Posted on 04/15/2009 10:52:09 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The common thread throughout Darwin’s life was his continual struggle with the issue of death and suffering. He was never able to reconcile the existence of death, disease, and struggle with the character of a loving God:
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.[1]
Darwin was unable to understand why a loving Creator God would allow the horrible things he witnessed in nature and everyday life. Animals fed on one another; creatures ripped each other apart; women died in childbirth, etc. The world seemed heartless and cruel. Darwin’s eventual expansion of the concept of evolution seemed to provide a somewhat positive purpose for the suffering and death he could not explain.
Two of Darwin’s biographers went so far as to imply that...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
You're the one playing games. When was philosophical naturalism proven? You made the claim and have nothing to show for it. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation by trying to equate evolution w/ genetics, chemistry, physics, statistice/math, etc. You will commit the fallacy of equivocation again when you try to 'prove' philosophical naturalism. You can't even distinguish between proof and fallacy.
"Semantic hokum."
Not at all. You just can't recognize logical fallacies when you commit them.
"The "nothing that is nowhere" concept is yours. I am sure there is a rational explanation waiting to be discovered and I am equally sure that it will never be a supernatural being."
That's because you assume philosophical naturalism 'a priori'. Your surety is based in belief, not empiricism.
"Macroevolution has and does work. It's well documented and fully understood by those who bother to try."
Wrong again. I used to believe in macroevolution when I didn't understand it. After I started looking at the evidence, I realized it was nothing more than a philosophy supported by fallacy.
"Except that I can prove what I believe with evidence and can further substantiate with any additional evidence we find."
Yes, I 'm waiting for your proof of philosophical naturalism with evidence, not fallacy. Also waiting for you proof of macroevolution with evidence, not fallacy. Then I will show that you commit multiple fallacies arriving at your 'proof'.
"Knowledge only ever serves to erode what you believe in."
You commit the fallacy of equivocation again. Philosophical assumptions and logical fallacies are not knowledge.
Are you saying that you didn't understand what I posted?
What is the evidence for Geocentricism? And do you mean the Sun orbiting the Earth or the entire Universe orbiting the Earth?
>> “Are you saying that you believe that the quotes you cited mean that Max born , George Ellis and Albert Einstein believed in a geocentric universe?”
I was trying to make sure I understood what you said before responding.
No, that's the fallacy of equivocation for equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. I figured you didn't know the difference.
"Of course that's only clear to people who remove the blinders of religion and actually observe reality rather than believe what they are told."
LOL! You don't even have enough sense to understand that you commit a logical fallacy in justifying your belief.
"I have the universe to show for it. Perhaps even a multiverse."
Fallacy on the one hand, 'a priori' assumptions on the other and not a clue in-between. You're a hoot.
"There is no fallacy there. All are scientific disciplines that rely on observation, data and proof."
Oh, there's a fallacy there alright. You assume that the existence of natural physical laws means that the natural world is all that exists (philosophical naturalism). That's a fallacy, always has been and always will be.
"There is no need to prove that which is self-evident."
Claiming that something is 'self-evident' is a philosophical argument. You admit philosophical naturalism even as you try to deny it.
"The only examples you will ever be able to proffer as counters to "philosophical naturalism" - aka reality - are things that you simply don't or can't understand."
That reality operates according to natural, physical laws doesn't mean that philosophical naturalism is true. That's a fallacy. Too bad they teach you what to think rather than how to think.
"And yet I seem to be far, far better at that than you."
You can't recognize fallacy at all. You commit it constantly and claim that you don't.
"No, it is based on the careful analysis of facts and the realization of how well they fit reality, how predictable they are and so on. Science, not dogma."
Science is the dogma of philosophical naturalism. All science assumes philosophical naturalism 'a priori'. It's not empirically-derived nor provable. Just a belief.
BTW, you just committed the fallacy of equivocation again by equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. But I'm sure you knew that since you are so much better at recognizing such things.
"Don't hold your breath. I don't feel the need to prove reality to the unenlightened or any other incorrigibles."
Oh I wasn't. I know that philosophical naturalism is a belief and not empirically provable. You couldn't do it if you tried. It's a philosophy, a belief and requires the use of fallacy to justify.
"Again, no. Face facts, man: religion is incapable of standing up under scrutiny. The stupid little fantasy is clearly a human fabrication and is just as clearly unworkable in the real world."
Clearly it is philosophical naturalism that can't stand up to scrutiny. You justify it w/ fallacy and claim it 'self-evident' (a philosophical belief), yet are unable to understand the problem.
"Virtually every time religion has ever took a scientific stand (the Earth is flat, the Earth is the center of the universe, etc.) they have been proven embarrassingly wrong. "
Not as you think. The Bible claims the earth is 'hung upon nothing' and spoke of the 'circle of the earth' long before pagans (early naturalists) recognized such things. BTW, this is another philosophical argument. I thought you could prove philosophical naturalism? What's with all of the philosophical statements if you have proof?
"The evolution debate is just one more example of that."
Yes, it's one more example of assuming philosophical naturalism 'a priori' and committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. But I'm sure you knew that since you're so good at recognizing stuff like that...
People should stop referring to theories as “facts.” Our best efforts at reasoning and testing reason by observation are merely that “our best efforts.” Future efforts may provide different results. Not only because, we have new observations, but because we have new insights, new prejudices, or any number of reasons.
According to one television show, some of Einsteins’ early calculations were erroneous. Had critical empirical tests occurred when first planned, his challenge to Newton might have been rejected. But with the commencement of war, the tests were postponed. This historical accident gave him a chance to review and correct his math. With corrected math in hand, future tests vindicated his theories.
I do hope for progress over time. I've read that the Copernican system is simpler, and more elegant, that the Ptolomeic. That may be a reason to prefer it. I do not think Occam's razor is a law, but it is a consideration.
The article you linked on the expansion of the universe is interesting, and further indication that we should keep an open mind, especially on topics that are speculative. Of course, we are each entitled to our opinion, but each opinion is merely an opinion.
“So if the best of all worlds required men to have “free will” then He would have to allow evil to exist.”
At a more mundane level, conservatives believe in liberty with the full realization that it will lead to inequality (of income, wealth, batting averages, free shot percentages, etc.). Those on the left fault liberty because it results in inequality. They prefer forced equality - at the expense of liberty. Some value freedom more, some less. God could have created perfect robots who only did good. But what’s the point in that?
And on the eight day, God created GodGunsGuts ...
>>What is the evidence for Geocentricism? And do you mean the Sun orbiting the Earth or the entire Universe orbiting the Earth?<<
Well technically, the Sun and Earth orbit each other - but the earth is so much less massive, it effectively orbits the sun.
But is I suppose if you wanted evidence the sun orbits the earth you’d take the earth as fixed and just observe the sun rising. If you ignored the other planets and the stars you could probably sustain a geocentric point of view.
Yes, there is a difference. You commit logical fallacy to support your position. That's what you don't know.
"No, again, I have more than enough sense to see that you are uttering gibberish and calling it something else."
No, you don't have enough sense to know that you are engaging in logical fallacy to support your beliefs.
"There is no evidence for anything but. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. 0bama. Feel free to prove that my assertion is wrong. Maybe you can get your invisible friend to do it for you. Then again, maybe not."
What you mean is that there is no evidence that you will accept under methodological naturalism. That's a different thing altogether. But, let's assume for sake of argument that you are correct and there is no evidence at all for anything but. It is still a logical fallacy to assume philosophical naturalism because natural physical laws are all that you have evidence for. Always has been, always will be. That's what you can't comprehend.
"True that, but I'm not here to teach. I'm not on trial. The difference is that I could, if need be, prove my beliefs."<'/iu>
No, you can't. That's what you don't understand. Your beliefs are based on the logical fallacy of assuming philosophical naturalism because natural physical laws exist. Any 'proof' you would claim will be based on assuming that fallacy is true 'a priori'. That makes it still based on fallacy.
"You cannot and will never be able to. They are, by definition, unprovable which is what the entire concept of faith is all about."
You are no different. Which is what assuming logical fallacies is all about. That's the point.
"Funnier still since I didn't go to a religious school. . . perhaps I really did learn how to think."
Neither did I but I have seen no evidence of your ability to think yet.
"Oh, but I can. I recognize it in your beliefs quite readily. Fortunately for me there is none in mine."
You deceive yourself. Your beliefs are based on fallacy as I have pointed out time after time. You just refuse to admit it.
Thanks. I appreciate knowing that somebody understands what I'm saying.
Too few do.
That's exactly why I said, "What you mean is that there is no evidence that you will accept under methodological naturalism." That's what you are claiming now, so don't say 'no'. That's exactly what you say you will do. I believe you and knew that before you admitted it.
"The reality is that you can say that I'm wrong all you want, but the burden of proof is on you. You need to prove that I am wrong to substantiate your accusation of fallacy."
I have substantiated my accusation of fallacy. Macroevolution is based on the assumption of philosophical naturalism and the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is so because it assumes that observed processes (Q) can be extrapolated back into unobserved, assumed time frames and support macroevolution (P). There is no way to actually observe macroevolution, it must be inferred and that is done by fallacy.
"My position happens to be scientifically supported. Sure, as science goes that may change, but until there is documentation your assertion, and thus your whole argument, is just so much BS."
To say your position is 'scientifically supported' when that science is based on fallacy is meaningless. Sure, science *will* (not may) change but the underlying assumption of philosophical naturalism will never change. That is the fallacy. Your whole argument is based on a fallacy.
"The real tragedy here isn't the disagreement, it's your inability to reason your way out of the tiny little corner you've backed yourself into with your nonsensical position."
The real tragedy here isn't the disagreement, it's your inability to reason your way out of the tiny little corner you've backed yourself into with your refusal to recognize philosophical naturalism.
"All you are capable of doing is responding to legitimate opposition with "fallacy," "fallacy," "fallacy," because you refuse to (or are incapable of) understanding opposing positions."
All you are capable of doing is responding to legitimate opposition with "no fallacy", "no fallacy", "no fallacy", because you refuse to (or are incapable of) understanding opposing positions.
"I've rejected creationism rationally. I've seen the "evidence" and "theories" that have been put forth and reject them based on reason, logic and science."
I've rejected philosophical naturalism rationally. I've seen the "evidence" and "theories" that have been put forth and reject them based on reason and logic. I avoid the fallacy of 'science' to avoid engaging in logical fallacy as you do.
"You, on the other hand, look at the evidence and science behind evolution and reject it dogmatically without ever really considering it and almost certainly without understanding it. That is nothing short of pathetically sad."
You, on the other hand, look at the evidence, assume the philosophy of naturalism that is behind evolution 'a priori' and assume it dogmatically without ever really considering the fallacy it is based on and almost certainly without understanding.
That is nothing short of pathetically sad.
"I also refuse to admit that the moon is made of green cheese because it is, in fact, not."
That would be the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.
Again, science is based on the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. This means that the latter has no more depth or respect than the former.
Using the fallacy of argumentum ad populum is not evidence of 'depth' or 'respect'.
"The difference being, of course, that the latter will self-correct while the former never will."
The latter will never 'self-correct' either because the underlying assumption of philosophical naturalism never changes.
You are confused.
No, you ignore the assumption of philosophical naturalism. Then you commit the fallacy of reverse ad hominem to justify your position. Your faith is showing.
"Your attribution of "fallacy" is just that and nothing more. In reality there is no fallacy."
Yes, there is. You just refuse to recognize it.
"One has nothing to do with the other. Philosophical naturalism as you call it is reality. The universe is guided by rules and laws and nothing else."
Yes it does. Philosophical naturalism is assumed based on the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. That the universe is guided by rules and laws is the observation that you equate to philosophical naturalism through use of fallacy.
"Yes, I understand that you refuse to accept that and that you are, in fact, probably incapable of understanding it but that's not my problem; it is yours. If you believe so strongly that there is something more then surely you can provide proof."
Yes, I understand that you refuse to accept that and that you are, in fact, probably incapable of understanding it but that's not my problem; it is yours. Your demand for proof assumes that naturalistic laws can identify a non-naturalistic reality. That is a non-sequitur as well.
"But, of course, you can't."
This would be the negative proof fallacy. That your beliefs are true unless proven false. Since they are beliefs, however, it is impossible to prove beliefs false.
"Meanwhile, within the framework of reality (your philosophical naturalism) science readily self-corrects and is almost always right - in the end."
Again, philosophical naturalism cannot be empirically shown to equate to reality. It is an 'a priori' assumption based on the fallacy of equating the existence of natural physical laws with philosophical naturalism. Science will never self-correct the underlying philosophical foundation and is almost always wrong - in the present.
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.