tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post7978348283744537336..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Bad answers to bad questionsRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-76148620715727603812011-10-22T05:23:30.794-05:002011-10-22T05:23:30.794-05:00I said:
Rho has never answered my question: so wh...I said:<br /><br /><i>Rho has never answered my question: so what if I admit that I don't have logical certainty all the way down?</i><br /><br />Rho replied:<br /><br /><i>Yes I have, but I'll answer again.<br />Jell-O 6 no arithmetically bones and the further they Tuesday the much.</i><br /><br />I take this to mean that without absolute logical certainty, one is reduced to uttering gibberish. Speak for yourself, rho. I wonder, though, how far this goes down in your worldview. You've already said that I can't say I know that two plus two equals four on my worldview. Can I say that I'm hungry without being inconsistent? Can I smack my lips? Can I breathe? Can I extract energy from ATP? Or is my very existence a lie?<br /><br />Your beliefs lead you to establish some strange domains with bizarre borders. As I've said, more power to you if it's useful for you to look at things this way. But your conclusions do not follow from my worldview: what you imagine that I lack in the way of grounding is a chimera of your fantasy. That is, unless your fantasy is true. But you've shown nothing that would make me believe it, and it certainly is not self-evident.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-49807381946681774512011-10-22T05:21:31.933-05:002011-10-22T05:21:31.933-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-12584696763164183142011-10-20T11:39:36.032-05:002011-10-20T11:39:36.032-05:00"I'm sorry you didn't understand. Tal..."I'm sorry you didn't understand. Talk to you later. Re-reading it might help."<br /><br />Ah, I think that I just found what appears to be your response to the "how can you do science" question at the other post.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-56744293093074452452011-10-20T11:34:40.929-05:002011-10-20T11:34:40.929-05:00You failed to explain how I can know if any given ...<i> You failed to explain how I can know if any given observation is the result of the regular or uniform workings of the natural world OR a miracle. So, how can I do either history or science? </i><br /><br />I'm sorry you didn't understand. Talk to you later. Re-reading it might help.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63122696554951118972011-10-20T11:33:52.449-05:002011-10-20T11:33:52.449-05:00So, there you have it. If your senses make you thi...So, there you have it. If your senses make you think it happened, then it happened, right?. If we think that we have proven your senses wrong, then we must be wrong.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-18246051942735160372011-10-20T11:15:14.484-05:002011-10-20T11:15:14.484-05:00"No, you can't use those principles UNTIL..."No, you can't use those principles UNTIL YOU JUSTIFY THEM ON YOUR WORLDVIEW. Get to it. Sometime this week would be awesome."<br /><br />You've been given an answer to this question. Justification has been offered. Repeatedly. I understand that someone who craves absolute certainty will not be satisfied the answer. So it goes. You've been given the answer. <br /><br /><br />"If we think we've discovered sthg that proves God wrong, we need to remember we're not omniscient."<br /><br />So, there you have it. If the text said it happened, then it happened, right?. If we think that we have proven the text wrong, then we must be wrong. <br /><br />It's clear to me that if it turns out that you're actually wrong about floods and the age of the earth, then there's no way that you'll ever, ever, ever acknowledge that you're wrong. Ever. There is no possible observation that you will ever be accept as disproof of a global flood, etc. You will dismiss any and all evidence that contradicts your opinion by saying "God has a higher standard of evidence" (an untestable assertion, not and argument) or "it was a miracle" or "uniformitarian principles don't apply here". That's all very very neat and tidy, but ultimately blind and self-contradictory. <br /><br />As for the rest of your comments, sorry, old boy, but you really didn't address my points. You failed to explain how I can know if any given observation is the result of the regular or uniform workings of the natural world OR a miracle. So, how can I do either history or science? <br /><br />So, with respect to these points, as you would say, get to it. Sometime this week would be awesome.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-45938098949788272562011-10-20T10:36:23.114-05:002011-10-20T10:36:23.114-05:00zilch,
What exactly do you mean by "reason&q...zilch,<br /><br /><i>What exactly do you mean by "reason" here, rho? You seem to think that hearing a voice in your head, or reading a particular book, can give you a "reason" to believe in general uniformity</i><br /><br />Hmm, I don't remember saying anything like that. <br />It sounds suspiciously like a convenient strawman for you.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Calling our belief in observation of the real world, aka science, "personal preference" and "blind faith" simply shows your aversion to reality as a source of information</i><br /><br />That might be true if I weren't evaluating the entire question ON THE BASIS OF ATHEISM.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Rho is basically saying, "all or nothing at all". That is, absolute certainty, or no right to say or do anything.