Posted on 08/17/2011 6:57:10 AM PDT by Todd Kinsey
For the better part of a century, socialists (Democrats) have been using science as a weapon to destroy the very fabric of American society. Today they propagate the global warming myth, forty years ago they were sounding the global cooling alarm, and they’ve used junk science to teach evolution in our nation’s schools.
To the socialist it is somehow easier to believe that aliens put us here or that we emerged from some primordial sludge than it is to believe in God. Socialist leadership, under the guise of “organizing”, use the environment, gay rights, immigration, or any number of causes as a form of religion to keep their unwitting masses in line. Their absence of God, and therefore morality, leaves these desperate souls longing to believe in something. How else can you explain a human being that is willing to risk their life to save a tree or a whale, yet they have no qualms about aborting a baby or assisted suicide?
(Excerpt) Read more at toddkinsey.com ...
No you said GOD had all attributes, I just mentioned his attribute of being full of crap was falsifiable : ) Your definition.
For the record, clearly define and give examples of *supernatural* so that we know exactly what it is that you are claiming doesn't exist.
Anything that doesn't exist in nature.
There's no point in wasting bandwidth in shooting in the dark while you move the goalposts only for you to continually tell us that we're wrong.
Well you lasted a post longer than I thought you would before running away. Cheers : )
What is the question we're begging, LeGrande? Can you put it into so many words?
Or are we just supposed to guess?
Okay, I'll take a stab at it.
You exclude the supernatural in principle. About IT we are forbidden to ask questions. [How Marxian of you.] You are entirely skeptical about causal relations in principle. Nothing "causes" anything. In fact, nothing happens in reality; the only stuff that happens is "in my head." And nothing can be proved about any relation between that "stuff" and the natural world that exists outside of my mind.
The classical philosophers — preeminently Plato — would have described this situation as fundamentally "disordered." The Greek (Koine) word for this psychospiritual condition (as they diagnosed it) was anoia.
Eric Voegelin has pointed out that the word anoia is virtually untranslatable into modern English. That's because English words are relentlessly denotative, and Greek words are not.
With Greek words, you have the surface level meaning, which can vary with context. But such words point to a deeper-level, integrative meaning.
For instance, anoia, at the surface means "folly, oblivion." But one cannot grasp what the "folly" or "oblivion" consists of, without appreciating the deeper meaning of the word, which is: "Forgetfulness of one's partnership in the community of being and, consequently, the transformation of assertive participation into self-assertion." [Citation to Eric Voegelin, Order and History, Vol 5: "In Search of Order," Baton Rouge: LSU Press (1987), p. 43.]
And so the thought has occurred to me that LeGrande is having a field day, reprising Hegel's original divertissement, his original "party trick," which he laid out in Phaenomonologie: There is no cause and effect; there is only the process of thesis and antithesis, culminating in a transitory "synthesis," which becomes the next "thesis," inviting an "antithesis" in the next iteration of the process, etc., ad infinitum. It's a totally pointless exercise, because it leads no where: These are operations in the human mind exclusively; they do not refer to — even deny — anything going on in the natural world. Indeed, the entire point of the exercise is to divorce ones self from the natural, to curl back into the pleasant experiences of a dreamer, who never has to measure up to anything outside the realm of his own desires. In the end, Hegel's greatest desire was arguably the desire for self-divinization....
Well, I'm sure that's all as clear as mud!
Thanks so much for writing, LeGrande!
Are you suggesting that we can define a fundamental cosmological reference frame for energy propagation that is outside God's laws or are you suggesting that any and all scientific observations are only witness to God's glory?
You don't suppose that the usual suspects are going to bitch and whine about this because God simply said; "Let there be light" do you?
Is there cause and effect? I said no, and was accused of committing a logical fallacy.
In fact, nothing happens in reality; the only stuff that happens is "in my head." And nothing can be proved about any relation between that "stuff" and the natural world that exists outside of my mind.
I have no clue about what you are trying to say. If you are trying to imply that I don't think there is an objective reality you are wrong.
And so the thought has occurred to me that LeGrande is having a field day, reprising Hegel's original divertissement, his original "party trick," which he laid out in Phaenomonologie: There is no cause and effect; there is only the process of thesis and antithesis, culminating in a transitory "synthesis," which becomes the next "thesis," inviting an "antithesis" in the next iteration of the process, etc., ad infinitum. It's a totally pointless exercise, because it leads no where: These are operations in the human mind exclusively; they do not refer to — even deny — anything going on in the natural world. Indeed, the entire point of the exercise is to divorce ones self from the natural, to curl back into the pleasant experiences of a dreamer, who never has to measure up to anything outside the realm of his own desires. In the end, Hegel's greatest desire was arguably the desire for self-divinization....
I believe this is a case of projection, you see a pattern and posit GOD is the cause. In fact any question or situation has the same answer to you, God is the cause.
As I implied in my original post, ancients attributed to God what they didn't understand, which led to animal sacrifice and the eventual sacrifice of GOD himself. You seem to attribute everything to God too, is there a difference between the ancients and you?
Believing in cause and effect leads to a dark and dangerous abyss.
Hmm, outside God's laws? I would prefer to state that they prove that an omnipotent God can't exist.
