"I don't believe in God" versus "I beleive God doesn't exist"

Great Debates
121

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
, it isn’t. It may be the experientially-correct opinion, I can’t fault you there. But I’ve been using your own system of logic to show that we can’t say what holds outside the universe:

  1. Deductive Logic requires Modus Ponens. (if A then B. A, therefore B)
  2. Modus Ponens requires Causality as we usually know it. (hell, MP is just a statement of causality really)
  3. Causality requires Time as we know it (arrow, past->future.)
  4. TAWKI is an exclusive property of this Universe (From the DEFINITION of Universe)
  5. So Outside the Universe there is no TAWKI (Negation of 4)
  6. So Outside the universe, no causality, no MP, no deductive logic.
    [/QUOTE]
    As a person with a fair understanding of logic , I’d like to point out that point 2) is absolutely false. If A then B means only that it is not the case that A is true and B is false. No causation is expressed or implied, and reading causation into it is flatly incorrect. “If Martha Stewart is a woman, Then George Bush is a man” is a true and perfectly correct use of the logical “If/Then”. And it doesn’t mean that Martha made a man out of Bush either.

To concrete the point, “If A, Then B” ‘means’ “If Not B, then Not A”. The statement can be flipped, and if one is true, then other one is too! Take that causality! :slight_smile:

Attempts to prove that logic, math, etc are bound to the universe are based in a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic, math, etc, are. They are self-contained abstract systems, consisting only of arbitrary definitions and arbitrary rules. Some of them appear to model reality, but that’s reality’s problem - the system’s truisisms with itself (including its own definition) are true regardless of reality, and regardless of anyone knowing them, and regardless of anyone creating them. (And regardless of whether God might want to alter them. Take that omnipotence!) We’ve noticed that logic leads us to correct conclusons, given correct information. And if that’s true, it’s true when talking about the world, the prime mover (which was likely a mindless ‘nothingness-fart’), or God-concepts. Period.

122

[QUOTE=begbert2]
As a person with a fair understanding of logic , I’d like to point out that point 2) is absolutely false. If A then B means only that it is not the case that A is true and B is false.
[/QUOTE]

You know, you’re absolutely right. Thanks for the correction.

magellan01, I apologise for my error. It looks like I was wrong, we can positively say we can use deductive logic on extraUniverse entities.

That still leaves everything from 3 to part 1 of 6, so I’m still happy - we can’t say anything about causality outside the Universe. Which still leaves a PM moot (which, on rethinking is only sensible - I was using deductive methods to say something about a PM anyway, so arguing for not using DL was paradoxical)
And begbert2, I like your phrasing of it in your last paragraph to anything else said by the rest of us up to now:

123

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Originally Posted by Snag
As far as we know - and perhaps a likely possibility when considering Everett’s Many Worlds theory for one - is that our universe may be one of many within a multiverse or omniverse or what have you. This states that all possibilities play out, if a coin is flipped and we see heads it also has to be tails somewhere else. In other words, there is some possibility of other versions, other timelines, of the universe we live in.

Then there is another notion for the existence of multiple universes, a different one. A singularity such as a black hole, it is also suggested by quantum physics, may be singularities that create new universes in time / space outside our universe. That may be how ours came to be. Other universes may not have the same physical laws as ours, thus 2+2=4 could be gibberish in some other space with different laws of physics. This raises another possibility of more than one universe may exist.

I don’t disagree with any of this, I think. But I’d qualify a few things. One even if universes pop into existence, it seems to me that something caused them to “pop” at that particular point in time, and not a second sooner or later. As far as 2+2=4, of course my point is that that would hold wherever the concept of twoness, fourness, addition and equality hold.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see why there needs to be something willing things to happen on a timetable. It is what it is. It happens when it happens. Does this mean you believe in determinism? If so, why? Again, that doesn’t mesh with, at least, the laws of this universe where everything appears to occur randomly. At least outside of the influence of living things though our influence is limited.

Also, how is twoness represented in a singularity? I think we agree on this point but this is one example where such a thing doesn’t hold and shouldn’t be taken as gospel.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Originally Posted by Snag
It is just as likely that there is no prime mover, simply a multiverse that has always existed and always will even if individual universes come and go. In fact, we have more evidence for the existence of such things than we do of any gods, thus making it more likely.
I don’t see what evidence there is for anything eternal or infinite. Can you point to something?
[/QUOTE]

It can be argued that there is no evidence for any of this, making it all a null hypothesis and that we are arguing about nothing. Without something eternal being evident, where is your prime mover? Without it, where is energy or any mode of existence? Indeed, there is no evidence at all to contradict a stance that existence is nothing more than a random effect that comes and goes without cause. No need for a prime mover or infinite energy at all. Stuff just happens. As mind boggling as it is, even that cannot be ruled out. Some might argue that is the most likely scenario.

But we argue about these things because of our anthropomorphic desire to find some shred of causality before the bang. It may not be so but it makes more sense to believe that something may have always existed. One can point, however, to current scientific theory that points to some probability of a multiverse, or an omniverse, or what have you. There is some evidence that leads us to believe that our universe may be nestled within a multiverse or could be part of a larger whole. One that, overall, may have different laws within its nature that ours does, but providing some energy state which suggests causality. For instance the unification of the laws of gravity, which differs on the cosmological and quantum scales, mostly makes sense if it exists outside of our universe.

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Originally Posted by Snag
I can’t see how the idea of a possibly infinite, eternal universe is anywhere less probable than a prime mover who is supposed to have the same characteristics.
Where did matter come from? It it was birthed through energy, what provided the energy? I see a Prime Mover as a much less problematic proposition.
[/QUOTE]

Where do all the particles on the quantum level that constantly pop into being and then disappear come from? At least we have evidence of those on record. I see no reason why energy in some form shouldn’t always have existed; it’s the most obvious solution. Not so for an intelligent prime mover. A mover suggests a lot of unnecessary complexity, not limited to the raising of awareness. Does a star need to have awareness to collapse? Does a rock need awareness to be subject to the rules of thermodynamics? Why couldn’t energy have always existed? How is that different than gods who have always existed?

[QUOTE=magellan01]

Originally Posted by Snag
No one has yet come up with a universal definition of god(s) much less pointed a telescope at him/them/it.

I guess. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’ve been discussing. EHWn I say Prime Mover or god or God, I ascribe no qualities to Him other than He operates outside of the laws of causality. And that He made it all possible.
[/QUOTE]

Why wouldn’t it be possible that a multiverse has always existed? Why can’t it operate on it’s own terms outside of our laws of causality? I can’t understand why you find this simple explanation less substantial than that of a prime mover. A prime mover would need energy + consciousness to invoke a universe. Who knows, maybe a charge account as well. Either raw energy, or a god, or something would probably need to have always existed for us to argue for extra-causality. Again, neither completely rule out that existence is somehow a random effect that comes and goes without cause.