</i><br /><br />Totally false. <br />1) Unless you qualify "absolute" with what I'm really saying, that's one wrong count.<br />2) It's not a "right". It's that you have no way to know whether any of these things are actually true. You disclaim blind faith as a good way to discover truth and then engage in blind faith to arrive at what you think is true. I'm sorry you still haven't grasped this after the years you've been hanging around my blog. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>One: rho's source of "all", of absolute certainty, is a ghost. Rho has not shown us that this ghost exists.</i><br /><br />1) I don't need to show that God exists. You know He does.<br />2) I know you know b/c you act like He does even in your denials, b/c you think your denials are supposed to mean sthg to someone else, and that they represent a true statement you're making that you think you've observed. None of these things are consistent with atheism, as you continue to demonstrate.<br />3) Similarly, you haven't shown that quite a few things exist, and you've admitted that you can't show that they exist. So what's the problem with not being able to show that one's fundamental axiom exists? This is a category error.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Rho has never answered my question: so what if I admit that I don't have logical certainty all the way down? </i><br /><br />Yes I have, but I'll answer again.<br />Jell-O 6 no arithmetically bones and the further they Tuesday the much.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-52953307095639642862011-10-20T10:31:03.856-05:002011-10-20T10:31:03.856-05:00David,
Your knowledge of God comes from an alleged...David,<br /><i>Your knowledge of God comes from an allegedly ancient text. So, you'd better be able to use uniformatarian principles or the text is worthless. And if you can use uniformatarian principles, then so can I. </i><br /><br />Same mistake as Alex B keeps making.<br />No, you can't use those principles <b>UNTIL YOU JUSTIFY THEM ON YOUR WORLDVIEW</b>. Get to it. Sometime this week would be awesome.<br /><br /><br /><i>Something the world is "uniform", and sometimes it ain't. </i><br /><br />Maybe you missed the word "general" in there. I said it for a reason.<br />Why did I say it? Confirm you've been paying attention.<br /><br /><br /><i>I think that Zilch has already explained why one might think that uniformatarian principles are valid in the absence of a tritheistic Christianity.</i><br /><br />Nah, he really hasn't. But let the reader judge.<br />You who haven't yet even grasped the problem aren't what I'd call the most competent judge of whether he has or hasn't.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i> We can't use these principles because of the "miracle clause" and because sometimes nature is uniform and sometimes it's not. Well, so much for being able to interpret any data of any kind related to past events. There goes history! </i><br /><br />Why do you say that? <br />It's really not all that hard. God is a higher standard of evidence and truth than mere human observation, but God hasn't spoken on all issues and not with a microscopic level of granularity. He gave us brains for a reason. There's plenty to discover; we just need to remember our place in the story, and if we think we've discovered sthg that proves God wrong, we need to remember we're not omniscient.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-8211747732006912192011-10-20T02:42:28.129-05:002011-10-20T02:42:28.129-05:00One last comment, and I think it will really be th...One last comment, and I think it will really be the last, unless you answer some questions or come up with some new answers, rho. I just thought of another way to depict our impasse here.<br /><br />Rho is basically saying, "all or nothing at all". That is, absolute certainty, or no right to say or do anything. Two problems. One: rho's source of "all", of absolute certainty, is a ghost. Rho has not shown us that this ghost exists. Two: rho's unspoken judgment that if you don't have logical certainty as can only be supplied by a ghost, then you have nothing at all, is a baldfaced assertion with no support. Rho has never answered my question: so what if I admit that I don't have logical certainty all the way down? Until he does, or proffers evidence for his ghost, there's not much point in further discussion.<br /><br />cheerio from chilly Vienna, zilchzilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-37730722335705173682011-10-19T13:16:40.472-05:002011-10-19T13:16:40.472-05:00I DO believe that nature is generally uniform, BEC...<i>I DO believe that nature is generally uniform, BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE. I have reason to believe in the general uniformity of nature.<br />IF ATHEISM IS TRUE YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT, other than personal preference aka blind faith.</i><br /><br />What exactly do you mean by "reason" here, rho? You seem to think that hearing a voice in your head, or reading a particular book, can give you a "reason" to believe in general uniformity, but that mere observation of the real world is not a "reason" to believe in it.<br /><br />Calling our belief in observation of the real world, aka science, "personal preference" and "blind faith" simply shows your aversion to reality as a source of information, if it conflicts with your book. Until you can show me that your book is right and the world is wrong, I'll go with the world- it's a lot bigger.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-73820041203068562922011-10-19T13:14:45.492-05:002011-10-19T13:14:45.492-05:00"I was discussing God."
