)

Quote:
Now, it's not my fault if you don't want to read what I took the time to write. But I *have* devoted considerable space in these threads to addressing these questions.
No you haven't, Mike. You just haven't. You've never laid out the case for purpose and every time I ask you to you give another dodge. I asked you specifically, what is the purpose and you come back with "what makes you think there's only one purpose." Lame. For the umpteeth time, what is/are the purpose/purposes of the universe?

Quote:
You are confusing causality within the universe with the existence of the universe itself.
If causality is distinct from the universe itself, then I'm failing to see the necessity of a first-cause.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote