tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post3406768067224401541..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Evolution vs God and PZ Myers whiningRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-3881448226515920122014-02-14T21:12:27.014-06:002014-02-14T21:12:27.014-06:00Speaking of abortion, your and your bankrupt logic...Speaking of abortion, your and your bankrupt logic dictated my mythological dogma and the ironically evolutionary need to "live forever" are a load your Baby Jebus Loving mother should have swallowed.<br /><br />Slurp.<br /><br />See you in hell, ethically bankrupt, intellectually empty cretin. <br /><br />Now you can get on your knees and pray for me. Try not to cum on baby jebus's face while you do it.The Yogurt Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09579100697619586366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-16306434795660162992013-08-15T11:34:26.936-05:002013-08-15T11:34:26.936-05:00Only if you define "observational skills"...Only if you define "observational skills" in a ludicrously expansive way.<br /><br />Also, even if your ludicrously expansive definition were valid, it would be circular reasoning not a circular argument.Mr. Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-67303613782792733752013-08-15T11:30:21.276-05:002013-08-15T11:30:21.276-05:00So you use your observational skills to prove your...So you use your observational skills to prove your observational skills. <br /><br />Sounds perfeclty circular.<br /><br />By your standard, you're offering an unreasonable argument.<br /><br />- Shane Shane Dodsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17034383784905920045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-51384407195441776722013-08-15T10:27:40.141-05:002013-08-15T10:27:40.141-05:00How do you prove your observational abilities are ...<i>How do you prove your observational abilities are functioning properly without first assuming their proper function?</i><br /><br />By adducing evidence.<br /><br />If somebody writes a number or letter on a piece of paper, holds the paper up and asks me what number or letter he/she has written, I can test my observational abilities against the fact of the number or letter he/she wrote. If I answer his/her question correctly, then that is evidence of my observational abilities' validity.<br /><br />Alternately, if I stand on the sidewalk and, to my right, observe a gaping hole and, to my left, observe more sidewalk, I can test my observational abilities' validity by stepping to the right and seeing whether I fall into the gaping hole (or stepping to the left and seeing whether I remain safely on the sidewalk).Mr. Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-51169780955492967402013-08-15T09:29:01.681-05:002013-08-15T09:29:01.681-05:00Shane Dodson:
Would you agree that there are peo...Shane Dodson: <br /><br /><b>Would you agree that there are people whose observational abilities are not functioning properly?</b> <br /><br />Same problem. How do I discern that an individual has observational abilities that are not functioning properly without observing them? It's like asking me to prove I can read without reading. <br /><br />I guess I could imagine that such individuals exist and use the Christian worldview that holds that what I imagine actually exists in reality. NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-82329887463704270752013-08-15T06:07:58.350-05:002013-08-15T06:07:58.350-05:00"I start from an axiomatic First Principle of..."I start from an axiomatic First Principle of evidentialism. My confidence of any proposition, including the reliability of observation, is directly proportional to the evidence adduced. There is evidence that observational abilities, broadly considered, are valid. Thus, I am confident of observational abilities' validity."<br /><br />How do you prove your observational abilities are functioning properly without first assuming their proper function?<br /><br />- ShaneShane Dodsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17034383784905920045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-62379415466658910382013-08-15T06:04:56.799-05:002013-08-15T06:04:56.799-05:00"My observational abilities would have to be ..."My observational abilities would have to be valid in order for me to even consider the question of whether they are valid or not."<br /><br />Would you agree that there are people whose observational abilities are not functioning properly? <br /><br />If so, how do you know you're not one of these people?<br /><br />- ShaneShane Dodsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17034383784905920045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-81163444018216209472013-08-14T17:50:21.484-05:002013-08-14T17:50:21.484-05:00Shane Dodson:
Speakig of circular, perhaps you c...Shane Dodson: <br /><br /><b>Speakig of circular, perhaps you could explain how you prove that your observational abilities are valid without assuming they are valid to begin with.</b> <br /><br />My observational abilities would have to be valid in order for me to even consider the question of whether they are valid or not. NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-60004654637444078852013-08-14T17:39:10.203-05:002013-08-14T17:39:10.203-05:00Speakig (sic) of circular, perhaps you could expla...<i>Speakig</i> (sic) <i>of circular, perhaps you could explain how you prove that your observational abilities are valid without assuming they are valid to begin with.</i><br /><br />I start from an axiomatic First Principle of evidentialism. My confidence of any proposition, including the reliability of observation, is directly proportional to the evidence adduced. There is evidence that observational abilities, broadly considered, are valid. Thus, I am confident of observational abilities' validity.<br /><br /><i>And we are to take your demands for evidence seriously because...?</i><br /><br />The answer depends on whether you start from an axiomatic First Principle of evidentialism.Mr. Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-59107797329646883792013-08-14T17:17:44.896-05:002013-08-14T17:17:44.896-05:00"Speakig of circular, perhaps you could expla..."Speakig of circular, perhaps you could explain how you prove that your observational abilities are valid without assuming they are valid to begin with."<br /><br />Well, I can observe gravity. Now, I don't know if my observational abilities are valid or not. I'm not going to assume anything. But I'm also not going to step off the end of the Grand Canyon, you know, just in case it turns out that my observations about gravity are valid.River Sprite Worshiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08244963142562976804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-51655693559232473622013-08-14T16:35:43.814-05:002013-08-14T16:35:43.814-05:00"The Transcendental Argument is perfectly cir..."The Transcendental Argument is perfectly circular and, as such, is not a serious argument."<br /><br />Speakig of circular, perhaps you could explain how you prove that your observational abilities are valid without assuming they are valid to begin with.<br /><br />And we are to take your demands for evidence seriously because...?<br /><br />- ShaneShane Dodsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17034383784905920045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-70166668558588075532013-08-14T16:15:35.484-05:002013-08-14T16:15:35.484-05:00"My faith in Jesus was a gift from Almighty G..."My faith in Jesus was a gift from Almighty God. Is that what you mean?"<br /><br />Well, this sounds like a kind of presupposition to me, but I admit that I may be using the term too loosely here. I assume that you take this idea of a gift from God to be an initial absolute truth from which you derive other conclusions and beliefs, for example, the straight believing in the Bible. Then straight believing in the Bible leads you to conclude that the Earth is 7000 to 10,000 years old. Do I have this right?<br /><br />If I have this right, it looks like your belief that the Earth is 7000 to 10,000 years old is derived from a set of presuppositions that you hold to be absolute truths from the start. I'm honestly not sure I have this right, but this is how it appears to me. If I have this wrong, let me know. I find this metaphysical stuff a bit tricky.River Sprite Worshiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08244963142562976804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-36437841353288851232013-08-14T15:54:34.882-05:002013-08-14T15:54:34.882-05:00Where does it come from?
