Free Republic

This is the exact quote I was going to comment on. It absolutely spins my head off. Justice, common sense, honesty, and moral conviction is dying. The price we will pay now and pass to our children is truly staggering. Freedom is being redefined people. Let there be no mistake about it.

I love how CNN shut down the comments. Every one of them is gushing love for the Messiah. The article posted at 7:10pm eastern and the last was @ 9:35pm eastern....

I guess it wouldn't be good for business to allow us "normal folk" to point out how pathetic Cooper's Q&A session was.

She's the state governor Cooper... We all realize that Wikipedia is the extent of your investigative reporting capabilities but dang, it's right there in the first two sentences.. It's difficult to miss even for you!!

"Sarah Louise Heath Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɪn/; born February 11, 1964) is the current governor of the U.S. state of Alaska, and is the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee in the 2008 United States presidential election.

Palin was sworn in as the governor of Alaska on December 4, 2006, becoming the first woman and youngest person to hold the office."

I read about 75% of it and wanted to vomit. I really can't think of anything more disgusting than the wholesale slaughter of all these innocent children. What a testament to our nation's pure and unbridled selfishness.

- RetroFit

I think that I also replied to you in a direct and thoughtful way. Apparently you took what I wrote in a condescending way towards you. If so, I do apologize to you for that. I certainly don't know nearly as much as I'd like, but I do know that my response to you was anything but disrespectful.

While I appreciated your first post and enjoyed considering the points you raised, I do believe you've jumped to the wrong conclusions on my response to you. You've also implied that I'm:

1)Wanting to move the goal posts of the argument.
2)I'm not smart enough to see that the analogy of the transitive rule you provided (rock paper scissors) is not the transitive rule. It's actually a non-transitive rule. (They are not the same thing and I pointed it out w/out the condescension you've offered)
3)Ignorant of history.

I have no problem admitting if and when I'm shown to be wrong, but it is hard to take anybody seriously who resorts to borderline name calling. Why can't people just have a dialog w/out the ad hominems? If you don't agree and you are choosing to engage a person, why not remain civil? How does your last response show anything but a short fuse?

It's OK. I won't waste more of your time as you seem to now think that I am. Thanks for the earlier response. It was good while it lasted.

Isn't it the mark of sanity to eschew what has not worked in the past and instead pursue what has worked?

I think this claim goes too far. While I agree that naturalistic tests can work when applied to the kinds of things that lend themselves to that sort of observation, I don't think I'd agree that they are 1) infallible [science is all the time formulating different conclusions while applying the same naturalistic approach] and 2) superior to other methods of knowing things. The only way rock-paper-scissors could be comparable to the A>B and B>C thus A>C example would be to add the additional proposition C>A. But at that point the conclusion A>C would be nonsense. I'm not sure it is helpful to us given the discussion.

While we may apply a postmodern deconstruction as to what '>' means, it will still not invalidate the truth intrinsic to the statement with the given propositions.

This may be a simple truth, yet it is one that appeals to our intuition. This requires no further observation to conclude it's truth. Nor does it require any kind of methodological (thank you for the clarification :) ) naturalistic test to conclude. This seems to me to be an evidence for the capacity to "know" certain, nonphysical things apart from the naturalistic paradigm.

A person can exhibit the same physiological (observable) signs for both joy and sorrow. Theoretically, from a physiological standpoint, they could be indistinguishable. What is it within the individual that enables them to distinguish the difference? How is that 'process of discernment' observed and tested. If I am imagining my mother's face in my mind's eye how could one apply a test to identify what it is I'm seeing? True, they are just a pattern of neurons firing, but what is it that interprets that pattern? You could not replicate the firing pattern and reconstruct the image externally from myself.

These are merely simple, if not incomplete, illustrations to show that there are some things that exist that cannot be observed or tested from a methodological naturalistic approach. Concluding that a "God" must not exist because he fails a naturalistic test seems to be premature since the presupposition is that "God" must first be the type of being that could first be subjected to that kind of test. This seems to be putting the cart before the horse in some respect.

Perhaps the use of the word demonstrate was a poor choice. But, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, I would not categorize all truths that do not lend themselves to a naturalistic approach to be an "arbitrarily agreed" upon truths either.

Basic logic (modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.) truths alone are just ideas. That you can construct experiments to prove them does nothing to bring the ideas themselves into the realm of the physical. Nor are they temporal truths that are just arbitrarily agreed upon until consensus shifts the other direction. They are either true or they are false independent of consensus. Some truths are self evident. A>B and B>C thus A>C requires no further evidence to demonstrate the validity of the claim. Nor is it's truth contingent on the agreement of arbitrary number of people.