Unless it turns out that we, and the reality we know, are nothing more than a supremely advanced piece of software that is running I don’t see how the argument for a prime mover is the stronger. A pool of energy that has always existed and perhaps always will, is no less likely a cause for our being than a watchmaker. Nothing need create energy that simply always was. The watchmaker begs a more difficult causality (outside of our own) due to it’s greater complexity which would require multiple levels of causation. Eternal or not. Not impossible mind you. But will requires consciousness which seems to requires evolution of some sort.

Call it Occam’s razor which argues against it. Not only would some energy which has always existed be a more elegant explanation. We have theoretical evidence that, in explaining how singularities rise or how theoretical branes might come crashing together, state ways in which natural forces could create a universe. Just as we have the possibility of multiple universes as suggested by working theory.

Call your prime mover what you will, it is still a watchmaker which hasn’t yet been defined. And without that definition it is not consistent enough to run a falsifiable experiment to search for him/them/it.

124

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
May not be the clearest of English, but the meaning is clear. I was focusing on the linked ideas, what the subject of those ideas was doesn’t matter.
[/QUOTE]

Bullshit. Sure it matters when I stipulated that it was a special case having to do with a PM, someone who by definition has nothing preceding it.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
And - that you only quoted part of my reply makes a mockery of the following:
since I explained myself immediately after the quote. But hey, cherry pick away, since you still haven’t had the wherewithal to defend the circularity of your basic argument, or answer a simple Yes/No question, I suppose that we’ll be playing semantics exclusively from now on. I can do that.
[/QUOTE]

[Laughing my head off] Oh, so context does matter after all. I’m glad I could help you learn that lesson. [Absolutely hilarious, though]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
magellan01, I apologise for my error. It looks like I was wrong, we can positively say we can use deductive logic on extraUniverse entities.
[/QUOTE]

Apology completely and graciously accepted. And genuinely appreciated. Some people find it impossible to do, to the detriment of themselves and these boards. Thank you.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
That still leaves everything from 3 to part 1 of 6, so I’m still happy - we can’t say anything about causality outside the Universe. Which still leaves a PM moot (which, on rethinking is only sensible - I was using deductive methods to say something about a PM anyway, so arguing for not using DL was paradoxical)
[/QUOTE]

Glad your happy. Not any more right, but happy is good. But tell me, what is it that begbert2 wrote that you liked so much? When I have been making those exact points?

125

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Bullshit. Sure it matters when I stipulated that it was a special case having to do with a PM, someone who by definition has nothing preceding it.
[/QUOTE]
You have failed to argue AT ALL for WHY the PM is a “special case” with regard to the link between intentionality, intelligence and complexity, just stated it. What does “preceded it” have to do with anything?

And the Universe, “by definition”, also has nothing preceding it. Does that make it it’s own PM? If not, why not?
[QUOTE=magellan01]

[Laughing my head off] Oh, so context does matter after all. I’m glad I could help you learn that lesson. [Absolutely hilarious, though]

[/QUOTE]
Context matters, but in the previous example, it wasn’t the PM that was the context, it was the intentionality. Like I said, you’d linked intentionality, intelligence & complexity with necessity. I say again - it doesn’t matter if this refers to the PM or something else, it’s that link you have to justify - which up to now, you have not.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Apology completely and graciously accepted. And genuinely appreciated. Some people find it impossible to do, to the detriment of themselves and these boards. Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
No problem
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Glad your happy. Not any more right, but happy is good. But tell me, what is it that begbert2 wrote that you liked so much? When I have been making those exact points?
[/QUOTE]
You at no point I can tell argued that there was no link between modus ponens and causality (if you did, I’d like a post cite), and certainly not in the logical way bb2 did. And I’m happy because I’m still right about causality - unless you have a logical refutation for the argument from (3) onwards (which doesn’t require (1) and (2) to reach conclusion (6)part 1)

And still no answer to whether you acknowledge evolution, or what definition of Universe you’re using.

126

ignore that apostrophe.

127

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
You have failed to argue AT ALL for WHY the PM is a “special case” with regard to the link between intentionality, intelligence and complexity, just stated it. What does “preceded it” have to do with anything?
[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. I said:

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Look at the rest of that passage. I was talking about a PM, something that by definition couldn’t have achieved order through improvement over time.

[/QUOTE]

…preceded by this:

and this, the original passage in which you went to great pains to ignore context:

The first sentence is a general proposition (couched as such), one that if you focus on the two “mores”, I don’t know how you could disagree with it. Do you? Why? Then comes the point of the passage, the point you seem intent on ignoring. My point seems extremely clear there. I don’t know how to make it any clearer. If you fail to digest that sentence I don’t know how I can help you.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
And the Universe, “by definition”, also has nothing preceding it. **Does that make it it’s own PM? If not, why not?
[/QUOTE]

Where did the matter come from? The energy. What set things in motion? And why at that particular time? Why not a year, day, minute or second earlier or later? If you have an answer for those things, I’d be happy to entertain the proposition that the universe was it’s own PM.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
**Context matters, but in the previous example, it wasn’t the PM that was the context, it was the intentionality. Like I said, you’d linked intentionality, intelligence & complexity with necessity. I say again - it doesn’t matter if this refers to the PM or something else, it’s that link you have to justify - which up to now, you have not.
[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. See above.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
You at no point I can tell argued that there was no link between modus ponens and causality (if you did, I’d like a post cite), and certainly not in the logical way bb2 did.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry. I was referring to his last paragraph only, the one you pointed to and agreed with/admired.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
And I’m happy because I’m still right about causality - unless you have a logical refutation for the argument from (3) onwards (which doesn’t require (1) and (2) to reach conclusion (6)part 1)
[/QUOTE]

What, precisely, do you think you are right about?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
And still no answer to whether you acknowledge evolution, or what definition of Universe you’re using.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t recall seeing a question about evolution. But I’m surprised you ask it, as you should have been able to glean from all that I’ve posted that I don’t view a PM as being at all in conflict with evolution. Evolution is mum on the beginning of everything, i.e., the cause of the big bang. And the discussion about the PM I’ve been having only goes to THE first cause. Nothing else. I don’t know how you could not understand that at this point in the discussion.

If you’d like to know my stance on evolution just for the hell of it. I think evolution is factual, as far as, adaptation and changes occurring over time. I think it might have needed some help from time to time in regards to things like eyeballs and flagellum. I base this notion on reading I’ve done that points to the probability of these things naturally evolving given the age of our universe. So, while evolution is a fact of nature, I don’t know if it alone explains everything. I can see both sides of the debate and haven’t been convinced one way or another to hold a strong opinion.

The universe is everything from the big bang on.