You don't suppose that the usual suspects are going to bitch and whine about this because God simply said; "Let there be light" do you?
They can't even get the proper sequence right in Genesis. Making light, separating light from darkness, then making two lights in the sky. They will bitch and whine, but it will be fun watching them lament.
Genesis was not intended to be a science or history book. The fundamentals of physics necessary to explain creation were impossible to communicate to the neolithic nomads who received this portion of the revealed Word. Regardless of the wishes and claims of many, Genesis does not attempt to explain HOW God created the universe, it only proclaims THAT He did.
It establishes a time line of events that is blatantly wrong. No physics understanding is necessary to get the proper sequence correct.
The Bible starts off badly and progressively gets worse.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Funny, I never took you for the Bible literalist type.
My first comment to you was based on your assertion that "True science (and reality) doesn't have 'causes', 'purposes', 'ends', 'goals', etc., people do."
By your own standard, you are the one who is begging the question and has the burden of proof.
Unfortunately this is simply the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It'a a logical fallacy and no support for evolution. The mechanisms are assumed to be proof of evolution simply because they exist and evolution is presumed to be true. Doesn't get more fallacious than that.
Not accused, you are committing a logical fallacy. As you posted, I asked whether if a cat were to spontaneously form for no reason out of nothing, would that be of no cause or effect. Your response? "Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing." Doesn't get more fallacious than that.
"As I implied in my original post, ancients attributed to God what they didn't understand, which led to animal sacrifice and the eventual sacrifice of GOD himself."
Again, this begs the question. You have no idea what 'ancients' understood or attributed. You simply make the assertion because you have already begged the question.
I am not, but everyone around here seems to be.
If the Bible isn't taken literally it is awesome.
My original statement which led to our interchange was that one cannot prove a God and one cannot prove no-God. You told me, paraphrasing from memory rather than going back to check, to describe an attribute of my God and you would disprove it. I then said He was all attributes and from there you launched into a diatribe which foolishly led the conversation off course. So, let me take another stab at it.
God is all of creation. He set the whole thing in motion and He determined the principles on which everything operates. He is not full of crap, as you postulated, but He did set things up so that you can be.
He gave us free will to make errors and, in fact, seems to have made it easier to make errors than not to. Yet, in essence. God is Love, Truth, and Life.
So, help yourself. Disprove any of that. Prove No-God. Prove that God is not Love and conversely that Love is not Godly. The same with Truth and Life. It would also be helpful if, as you disprove those, you will show how evolution accounts for them. Surely you don’t deny those abstracts - Love, Truth, and Life - exist. Yet, are they scientific? Can they be affirmed using the Scientific Method?
By your own standard, you are the one who is begging the question and has the burden of proof.
I don't believe you are really as stupid as you pretend to be. My first statement wasn't to you it was a reply to Betty Boops assertion. You are the interloper.
Causality is philosophy not science. Aristotle wasn't a scientist. If you think I am wrong point out the cause and effect theory in science please : )
Are you trying to dispute that 'everything comes from nothing'? LOL
You have no idea what 'ancients' understood or attributed. You simply make the assertion because you have already begged the question.
I may actually be begging the question here if you disagree that the ancients practiced sacrifices, do you deny that? I can easily support my assertion : )
If you can't make a logical progression from "if X, then Y; if not X, then Z", then there is no basis for any science. By your standards, we would make no scientific advancement at all.
I am just the person who is calling your logical fallacies to account. Call me what you will, your fallacies stand for what they are.
"Causality is philosophy not science. Aristotle wasn't a scientist. If you think I am wrong point out the cause and effect theory in science please : )"
And begging the question will always be logical fallacy. You simply confirm that you accept 'no cause and effect' a priori, no matter what. You engage in logical fallacy as a matter of course.
As you posted when I asked if a cat were to spontaneously form for no reason out of nothing, would that be of no cause or effect. Your response? "Yes that would be correct. Everything comes from waves of nothing." Doesn't get more fallacious than that.
"I may actually be begging the question here if you disagree that the ancients practiced sacrifices, do you deny that? I can easily support my assertion : )"
You said, "...ancients attributed to God what they didn't understand...". You have no idea what the 'ancients' understood or attributed. You simply make the assertion because you have already begged the question.
Of course by defining evolution(X) as 'change'(Y), any Y is, by definition, 'proof' of X. It's a small logical circle that might be called 'reasoning' by some but remains firmly in the realm of fallacy.
Interesting.
First, you disclaim any intention of taking my “bait,” then you take the bait. What “bait” is this that I offer? Let’s begin there.
“Now that depends on who gets to judge credentials doesn't it.”
Credentials are what they are. If the Scientific Community accepts as scientifically authoritative the statements of . . . oh say, Richard Dawkins (according even to Wikipedia) . . . then why would I challenge that judgment? It does not follow, however, that I am obliged to accept any conclusions off those scientific assertions as respects philosophy, religion, education, public policy, politics generally, or any subject not directly associated with Science. And, of course, even all scientific assertions are subject to further discovery.
“Whatever source I cite, professors, Nobel laureates, published and peer reviewed papers, heck even the burning bush, will be ridiculed.”
Suck it up, Cupcake, and take your sympathy play down the street.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.