Also, while I may not subscribe to all of Descartes, his statement of "I think, therefore I am" alludes to a component of a mankind that exists that is of an immaterial nature.

Again, it comes down to what a person (perhaps arbitrarily) accepts as sufficient evidence. Why must the only way to answer the original question as to the existence of a "God" be through a naturalistic test if we cannot apply the same standard to man's identity or ideas that themselves are intrinsically true? It is a presupposition that "God" must first be the type of being that can only be observed naturally before his existence can be verified. Why must that be the paradigm?

I think it is worthwhile to consider one's epistemology when approaching things such as this before having a dialogue. When people come together on this subject it is important to understand how each person "knows" anything. If the only way we can truly know things comes from a naturalist perspective (those things can be tested with the 5 senses) then that will ultimately determine the value we place on the "evidence" that a non-naturalist offers.

I think that if a person can demonstrate that there are such things (not necessarily God) that exist apart from being placed under a "microscope" of sorts, then it can set the stage for a more productive discussion on the questions you have asked.

Something the naturalist should consider is the following:

What kind of physical test can they do to prove that only the things that can be observed with the 5 senses truly exist? Is that even possible? If it isn't possible to show this epistemology from a naturalist perspective wouldn't that render naturalism self-refuting?

You offered 2 types of questions. The first question was from a naturalist perspective. The others were from a cultural/Biblical validity standpoint.

Anyway, that was just a few thoughts I had.... for what it's worth. (probably not worth much :) ) Often times people don't take the time to first understand the other person's epistemology. When they don't do that they end up just spinning their wheels talking past each other on the "proof" that the other person discounts out of hand.

By the way, I am not assuming you to be a naturalist. Only your first question would I argue was from a naturalists perspective.

- RetroFit

That question is being fielded all the time in most public schools. That is my point. If pro-evolutionists are going to cry foul when a pro-ID'er speaks up, then they should be honest and fair and keep their mouths shut about whatever ideas they think they have as well - be it abiogenesis or something else. They should be consistent and live up to the same standards. They need to cork it when that question is asked.

Most evolutionists here choose to side step anyone who makes a pro-ID statement by something like "Well... Darwin never said anything about how everything got started... bla bla bla". Fine. Whatever. But anybody who knows anything about kids (and most honest, critical-thinking adults for that matter) knows that the logical question of any lesson on the so-called "science of change" is going to ask the question "how did it start"? So if the pro-ID'ers aren't allowed in the science class to propose one of MANY theories to that question then it's only fair that the pro-evolution teachers shut their fat pie-holes about how they think it all started. All that they are allowed to say is: NEXT QUESTION PLEASE. Of course that is impossible for the zealots to do since they are intellectually dishonest when it comes to this point.

Always makes me smile when people are so arrogant (and somewhat silly) as to admit that there is still so much that we do not understand about the universe. But, without even pausing for breath exclude anything that can't be related to with the 5 senses or our limited capacity for understanding the physical things that do surround us. The arrogance is astounding.

Wasn't that from the movie "Joe vs. the Volcano"? Think we could convince them to throw themselves into a volcano too?

Here is a copy of a letter just sent to Frist. Please everyone if you are against this procedure do the same.

I am writing you to ask that you re-consider your position on stem cell research. By your own admission you believe that LIFE begins at conception. So any procedure, regardless of the unknown potential good that come from it, that takes the LIFE that you profess to exist is unjustifiable. This is terribly inconsistent. Life is life independent of physical size or stage of maturity. If you would not carve up a 3 week-old baby for medical research because it is immoral, then allowing the same procedure to be done on a HUMAN being at an earlier stage of growth is equivalently immoral. Do not support this bill or any other that devalues the LIFE of people incapable of defending themselves against such a barbaric procedure. Be consistent.

Technically it's just not as accurate as the original text. You're looking at a translation of a translation. You need to go back to the Hebrew for the most accurate if you're that curious. The Hebrew word is ratsach - to murder, slay.

How long do you think it will take before we see this on ebay?

Some of the kids quoted are ones that I directly work with. I'm very proud.

"ALL religions are conceived of by MAN"

This seems a bit arrogant to be able to make this claim. It is stated as though it's fact yet this statement itself is unprovable.

"The only way to actually PROVE that religion is TRUE is for the GOD of that religion to come down and just tell us in his or her or its own omnipotent voice."

That's kind of funny. Isn't that what the Christian Bible professes through Jesus? Maybe He needs to come back every few years and shake everyone's hand since that's apparently the only way folks such as yourself "might" believe it. Though, something tells me that wouldn't work either...