128

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Incorrect. I said:
…preceded by this:
and this, the original passage in which you went to great pains to ignore context:

The first sentence is a general proposition (couched as such), one that if you focus on the two “mores”, I don’t know how you could disagree with it. Do you? Why?
[/QUOTE]
The bolded bit? The bit that I was actually addressing? Yes, I disagree with it - couching it in relative terms doesn’t change the lack of correctness, either. Why? I addressed this with my remarks about evolution and snowflakes.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Then comes the point of the passage, the point you seem intent on ignoring.

[/QUOTE]
Since it was the first sentence I’ve been addressing all along, like I said, the “context” could be anything. The fact that it refers to a PM doesn’t signify - the truth or not has nothing to do with precedence, so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Where did the matter come from?
[/QUOTE]
Nowhere
[QUOTE=magellan01]
The energy.
[/QUOTE]
Nowhere
[QUOTE=magellan01]
What set things in motion?
[/QUOTE]
Nothing
[QUOTE=magellan01]
And why at that particular time?
[/QUOTE]
This is a meaningless question as it relates to the Big Bang, as you should know.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Why not a year, day, minute or second earlier or later?
[/QUOTE]
There were no years, days, minutes, seconds before the BB. And after, is all relative to the BB, so it’s always at T=0. That’s the whole point of saying the BB initiated Space/Time
[QUOTE=magellan01]
If you have an answer for those things, I’d be happy to entertain the proposition that the universe was it’s own PM.
[/QUOTE]
Those are the standard answers. You’re really acting as if you have no clue how the BB is explained in physics & cosmology.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Incorrect. See above.

[/QUOTE]
See above.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Sorry. I was referring to his last paragraph only, the one you pointed to and agreed with/admired.
[/QUOTE]

It was how he put it - I don’t see where you referred to logic as an abstract system that can apply to anything and always contains it’s own truth. But again, cite the post if you did.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
What, precisely, do you think you are right about?
[/QUOTE]
That causality is not required for a Universe.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

I don’t recall seeing a question about evolution.
[/QUOTE]
It was in relation to Darwin disproving that you need intentionality to have intelligence (you know, that statement I’ve been objecting to for … Elder Gods, has it really been DAYS now?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
But I’m surprised you ask it, as you should have been able to glean from all that I’ve posted that I don’t view a PM as being at all in conflict with evolution.
[/QUOTE]
Never said you did, although it turns out your starting premise (bolded above) runs counter to evolutionary thought. More intelligent doesn’t mean more likely to be intentional.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Evolution is mum on the beginning of everything, i.e., the cause of the big bang. And the discussion about the PM I’ve been having only goes to THE first cause. Nothing else. I don’t know how you could not understand that at this point in the discussion.
[/QUOTE]
I do. It wasn’t in reference to the BB (or the PM directly) that I brought it up.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

If you’d like to know my stance on evolution just for the hell of it. I think evolution is factual, as far as, adaptation and changes occurring over time. I think it might have needed some help from time to time in regards to things like eyeballs and flagellum.
[/QUOTE]
You do realise the standard ID canards about eyeball and flagellum have been thoroughly debunked, I hope?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I base this notion on reading I’ve done that points to the probability of these things naturally evolving given the age of our universe.
[/QUOTE]
The argument from probability has also been debunked.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
So, while evolution is a fact of nature, I don’t know if it alone explains everything.
[/QUOTE]
Point to what it doesn’t explain, maybe I or someone else can help you out.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I can see both sides of the debate and haven’t been convinced one way or another to hold a strong opinion.
[/QUOTE]
This is not true. You do hold an opinion, and it’s in direct opposition to evolutionary theory. Couching it in terms of being a fence-sitter or neutral is just obfuscatory. You do NOT believe in the theory of evolution if you believe it “needs help”. You believe in Intelligent Design. Calling it anything else would be disingenuous.

So you don’t just believe in a PM, I take it, but also an interventionist God?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
The universe is everything from the big bang on.
[/QUOTE]

Does that include all of Space and Time to you? Do you believe Outside the Universe is accessible in some real way?

129

[QUOTE=Snag]
I don’t see why there needs to be something willing things to happen on a timetable. It is what it is. It happens when it happens. Does this mean you believe in determinism? If so, why? Again, that doesn’t mesh with, at least, the laws of this universe where everything appears to occur randomly. At least outside of the influence of living things though our influence is limited.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think one can believe both in determinism, in the strict sense, and human will. But I do adhere to determinism as far as natural processes go. We may have a difficult time understanding all the relationships between Event A and Event Z, but I believe them to be there.

[QUOTE=Snag]
Also, how is twoness represented in a singularity? I think we agree on this point but this is one example where such a thing doesn’t hold and shouldn’t be taken as gospel.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think it is, in the singularity. But I see a singularity as being one thing for now, with the potential to be all things. I think the laws of logic will hold true. I think that if a singularity comes to express itself, and has within that expression what we know to be a circle, that Pi will be as helpful in understanding that circle then as now. Same for set theory. Same for 2 + 2 = 4.

[QUOTE=Snag]
It can be argued that there is no evidence for any of this, making it all a null hypothesis and that we are arguing about nothing. Without something eternal being evident, where is your prime mover? Without it, where is energy or any mode of existence? Indeed, there is no evidence at all to contradict a stance that existence is nothing more than a random effect that comes and goes without cause.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree, in that I think logic points to a PM. But I do agree that there is no “evidence”, other than the fact that we are here.

[QUOTE=Snag]
No need for a prime mover or infinite energy at all. Stuff just happens. As mind boggling as it is, even that cannot be ruled out. Some might argue that is the most likely scenario.
[/QUOTE]

Of course, it is a possibility. But “most likely”? I strongly disagree. In fact, the more you use the laws of logic to evaluate degrees of likeliness, I think those same laws argue for everything having a cause. The only thing that need not have a cause (and cannot) is a God/PM.

[QUOTE=Snag]
But we argue about these things because of our anthropomorphic desire to find some shred of causality before the bang. It may not be so but it makes more sense to believe that something may have always existed.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I make the same point: why is something infinite, timeless, more likely than God? You cannot point to evidence of either one. Neither appear in our universe. They are concepts not of our realm. I agree they both can be true, but I think the PM/God is easier to fathom. I mean it seems much harder to me to wrap your head around “stuff” that always existed. Even the big bang doesn’t have stuff being eternal, the elements were created one by one from energy. Then I ask what created the energy? I guess it is possible that this infinite universe moves from a state of pure energy into one that is matter rich and then eventually transforms back, again and again, ad infinitum. Possible, but I see nothing in my existence that argues that that is a more likely scenario. At least with a PM we’re hanging our hat in a logical concept that appears to be inviolate.