Your knowledge ..."I was discussing God."<br /><br />Your knowledge of God comes from an allegedly ancient text. So, you'd better be able to use uniformatarian principles or the text is worthless. And if you can use uniformatarian principles, then so can I. <br /><br /><br />"I have reason to believe in the general uniformity of nature."<br /><br />That's fine, but unfortunately, you've been a little inconsistent about the uniformity thing. Something the world is "uniform", and sometimes it ain't. That creates a bit of a problem when it comes to understanding or knowing the past as any piece of evidence could be the result of a process that follows the rule OR it could be the result of a miracle. <br /><br />You continue to promote Christianity as the thing that lets you draw all sorts of conclusions about nature, but then you throw this all away by saying that sometimes nature is uniform and sometimes it's not. Seems somewhat self-contradictory. <br /><br /><br />"IF ATHEISM IS TRUE YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT."<br /><br />Actually, I think that Zilch has already explained why one might think that uniformatarian principles are valid in the absence of a tritheistic Christianity. <br /><br /><br />"One can't (do any history of any kind without uniformatarian principles)."<br /><br />Ok, good, you agree. So let's use uniformatarian principles to look at what was happening on Earth around 5000 years ago. <br /><br />Oh, wait, I forgot. We can't use these principles because of the "miracle clause" and because sometimes nature is uniform and sometimes it's not. Well, so much for being able to interpret any data of any kind related to past events. There goes history! <br /><br /><br />"...Which is why I am on record saying many times that atheism results in absurdity."<br /><br />Oh, nonsense, but I guess it makes you feel good to say it.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-46949966639970861182011-10-19T12:32:06.112-05:002011-10-19T12:32:06.112-05:00How would you have known about Jesus without the a...<i>How would you have known about Jesus without the allegedly ancient text? </i><br /><br />I wouldn't know much.<br /><br /><br /><i>I see that we're back to blind faith</i><br /><br />Much like you have viciously circular blind faith in things that your worldview goes on to assign extreme doubt to.<br />And I admit that I have presuppositions. One waits in vain for you to realise all the ones you have.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>So, the text in question is the product of magic and you don't have to make any uniformatarian assumptions at all?</i><br /><br />Where did I say anything about a text? That's YOUR interpolation into the conversation. I was discussing God.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>If Person A writes someone writes that Person B heard Jesus say X, how exactly did Person B hear and understand what Jesus said? Didn't this involve auditory nerves and language-processing parts of the brain? </i><br /><br />You still have no idea what you're doing. <br />I DO believe that nature is generally uniform, BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE. I have reason to believe in the general uniformity of nature.<br />IF ATHEISM IS TRUE YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT, other than personal preference aka blind faith.<br /><br /><br /><i>How can one do any history of any kind without uniformatarian principles? </i><br /><br />One can't, which is why I am on record saying many times that atheism results in absurdity.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Is this really just a matter of you believe it, and that settles it?</i><br /><br />Is "uniformitariam holds, in an atheist worldview" really just a matter of you believe it, and that settles it?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-81503751848598971442011-10-19T09:51:00.203-05:002011-10-19T09:51:00.203-05:00"A lot of blah blah blah from David."