My faith in Jesus was a ...Where does it come from? <br />My faith in Jesus was a gift from Almighty God. Is that what you mean? <br />If not, I apologise for not understanding the question.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-56762708711906701982013-08-14T15:45:02.318-05:002013-08-14T15:45:02.318-05:00And where does "just straight believing the B...And where does "just straight believing the Bible" come from? <br /><br />Isn't this a "presupposition?" River Sprite Worshiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08244963142562976804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-35874423755968812922013-08-14T15:42:34.615-05:002013-08-14T15:42:34.615-05:00Atheism can account for "is" statements....Atheism can account for "is" statements. It cannot account for categorical "ought" or "should" statements.<br /><br />As such, no categorical "ought" or "should" statements -- or categorical "ought not" or "should not" statements -- are defensible on atheism.<br /><br />So, no and no.Mr. Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-72372532101959580252013-08-14T15:38:05.701-05:002013-08-14T15:38:05.701-05:00Mr. Dan,
Ought anyone believe that atheism is tru...Mr. Dan,<br /><br /><b>Ought</b> anyone believe that atheism is true? <br /><br /><b>Ought</b> anyone believe true things?<br />Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-45513770040691277822013-08-14T15:37:01.141-05:002013-08-14T15:37:01.141-05:00Oh, and it's more like 7-10K years. :-)Oh, and it's more like 7-10K years. :-)Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-41782628722265071412013-08-14T15:36:48.547-05:002013-08-14T15:36:48.547-05:00It's not the approach that leads me to that co...It's not the approach that leads me to that conclusion, but just straight believing the Bible.<br /><br />Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-44221412718764567282013-08-14T15:33:40.249-05:002013-08-14T15:33:40.249-05:00The Transcendental Argument is perfectly circular ...The Transcendental Argument is perfectly circular and, as such, is not a serious argument.<br /><br />It is true that, on atheism, no categorical obligations, objective value or objective meaning (in the sense of purpose) would exist. It is not true that, on atheism, everything breaks down to absurdity.<br /><br />Atheism can account for "is" statements...just not categorical "ought" or "should" statements.Mr. Dannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-35982340916336932472013-08-14T15:32:03.864-05:002013-08-14T15:32:03.864-05:00May I ask a question?
Does your presupp apologet...May I ask a question? <br /><br />Does your presupp apologetics lead you to the conclusion that the Earth is 6000 years old? Is the one derived from the other? I can't see how you could get to the belief in a 6000 year old Earth without presupp apologetics, but maybe I'm missing something here. I await correction. River Sprite Worshiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08244963142562976804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-1030735989455676432013-08-14T15:27:54.261-05:002013-08-14T15:27:54.261-05:00But it's not morally right or wrong to engage ...But it's not morally right or wrong to engage in digressions and rabbit holes, to ignore evidence, or to enjoy doing so, is it?<br /><br />It just is. You disagree. Disagreement is meaningless, isn't it?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-36302060473987508352013-08-14T15:27:03.883-05:002013-08-14T15:27:03.883-05:00You neither should nor shouldn't take my views...You neither should nor shouldn't take my views on absurdity seriously, if your worldview is true, since no obligation, value, or meaning would exist in that case. <br /><br />It's unclear to me how someone of your intelligence could fail to see how your worldview results in absurdity, but as I've noted before, sin makes you stupid.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-82181442630692648962013-08-14T15:23:40.503-05:002013-08-14T15:23:40.503-05:00Yeah, that's what I thought. Sigh.
Honestly, ...Yeah, that's what I thought. Sigh.<br /><br />Honestly, dude, why should I take your views on what is absurd seriously? <br /><br />Well, playing metaphysical games beats talking about the data, doesn't it? Or about Ray Comfort's disingenuous cartoon. Nothing here but digressions and rabbit holes. Enjoy your can opener.River Sprite Worshiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08244963142562976804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-32987331652684866582013-08-14T15:06:46.000-05:002013-08-14T15:06:46.000-05:00This is leading to some sort of presuppositional a...<i>This is leading to some sort of presuppositional apologetics thingie, isn't it? </i><br /><br />We wouldn't go there if you'd repent or come up with a satisfactory answer that doesn't lead to total absurdity.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-45664986193421759532013-08-14T15:03:47.115-05:002013-08-14T15:03:47.115-05:00Oh, dear, it looks like it's down the metaphys...Oh, dear, it looks like it's down the metaphysical rabbit hole. This is leading to some sort of presuppositional apologetics thingie, isn't it?River Sprite Worshiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08244963142562976804noreply@blogger.com