[QUOTE=Snag]
One can point, however, to current scientific theory that points to some probability of a multiverse, or an omniverse, or what have you. There is some evidence that leads us to believe that our universe may be nestled within a multiverse or could be part of a larger whole. One that, overall, may have different laws within its nature that ours does, but providing some energy state which suggests causality. For instance the unification of the laws of gravity, which differs on the cosmological and quantum scales, mostly makes sense if it exists outside of our universe.
[/QUOTE]

Multiverse theory, brane theory, and others are all logical explanations. But they all need either the concept of infinity for natural things (energy/matter) or a PM. As mentioned, I think the latter is the better guess. Which in the end, is what it is.

[QUOTE=Snag]
Where do all the particles on the quantum level that constantly pop into being and then disappear come from?
[/QUOTE]

We don’t know. But since it is our experience that things do not pop into existence and come from “nowhere”, it seems that the default assumption should be that they did indeed come from somewhere and popped in for some reason.

[QUOTE=Snag]
I see no reason why energy in some form shouldn’t always have existed; it’s the most obvious solution. Not so for an intelligent prime mover. A mover suggests a lot of unnecessary complexity, not limited to the raising of awareness. Does a star need to have awareness to collapse? Does a rock need awareness to be subject to the rules of thermodynamics? Why couldn’t energy have always existed? How is that different than gods who have always existed?
[/QUOTE]

“Awareness” is a nice concept. But I ask again where did the energy come from. And since it is 100% of our experience that energy is created by something or some process, I don not see why it is any more likely than a PM. They are both alien to our world.

[QUOTE=Snag]
Why wouldn’t it be possible that a multiverse has always existed? Why can’t it operate on it’s own terms outside of our laws of causality? I can’t understand why you find this simple explanation less substantial than that of a prime mover. A prime mover would need energy + consciousness to invoke a universe. Who knows, maybe a charge account as well. Either raw energy, or a god, or something would probably need to have always existed for us to argue for extra-causality. Again, neither completely rule out that existence is somehow a random effect that comes and goes without cause.
[/QUOTE]

I like the way this is stated. The only part I’d argue with is the concept of having random events going back in perpetuity. I think you would need an intentional event. Now, this universe might not have been the intention. For all we know we are one of the shavings off a lathe on the shop floor. But if there is PM/God, he would, indeed have intention. If not he would simply be the source of energy you mention, not the PM. Maybe the best thing to say is that God is that source of energy + intention.

[QUOTE=Snag]
Unless it turns out that we, and the reality we know, are nothing more than a supremely advanced piece of software that is running I don’t see how the argument for a prime mover is the stronger. A pool of energy that has always existed and perhaps always will, is no less likely a cause for our being than a watchmaker. Nothing need create energy that simply always was. The watchmaker begs a more difficult causality (outside of our own) due to it’s greater complexity which would require multiple levels of causation. Eternal or not. Not impossible mind you. But will requires consciousness which seems to requires evolution of some sort.
[/QUOTE]

Now this is what I don’t get. When God is not in the picture, the concept of things existing for infinity—energy/matter—is embraced by you. But the minute God is postulated it’s “b-b-b-but God would have to be created by something else, because you can’t say his existence is infinite.” Well, since we have no—zero—evidence of anything being infinite (other than concepts), it seems that infiniteness is a possibility, the most likely place you’d find it is within God.

[QUOTE=Snag]
Call your prime mover what you will, it is still a watchmaker which hasn’t yet been defined. And without that definition it is not consistent enough to run a falsifiable experiment to search for him/them/it.
[/QUOTE]

and I was enjoying your discussion so much up till this. Oh well…

130

MrDibble,

You seem to have a bug up your ass, and I’ve neither the time nor inclination to rehash the same ground when you simply refuse to take the words I write to mean what they say.

You took a statement I made and evaluated it out of context. I pointed this out and showed the absurdity of your little game. You ignore it. You took—and insist on taking—a statement about intelligence and the Prime Mover and want me to say that I mean it applies to instances not having to do with the PM. Sorry, can’t help you there. Context matters. It’s as simple as that. If you can’t see that a PM would, in fact,—by definition, be a special case, I can’t help you there either.

When I ask you to evaluate something I said you refuse to evaluate it taking into account the relative aspect of the statement, saying that the relative terms CONTAINED THEREIN do not change things. Another stunning statement showing great effort to not understand someone. Well done. You have a special talent for this.

I asked you what it was about** begbert2’s** reply that you liked, when it mirrored what I have been arguing. You thought I meant the totality of his reply. Fair enough. I then pointed out that I was referring to one paragraph. Still you want to build the impression that I was referring to statements he made outside that paragraph.

You bring up something about “Elder gods” now. I don’t know what you’re talking about. If it was something from days ago and I missed it, my apologies for having a life outside these boards.

You asked me if I believe in evolution. I told you I do. I told you that I don’t know if the current theory explains everything. I stated that it may or may not. And that it is mum on the topic of our origins—you know, THE TOPIC WE’VE BEEN DISCUSSING.

I told you that I have heard both sides of the debate about whether and that I do not have a strong opinion on it one way or another. You then attempt to say that I believe in Intelligent Design. Thanks for the news flash. Now if you know half of what you think you do about the subject, you would know that there is a big difference between what is known Intelligent Design and intelligent design (small i, d). If you do not know this I advise you to look it up for future discussions with others.

I wish you luck in finding those others who enjoy holding beliefs that you ascribe to them.

But we are done. Others have been able to engage in this debate and disagree with me and have it be a pleasant experience. I’m accustomed to getting paid to do things I don’t enjoy, so unless you want to talk about my fee structure, I wish you luck.

May God be with you.

131

[QUOTE=magellan01]
MrDibble,
You seem to have a bug up your ass, and I’ve neither the time nor inclination to rehash the same ground when you simply refuse to take the words I write to mean what they say.
[/QUOTE]
I quoted your words, I even bolded the bits I was talking about. No bugs.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

You took a statement I made and evaluated it out of context. I pointed this out and showed the absurdity of your little game. You ignore it. You took—and insist on taking—a statement about intelligence and the Prime Mover and want me to say that I mean it applies to instances not having to do with the PM. Sorry, can’t help you there. Context matters. It’s as simple as that. If you can’t see that a PM would, in fact,—by definition, be a special case, I can’t help you there either.

[/QUOTE]
Again with the PM. I’m asking you to defend one statement. You have, again, failed to even try and explain how the PM being a special case (nice fallacy of special pleading there) makes a difference. Explain it to me.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

When I ask you to evaluate something I said you refuse to evaluate it taking into account the relative aspect of the statement, saying that the relative terms CONTAINED THEREIN do not change things. Another stunning statement showing great effort to not understand someone. Well done. You have a special talent for this.
[/QUOTE]
Please *do *explain how the “mores” make the link, between intentionality and intelligence/complexity being necessary, any more true. I have not seen such an explanation, just more “you’re just not getting it” statements.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

I asked you what it was about** begbert2’s** reply that you liked, when it mirrored what I have been arguing. You thought I meant the totality of his reply. Fair enough. I then pointed out that I was referring to one paragraph. Still you want to build the impression that I was referring to statements he made outside that paragraph.