A..."A lot of blah blah blah from David."<br /><br />And a lot of failure to answer from Alan. Among others, I'm not sure that you answered the following question. How would you have known about Jesus without the allegedly ancient text? <br /><br /><br />"It is a RESULT of my presupposition, that the God of the Bible is and speaks."<br /><br />I see that we're back to blind faith. <br /><br />So, the text in question is the product of magic and you don't have to make any uniformatarian assumptions at all? None? <br /><br />If Person A writes someone writes that Person B heard Jesus say X, how exactly did Person B hear and understand what Jesus said? Didn't this involve auditory nerves and language-processing parts of the brain? How do you know that brains worked the same way 2000 years ago without uniformatarian assumptions?<br /><br />Hasn't this text been copied for thousands of years? How do know that information transfer worked the same in the past as it does in the present? <br /><br />How can one do any history of any kind without uniformatarian principles? <br /><br />Is this really just a matter of you believe it, and that settles it?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-15182048189950756492011-10-19T08:29:32.312-05:002011-10-19T08:29:32.312-05:00A lot of blah blah blah from David, but here is on...A lot of blah blah blah from David, but here is one thing that needs correcting:<br /><br /><i>When the document claims that someone heard Jesus say something, you have to assume that the auditory nerves and language-processing parts of the brain worked the same way 2000 years ago as the work today. In short, Christianity is based on uniformitarian assumptions.</i><br /><br />No, that's NOT an assumption. It is a RESULT of my presupposition, that the God of the Bible is and speaks. <br /><br />Also, this is nothing more than a tu quoque. Even if I couldn't answer that challenge, that doesn't mean that you have answered it.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-73701601412418399712011-10-19T05:32:34.515-05:002011-10-19T05:32:34.515-05:00I said:
Uniformity, like evolution, may not be th...I said:<br /><br /><i>Uniformity, like evolution, may not be the godgiven truth. But it's the best story around. What you're asking me to do is give up this story, that the Universe is more or less the way it seems, because that's the best way to account for the evidence, for your belief that I can only believe my eyes and reason if I believe in your book. The Word rather than the World.</i><br /><br />I just thought of another way of putting it, rho. You are asking me to give up my near certainty (sure enough to bet my life on, time and again, anyway) but not logically absolutely certain belief that the world is more or less the way it seems, based on my many, and humankind's many many observations of uniformity, for your alleged absolute certainty that the world is more or less the way it seems, contingent upon the existence of your God and based upon, not the world itself, but just one book. I think it's a bad bargain, unless you can independently prove the truth of your book.<br /><br />Again, I would like to hear what's wrong (on my worldview; this is an internal critique, right?) with an admission of uncertainty on my part. Do I earn less money, or eat less well, or add less correctly, because of it?zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-31193449677929673322011-10-19T04:25:55.355-05:002011-10-19T04:25:55.355-05:00C'mon, David, you're getting all reality-i...C'mon, David, you're getting all reality-informed on us again.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-81329792675662662012011-10-18T16:34:03.816-05:002011-10-18T16:34:03.816-05:00“What did you have in mind? Give the strongest lin...“What did you have in mind? Give the strongest line of evidence you think contradicts YEC, please.”<br /><br />I could provide libraries of evidence, but it’s pointless to try to do this with you. <br /><br /><br />I’ve been down this road with you before, and the game is not worth the candle. You won’t even acknowledge the validity of simple principles like the law of superposition, so why bother? Your answer to any contradictory evidence will be either “it’s a miracle” or “you’re using uniformitarian assumptions”, never mind how well those assumptions have been tested. <br /><br />I could ask how a handful of Bronze Age men built a wooden ship that was bigger than any other wood ship in the history of the worlds…and you’d say “miracle!”. You have made it clear that even if you are completely wrong, you will reject any means by which you can be shown to be wrong. So, fine. You believe this legend, and there is no means of testing this legend that you will accept. The evidence is there for others to see. <br /><br /><br /><br />“How do you figure?”