[/QUOTE]
No, I get what you said the second time - so, still no post cite for you saying the same thing as him? Why should I believe you without a CITE?
[QUOTE=magellan01]

You bring up something about “Elder gods” now. I don’t know what you’re talking about. If it was something from days ago and I missed it, my apologies for having a life outside these boards.

[/QUOTE]
HA, the “you have no life” accusation, suitably veiled.tick

Anyway, the “Elder Gods” was just an expression of frustration, like someone else might “Jesus Christ” or “For the Love of Krishna”. The actual answer was the bit about Darwin that you seem to have skipped over.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

You asked me if I believe in evolution. I told you I do. I told you that I don’t know if the current theory explains everything. I stated that it may or may not. And that it is mum on the topic of our origins—you know, THE TOPIC WE’VE BEEN DISCUSSING.
[/QUOTE]
Evolution of intelligence is a counter to you stance on intentionality. It’s perfectly relevant.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

I told you that I have heard both sides of the debate about whether and that I do not have a strong opinion on it one way or another. You then attempt to say that I believe in Intelligent Design. Thanks for the news flash. Now if you know half of what you think you do about the subject, you would know that there is a big difference between what is known Intelligent Design and intelligent design (small i, d). If you do not know this I advise you to look it up for future discussions with others.
[/QUOTE]
There is no difference between those terms. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Certainly Wikipedia doesn’t seem to draw a distinction.
But either way, you do NOT believe in the theory of evolution if you think there are design interventions.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

I wish you luck in finding those others who enjoy holding beliefs that you ascribe to them.
[/QUOTE]
The “you’re strawmanning me” defence? tick
You realise everyone else can read what you wrote, right?
Straw poll: Is there anyone who doesn’t get ID out of the stance on evolution magellan01 took?
[QUOTE=magellan01]

But we are done. Others have been able to engage in this debate and disagree with me and have it be a pleasant experience.
[/QUOTE]
Call me when they change it to “Pleasant Debates”. The only reason it has been an unpleasant experience for you is because your tactics of ad hominems and special pleadings haven’t actually worked, and you haven’t been able to rustle up the actual deductive logic you claim to proize so highly, to counterargue. Hell, someone else had to do the heavy lifting for you for even a sideline argument. Losing a debate is never pleasant, I’m sure.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

I’m accustomed to getting paid to do things I don’t enjoy, so unless you want to talk about my fee structure, I wish you luck.
[/QUOTE]
That has to be the suckiest walk-off-in-a-huff excuse yet. Man up and just say you can’t actually counter the arguments. Don’t pull some “I’m too important to debate” bullshit, when you’ve been managing with the unpleasantness just fine for days now.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
May God be with you.
[/QUOTE]
And may Dread Cthulhu eat you first.

132

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Straw poll: Is there anyone who doesn’t get ID out of the stance on evolution magellan01 took?
[/QUOTE]
So far as I know the ID position does not require you to believe that every instance of evolution was designed, so yes, I read his post as being pro-intelligent design.

Also, I find it amazing that a person can believe that man evolved from single celled organisms and also assert “Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention.” - the two positions are diametrically opposed. Humans clearly are extremely ordered and intelligent, and evolution claims that they emerged through purely natural methods, with no creator or designer or intention whatsoever. If you think things as complex as them have to have been designed, then you cannot believe they evolved; ID or explicit creation are your only remaining options.
Of course, evolution merely disproves the premise that intelligence is required for design. While that’s extremely damaging to the watchmaker argument, the real killer is that, if something as complex as the universe or humans or whatever requires a more complex designer, then that designer also requires a designer, ad infinitum, to impossibility and ridiculosity. But if God doesn’t require a designer, then the universe or humans or whatever don’t either. Special pleading is a fallacious attempt to ignore this fundamental problem with the argument - and is convincing only to those willing to be convinced by fallacies. (Especially once the fallacy has been clearly pointed out.)

133

For an example of a highly complex process arising from a very simple algorithm, one can consider the Mandelbrot Set. Magnify it 60 billion times and the complexity remains. Yet it can be created with just a few lines of code (though plotting it is another matter).

Then again, perhaps the Great Initiator did not consider Himself greater than His creation. Heck, the Great Initiator could be an aspect of His work for all I know.

134

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
I’ve come across a 2nd puzzle. Apparently most (not all) mathematicians believe that math is not created by humanity, but rather exists independently of it. Fractals, in particular the the Mandelbrot set, are a good example of this. Somebody certainly discovered it (though apparently is wasn’t Mandelbrot). But its intricacy is basically without bound: sure, some individual worked out the formula, but the actual image of it (or rather the conceptual graph) follows from the math.

But if math is discovered, and math is not made of matter, what the heck is it? Basically, I would require a taxonomy of what we mean by “Existence”. What sorts of nonmaterial things exist, and how do we assess their evidence?
[/QUOTE]
Via Slashdot, I see that Science News has a relevant article: Still debating with Plato:

But if we take the anti-Platonic position, then how are we to think of the Mandelbrot set? For that matter, if math is invented, why can’t 2+2=5?

135

I’ve been pretty busy, but I thought I’d try to address some final points before signing off this thread for good. Especially since neither side can prove their position. So…

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I quoted your words, I even bolded the bits I was talking about. No bugs.Again with the PM. I’m asking you to defend one statement.
[/QUOTE]

To recap, you also said:

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
The bolded bit? The bit that I was actually addressing? Yes, I disagree with it - couching it in relative terms doesn’t change the lack of correctness, either.
[/QUOTE]

And here is the passage in question, with the sentence you insist on taking out of context bolded:

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention. If we are talking about this quality as it relates to the PM, something that by definition, was not caused, then a non-physical entity seems to require one less step than a physical one. That’s how I’m able to wrap my head around it, anyway.

[/QUOTE]

Now, you said you disagree with that statement, even though it has the qualifier “more” in their twice. So you evidently think that given two objects, A and B, that if A displays greater order/intelligence than B, that it does NOT more strongly suggest that Object A was the intentional product of a sentient being? In other words, I believe that if I walk through a forest on a planet in a neighboring galaxy and come upon two things, a rifle and a rock that kind of round on one side, that the rifle suggests that it was the result of a direct intention moreso then the rock. You evidently disagree with that. Please explain.

While you’re at it, could you please explain why you insist on taking that sentence out of context? The context “could be anything”, you say. Sure, if it was devoid of context, but it wasn’t. Look at the subject of the thread. Look at the subject of the post. Look at the subject of the paragraph, which is clear from the adjacent sentence.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
You have, again, failed to even try and explain how the PM being a special case (nice fallacy of special pleading there) makes a difference. Explain it to me.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve explained this more than once already. The PM is that which preceded everything. Therefore, nothing could have preceded him, even a less perfect him. So, unlike an eyeball and flagellum, which could very well be the result of gradual processes over time, that would not work for THE Prime Mover. It indeed IS a special case.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Please *do *explain how the “mores” make the link, between intentionality and intelligence/complexity being necessary, any more true.
[/QUOTE]

See above.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, I get what you said the second time - so, still no post cite for you saying the same thing as him? Why should I believe you without a CITE?
[/QUOTE]

Because you can read the thread? I agree with you that he put things well in that last paragraph you cited. I agree with the paragraph. Much of what I was saying about mathematical concepts and plane geometry and relationships of circles was saying the same things, albeit not as clearly I guess.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
But either way, you do NOT believe in the theory of evolution if you think there are design interventions.
[/QUOTE]

This thread is NOT about evolution, as much as you want it to be. The theory of evolution is absolutely silent on what we’ve been discussing for pages now, i.e,. what might have caused the universe? What might have caused the Big Bang? Do you not know that evolution occurs after the BB and what I’m talking about would, by definition, precede it?

But just to put that part of the discussion to bed, I do not doubt the process of evolution, particularly as it relates to generational changes. This process may account for everything, nice and neat. On the other hand, the theory as currently stated might not account for everything. Some large leaps may have been necessary, whether through large aberrant mutations or intervention of some kind. I DO NOT KNOW. If my making allowance for the latter disqualifies me from your clubhouse where everyone KNOWS the theory to be true and complete as is, so be it. If that means you would like to think of me as someone who does not believe in evolution, (even though I do), boo hoo for me.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Call me when they change it to “Pleasant Debates”.
[/QUOTE]

Yet, so many others are able to be pleasant while disagreeing without the sign on the door. Funny that.

136

[QUOTE=begbert2]

Also, I find it amazing that a person can believe that man evolved from single celled organisms and also assert “Well, it appears to be necessary to me in that the more ordered or intelligent a thing is, the more it points to being the result of an intention.” - the two positions are diametrically opposed. Humans clearly are extremely ordered and intelligent, and evolution claims that they emerged through purely natural methods, with no creator or designer or intention whatsoever. If you think things as complex as them have to have been designed, then you cannot believe they evolved; ID or explicit creation are your only remaining options.
[/QUOTE]

I do not find the two notions in conflict.:

  1. Yes, man is a highly complex creation, one that could very well have been the result of pure evolution, from one cell to man.

  2. That the more ordered/complex an object it, the more it argues for an intelligent designer. I’ve explained this in detail in my previous post.

Please explain why they are in conflict. Please explain why you think both are not true.

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Of course, evolution merely disproves the premise that intelligence is required for design. While that’s extremely damaging to the watchmaker argument, the real killer is that, if something as complex as the universe or humans or whatever requires a more complex designer, then that designer also requires a designer, ad infinitum, to impossibility and ridiculosity. But if God doesn’t require a designer, then the universe or humans or whatever don’t either.
[/QUOTE]

How does evolution disprove an intelligent designer? Also, why is that last statement true? It would only necessarily be true if you equate God with the universe and humans. That seems to be a leap you make. No?

[QUOTE=begbert2]
Special pleading is a fallacious attempt to ignore this fundamental problem with the argument - and is convincing only to those willing to be convinced by fallacies. (Especially once the fallacy has been clearly pointed out.)
[/QUOTE]

How is that relevant here? IF there is a God/Prime Mover, he would have qualities not possessed by man or the universe. The proof of that would be that he existed without a cause, while the others did. So it is therefore incorrect to call the argument fallacious on those grounds. We look at it as a special case because it truly is. I think you make the error by assuming God and man to have similar qualities, particularly in their need for a cause and/or the degree to which they are each imbued with the quality of infinite being. Again, if that is not right,why?

137

[QUOTE=panache45]
My own position is: “I don’t see any reason whatsoever to believe in a God.”

I’m not the kind of person who can just believe something based on wishful thinking, not that I’d “wish” to believe in a God anyway. So believing in something for which there’s a total lack of evidence would require a “leap of faith” that would fly in the face of everything I ***do ***believe.
[/QUOTE]

Same here.

Monkeys might fly outta my butt, too…but I have no reason to believe they will.

Rest assured, if this ever happens, I’ll take pictures.

138

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’ve been pretty busy, but I thought I’d try to address some final points before signing off this thread for good.
[/QUOTE]
But…I’m still not paying you for this, remember?
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Especially since neither side can prove their position.
[/QUOTE]
I have already proven my position, using deductive logic. You have failed to use same to disprove it.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

So you evidently think that given two objects, A and B, that if A displays greater order/intelligence than B, that it does NOT more strongly suggest that Object A was the intentional product of a sentient being? In other words, I believe that if I walk through a forest on a planet in a neighboring galaxy and come upon two things, a rifle and a rock that kind of round on one side, that the rifle suggests that it was the result of a direct intention moreso then the rock. You evidently disagree with that. Please explain.
[/QUOTE]
What warped definition of intelligence and order are you going for here? A gun is no more intelligent than a rock. Depending on the rock, it can be much more ordered than the rifle. A nice sorted conglomerate, for instance, would be orders of magnitude more ordered than a rifle. It’s also cherry-picking of examples. Suppose I walked along and found this and this? Which is more ordered? More the result of focused intention vs blind instinct? The watchmaker argument is sophomoric.

Anyway, I believe the word you’re adroitly dancing around mentioning there is “complexity”, not “order”, and even that would be inappropriate. This is one of many ways the classic watchmaker argument, which you’ve just attempted to restate, falls down - there is no easy measure of order or complexity I know of that distinguishes the natural from the designed. We can tell the rifle/watch is categorically different from the rock because of experience, nothing more. If your alien rifle was like the fishbone gun in eXiSteNz, how would you distinguish intention then? We have a wealth of experience of the materials we expect to find in nature versus manmade things, the kind of shapes we expect natural things to have, etc. But we don’t have a measure of order, IMO, as a distinguishing filter.