<br /><br />How do I figure that you have no evidence that Jesus existed with uniformitarian assumptions? That’s easy. You cannot know ANYTHING about anything that happened in the past without making uniformitarian assumptions, even if that past was just an instant ago. You cannot do any history of any kind without making uniformitarian assumptions. <br /><br />To be more specific, how did we know of the existence of the historical figure known as Jesus? Obviously, no one alive today saw Jesus on Earth. In fact, the only way we know of the existence of historical Jesus is by allegedly ancient documents. There is no other physical evidence of Jesus’ existence. All we have are the words. So, you had to learn of Jesus either by reading an allegedly historical document or by listening to someone else who had read this allegedly historical document. <br /><br />Well, how do you know that a document is 2000 years old or that Jesus lived 2000 years ago? You have to make countless uniformitarian assumptions before you can conclude that a given text dates back 2000 years. You have to assumption that information transfer has worked the same way in the past as it does today, even though you weren’t there to see it. When the document claims that someone saw Jesus do something, you have to assume that vision and the vision-processing parts of the brain worked the same way 2000 years ago that these things work today. When the document claims that someone heard Jesus say something, you have to assume that the auditory nerves and language-processing parts of the brain worked the same way 2000 years ago as the work today. In short, Christianity is based on uniformitarian assumptions. <br /><br />“Just b/c everyone uses it doesn't tell us anything about its truth.”<br /><br />No, but it tells us that you shouldn’t claim about its use. You can’t do Christianity without it. So, do you really want to question its truth?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-37843323483086815802011-10-17T03:23:19.399-05:002011-10-17T03:23:19.399-05:00zilched:
I don't have to "assume" u...zilched:<br /><br /><i>I don't have to "assume" uniformitarianism: I observe it.</i><br /><br />rhoplied:<br /><br /><i>That's false. You observe an infinitessimally tiny fraction of all incidents and processes at work in the entire universe. I mean, it's ridiculously small. Every day the ratio composed of:<br />NUMERATOR: things and events you observe __________________________________________DENOMINATOR: all things and events on Earth (to say nothing of all things and events in the universe)<br />grow smaller and smaller. Have you observed 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all things and events since the origin of time? How could you even know? And what difference would shaving a few significant figures off here or there make?You need to pry open your mind and realise how little you really know.</i><br /><br />Oh, believe me, I'm aware of, even if I can't fully comprehend, the magnitude of what I don't know. Part of that is my admission that I can't be perfectly certain of anything.<br /><br />But let's look carefully at your numbers here. You say that I cannot know more than a practically infinitesimal fraction of what goes on in the Universe. That's true enough, and it's true for you too. But unless I assume solipsism, and believe that the entire Universe centers on me, and thus the uniformity I see is just of my own creation, then uniformitarianism is the best picture I have, since I can test it in making spotchecks in many many places- and these spotchecks of mine, and of billions of others, keep coming up with the same story: the Universe is (at least to a very high degree) uniform in its laws and structures, and at least some of it can be predicted and manipulated. The probability that the Universe is not highly uniform, and that all our spotchecks have, by some unimaginable coincidence, merely happened to find exactly those places that were uniform, is very very small.<br /><br />Uniformity, like evolution, may not be the godgiven truth. But it's the best story around. What you're asking me to do is give up this story, that the Universe is more or less the way it seems, because that's the best way to account for the evidence, for your belief that I can only believe my eyes and reason if I believe in your book. The Word rather than the World. Sorry, your book is just one of many such that claim to be the truth and are mostly unfalsifiable. I'll stick with the world.<br /><br />About the Matrix and the other unfalsifiable fantasies you listed: Christianity should be on that list too, or at least its unfalsifiable creeds should: all the stuff that is supernatural and not reproducible.