So much for order. I’ve already dealt with the ridiculousness of using intelligence as any guide to intentionality. So now, what need for a Prime Mover?
[QUOTE=magellan01]

While you’re at it, could you please explain why you insist on taking that sentence out of context? The context “could be anything”, you say. Sure, if it was devoid of context, but it wasn’t.
[/quote]
I’ve repeatedly explained why I think context doesn’t matter here. The sentence I quoted either stands or it doesn’t. In what way is its logic dependent on the sentence that follows? And the “mores” do not affect the logic of the link you attempt to show. An attempt which I’ve shown fails.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

I’ve explained this more than once already. The PM is that which preceded everything. Therefore, nothing could have preceded him, even a less perfect him. So, unlike an eyeball and flagellum, which could very well be the result of gradual processes over time, that would not work for THE Prime Mover. It indeed IS a special case.
[/quote]
Yes, it’s a “special case” of special pleading.
And I notice how the eyeball and flagellum are not such good examples anymore? You do realise Behe hasn’t updated his playbook in a while, right? You’re going to struggle to come up with fresh ones.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Because you can read the thread?
[/quote]
Don’t be pedantic. I have read the thread, and I’m asserting you didn’t say anything resembling what he said, so if you assert that you did, cite where you said it, and we can discuss that specific instance. Otherwise stop trying to ride his coattails.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I agree with you that he put things well in that last paragraph you cited. I agree with the paragraph.
[/quote]
Including the “nothingness-fart” observation? (great term, BTW, bb2)?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Much of what I was saying about mathematical concepts and plane geometry and relationships of circles was saying the same things, albeit not as clearly I guess.
[/quote]
No need to guess. No, not saying it anywhere nearly as clearly.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

This thread is NOT about evolution, as much as you want it to be.
[/quote]
No, I used the fact of evolution of intelligence as a counter to one of your assertions. That doesn’t make the thread about it in any way, but does mean that your acceptance or not of the theory is significant, as to whether we’re on the same page with regard to background. That you tried to obfuscate your beliefs didn’t help.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
The theory of evolution is absolutely silent on what we’ve been discussing for pages now, i.e,. what might have caused the universe?
[/quote]
It has some small evidence to offer on whether you need intentionality to develop ordered and intelligent things. So no, *not *absolutely silent on what we’ve discussed, no.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
What might have caused the Big Bang?
[/quote]
Yes, but that’s not why I brought it up. Strawman.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Do you not know that evolution occurs after the BB and what I’m talking about would, by definition, precede it?
[/quote]
Why are you attacking an argument I never made? Is it because you can’t defend your own logic? Why not attack the actual, point-by-point deductive logic argument I made, starting with point 3)?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
But just to put that part of the discussion to bed, I do not doubt the process of evolution, particularly as it relates to generational changes.
[/quote]
Good grief, do you realise how your language gives you away here? You can’t sneak in under the radar masquerading as a true-blue evolutionist if you use the creationist & ID shibboleths. And you were doing so well - avoiding the words “irreducible” and “complexity” so neatly.“Generational changes!” - You’ll be mentioning “microevolution” next… :smack:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
This process may account for everything, nice and neat.
[/quote]
It does.No need for the “may”.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
On the other hand, the theory as currently stated might not account for everything.
[/quote]
Name ONE. Please. Name JUST ONE thing it doesn’t account for.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Some large leaps may have been necessary, whether through large aberrant mutations or intervention of some kind.
[/quote]
No case where “large leaps” are needed has ever stood up to scrutiny. Look, it’s the Intelligent Designer of the Gaps!
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I DO NOT KNOW.
[/quote]
This does not make you some sort of neutral party. It makes you wrong. “I DON"T KNOW” is a valid stance on what’s outside the Universe. It is not a valid one on the Theory of Evolution, which is cold, hard scientific fact.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
If my making allowance for the latter disqualifies me from your clubhouse where everyone KNOWS the theory to be true and complete as is, so be it.
[/quote]
The club of people in the right? OK. You’ve shown no sign of wanting to come in, anyway.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
If that means you would like to think of me as someone who does not believe in evolution, (even though I do), boo hoo for me.
[/quote]
You can’t be an IDer and claim to believe in evolution. Pick a side. Anything else is disingenuous.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Yet, so many others are able to be pleasant while disagreeing without the sign on the door. Funny that.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s see - one of us has been making adversarial remarks about the strength of the other’s position and use of logic as evidenced in this thread. The other has been using ad hominems, made numerous accusations of hostility and also made veiled personal attacks .
Which one of those would you classify as the unpleasant one to debate? Yet here I am, still debating you, with no intention of tucking tail or throwing a hissy fit. Maybe it’s because I don’t have a life :rolleyes:.

Or maybe, I’m right, and you know it, and are going for a stalemate because it’s the best you can hope for because I don’t intend to let you dodge out of things. If you’re going to leave in a huff, for Hastur’s sake just stop talking about it and do so, but don’t pretend it’s because I was a little tough in debating you. It’ll be because you lost the debate, couldn’t counter the logic, didn’t answer direct questions until hounded, wouldn’t offer cites, and didn’t succeed in browbeating me out with ad hominems.

If I was really as unpleasant as you’re claiming, instead of merely adversarial, I’m pretty sure a Mod would have stepped in by now. But I haven’t been - you’re just looking for an easy out that doesn’t involve actual logic. Feel free to quit anytime, I’d hate to run up too big a tab :rolleyes: .

139

[QUOTE=magellan01]

How is that relevant here? IF there is a God/Prime Mover, he would have qualities not possessed by man or the universe. The proof of that would be that he existed without a cause, while the others did. So it is therefore incorrect to call the argument fallacious on those grounds. We look at it as a special case because it truly is. I think you make the error by assuming God and man to have similar qualities, particularly in their need for a cause and/or the degree to which they are each imbued with the quality of infinite being. Again, if that is not right,why?
[/QUOTE]

We’re not at home to Mr. Logic today, are we? You do realise that you’re using a hugely circular argument here :
“The PM exists without a cause, therefore he has properties that caused things don’t have…like (tada!) not having a cause!”

“Assuming the antecedent” writ large.

140

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
But…I’m still not paying you for this, remember?I have already proven my position, using deductive logic.
[/QUOTE]

You have PROVEN nothing.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
You have failed to use same to disprove it.
[/QUOTE]

Because you have proven nothing.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
What warped definition of intelligence and order are you going for here? A gun is no more intelligent than a rock. Depending on the rock, it can be much more ordered than the rifle. A nice sorted conglomerate, for instance, would be orders of magnitude more ordered than a rifle. It’s also cherry-picking of examples. Suppose I walked along and found this and this? Which is more ordered? More the result of focused intention vs blind instinct? The watchmaker argument is sophomoric.
[/QUOTE]

I never said order or complexity PROVED intent or intelligence, just that the MORE ordered an object was the MORE it would suggest intentional intelligence. That suggestion is not proof, it is merely that, a suggestion. You crafted an example to prove a position wrong that I do not hold.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Anyway, I believe the word you’re adroitly dancing around mentioning there is “complexity”, not “order”, and even that would be inappropriate. This is one of many ways the classic watchmaker argument, which you’ve just attempted to restate, falls down - there is no easy measure of order or complexity I know of that distinguishes the natural from the designed.

…But we don’t have a measure of order, IMO, as a distinguishing filter.
[/QUOTE]

Well, let’s try this example. We have two wooden objects, so as far as their internal complexity, they would be equal, right? Now we further describe those two objects: one is just a hunk of amorphously shaped wood. The other is a wagon wheel. There you go, the wheel would be the object that would MORE strongly suggest intent. Correct? If not, why not?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’ve repeatedly explained why I think context doesn’t matter here. The sentence I quoted either stands or it doesn’t.
[/QUOTE]

It was never intended to stand on it’s own. If it were, I wouldn’t have other sentences around it. The first sentence was laying down a proposition for the next. It was a preamble of sorts. I’ve pointed this out numerous times, yet you still insist I intended it to stand alone. Tell me what do I want for dinner?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
And the “mores” do not affect the logic of the link you attempt to show. An attempt which I’ve shown fails.
[/QUOTE]

No you haven’t. You wish the sentence to mean the same thing with the qualifying “mores” in it as it would if they weren’t there. That is simply absurd. Words matter, especially when they are there specifically to be qualifiers.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Don’t be pedantic.
[/QUOTE]

THAT is rich! :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I have read the thread, and I’m asserting you didn’t say anything resembling what he said, so if you assert that you did, cite where you said it, and we can discuss that specific instance. Otherwise stop trying to ride his coattails.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: I acknowledged your complimenting him. I asked you why what he said in that paragraph resonanted so comfortable with you when some of the same points made by me didn’t. Here is what I was referring to, the fact that logic and relationships based purely on logic will hold up here and elsewhere. For example:

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Well, that makes any discussion moot then, doesn’t it. If the logic that guides our very thought processes and discussion can change to one of a trillion unknown logic models, there’s not much point in discussing anything. But do you really think that in some other universe 2+2 will not equal 4? That x can be equal to x+1? That this will not hold true:

All humans are mortal
Dibble is human
Therefore, Dibble is Mortal
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. But while we may move the line as to what we would consider fallacies, the logic that is derived from mathematical principles, set theory, etc. I think will hold up.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
There’s no reason to think that equations adequate to deal with a two dimensional world will work in a three dimensional world. That does not, though, invalidate, the dependability of those equations for two dimensions. Similarly, just because a series of equations and relationships might not work in an extra-three dimensional world does not invalidate those equations either. We need additional equations that embrace the relationships as they might exist when this other dimension(s) is taken into account. In other words, if you went to another world with additional dimensions, the Pathagorean Theorem would still hold true when trying to understand the two-dimensional aspect of your new world.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
The Pathagorean theory will be just as valuable understanding two dimensions whether your world has three or thirteen. No? Why not?

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
It’s a commentary on the relationships of the items only. Not the factual reality of them. It’s validity would hold up every bit as well, while it’s truthiness be just as suspect.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=magellan01]
As far as 2+2=4, of course my point is that that would hold wherever the concept of twoness, fourness, addition and equality hold.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Including the “nothingness-fart” observation?
[/QUOTE]

If by that he meant that we—our universe—to be the result from a fart of a PM, then yes, I agree that that is a possibility. I have stated in this thread that that although I hold that PM created us, I do not ascribe any necessary specialness to that creation. As I think I put it, we may simply be some detritus on his shop room’s floor.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, I used the fact of evolution of intelligence as a counter to one of your assertions.
[/QUOTE]

You do realize that evolution is a theory, right? That some aspects of it have been proven, but others haven’t. You do realize that, don’t you. So, while you may use some proven aspect of evolution to disprove something, you cannot use an unproven aspect of it to disprove something. Counter it, yes. But elsewhere you seem to think that unproven aspects of evolutionary theory can disprove things when they cannot. They also cannot be used to counter a point that evolutionary theory is silent on, i.e., what caused the BB.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
That doesn’t make the thread about it in any way, but does mean that your acceptance or not of the theory is significant, as to whether we’re on the same page with regard to background. That you tried to obfuscate your beliefs didn’t help.It has some small evidence to offer on whether you need intentionality to develop ordered and intelligent things. So no, *not *absolutely silent on what we’ve discussed, no.
[/QUOTE]

Evolutionary Theory says NOTHING about the origin of the univers. NOTHING as to what caused the Big Bang. If you think differently, I’ll ask you for a cite.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Why not attack the actual, point-by-point deductive logic argument I made, starting with point 3)?
[/QUOTE]

Okay. Here is your supposed airtight logic:

[QUOTE=MrDibble]

  1. Deductive Logic requires Modus Ponens. (if A then B. A, therefore B)
  2. Modus Ponens requires Causality as we usually know it. (hell, MP is just a statement of causality really)
  3. Causality requires Time as we know it (arrow, past->future.)
  4. TAWKI is an exclusive property of this Universe (From the DEFINITION of Universe)
  5. So Outside the Universe there is no TAWKI (Negation of 4)
  6. So Outside the universe, no causality, no MP, no deductive logic.

[/QUOTE]

#2 has already been dispensed with by begbert2, so as you requested, we will move on to #3. I think we agree. I don’t know why you felt the need to add “as we know it”, but fine, we agree on 3. But maybe you qualified Time in #3 to make #4 appear more self-evident. But it is not. You are assuming that Time is absent from a realm that you have no way of knowing it is absent from. That makes #5 just an assumption you’re making, as well. and that shoots to hell your #6.

In fact, I’d say begbert2’s paragraph that you liked so much, and agreed with, conflicts with #6, as well. So do you agree with his paragraph that you lauded or do you hold to this “proof” you have offered?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Good grief, do you realise how your language gives you away here? You can’t sneak in under the radar masquerading as a true-blue evolutionist if you use the creationist & ID shibboleths.
[/QUOTE]

I think I see the problem here. You feel the need to put people into camps that make you feel comfortable. So, you want to force me into one. As much as you insist otherwise, I do believe in the theory of evolution. I also accept that some of it is still a theory. I also understand that it is silent on most of what we have been discussing in this thread.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Name ONE. Please. Name JUST ONE thing it doesn’t account for.
[/QUOTE]

The beginniing of life. If you think it does, please provide a cite.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
“I DON"T KNOW” is a valid stance on what’s outside the Universe. It is not a valid one on the Theory of Evolution, which is cold, hard scientific fact.
[/QUOTE]

As I said, some aspects of the TOE are facts. Others are not. For instance, the allowance for the eye being the result of evolution and only evolution is a theory. Why do you insist on conflating the two?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
The club of people in the right? OK. You’ve shown no sign of wanting to come in, anyway.You can’t be an IDer and claim to believe in evolution. Pick a side.
[/QUOTE]

There you go, “you’re either with us or agin’ us.” No thanks.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Or maybe, I’m right, and you know it, and are going for a stalemate because it’s the best you can hope for because I don’t intend to let you dodge out of things.
[/QUOTE]

Nope. I just admit that neither of us can PROVE we are correct and the other is wrong. It’s quite amazing you don’t realize that. Do you really think this is the first time this discussion has been had?