<br /><br />This reminds me of a story in <i>Sylvie and Bruno,</i> Lewis Carroll's cloyingly sweet successor to the Alice books. In some imaginary country, they pride themselves on the accuracy of their maps. So they start making increasingly large ones, to show more detail: they go from an inch to a mile, to a foot to a mile, to a yard to a mile, and of course finally make one at the scale of a mile to a mile. But they never unfold it, because the farmers complain it would block out the light for their crops- and now they use the country itself for its own map, and it works nearly as well.<br /><br />Christianity, and all these other fantasies that purport to cover the world, merely block out the sun. Sure, there's some good advice in the Good Book, but most of the good stuff, for instance the Golden Rule, is not original, and is also derivable from observation and empathy. So there's no need for a Policeman in the Sky to lay down the law- we can, and do, do it ourselves. Sure, it doesn't work perfectly, but neither does religion, and religion has a way of making some people bigoted and angry.<br /><br />cheers from sunny chilly Vienna, zilchzilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-55480891264166064672011-10-17T03:16:35.399-05:002011-10-17T03:16:35.399-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-604406460473712072011-10-17T03:15:06.822-05:002011-10-17T03:15:06.822-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-47343702749973956702011-10-17T03:04:15.655-05:002011-10-17T03:04:15.655-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-34256569695449769362011-10-16T14:01:19.515-05:002011-10-16T14:01:19.515-05:001) I don't admit the Bible authors invented Go...<i>1) I don't admit the Bible authors invented God. You need to give us a reason to think so.</i><br /><br />Are you still doing an internal critique of atheism as you said? If so, then <i>you</i> need to prove that the Bible authors didn't invent God. I already know that you don't believe that.<br /><br /><i>2) Since you do admit that you invented LTwv, why would I believe it? Who are you to tell me what's true?</i><br /><br />Why would I lie to you? Have I ever lied to you?<br /><br /><i>3) This is the same idiocy as produces the Flying Spaghetti Monster.<br />Provide an answer to EVERY QUESTION here and then we can talk.</i><br /><br />I would say rather "whimsy" than "idiocy". Sure, the FSM is a fantasy, but it can be a useful tool to explore issues of belief. I personally prefer the IPU, as you may recall.<br /><br />And as far as Triablogue goes, how about putting up my latest reply to your <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/10/rhology-on-fundamentally-flawed-podcast.htmlpost" rel="nofollow">post</a> there that I sent in several days ago?<br /><br />And I must say, that you have nerve demanding that I answer a whole new set of questions, when I still have questions I've asked you for the last several weeks here left unanswered, despite my having repeated them many times. For instance: what disadvantage accrues to me for not having a solution to the POI?<br /><br /><i>4) Also, answer how a day can have volition. Or a position. I'm afraid you're not making a lot of sense.</i><br /><br />Hey, it's just a thought experiment. You answer me how a donkey can talk, and I'll tell you how a day can have volition.<br /><br /><i>1) Watching Darwinians do their cute little dances whenever counterevidence is brought up, this is just a bad objection.</i><br /><br />Give me what you consider to be counterevidence for evolution, and we can discuss it. Give it your best shot.<br /><br /><i>2) If Darwinians get to pretend they're just "sharpening their theory to match the evidence" and that's not falsifying the hypothesis, so does ID.</i><br /><br />True enough, but the problem is that when "sharpening the theory to match the evidence" happens to ID, it always happens in the direction of ID simply giving up a claim for design and admitting that it could have happened naturally. ID does not gain ground, it only loses it; and it has been losing it since at least lightning was discovered to be electricity and not bolts tossed by Thor.<br /><br /><i>3) The principle of falsifiability is itself not falsifiable.</i><br /><br />So what? It's of obvious utility, and it's obvious why it's necessary, to cut out the crap that has no evidence going for it.<br /><br /><i>4) Darwinism is very falsifiable.<br /><br /></i>Indeed it is- a pre-Cambrian bunny would do it. Thank Darwin.<br /><br /><i>I'll definitely grant that, since it has been falsified.</i><br /><br />Again, please give me what you consider a good example of how it has been falsified.<br /><br /><i>I much prefer a hypothesis that is not falsifiable, b/c I prefer to believe things that are true.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure you really understand what "falsifiable" means if you say this. If something is not falsifiable, it does not mean that it is true, but that it cannot be proven either true or false. An example of an unfalsifiable statement is "there is a solid copper sphere outside our spacetime cone with the word "Gog" stamped on it". Or: "God exists, but is not perceptible".<br /><br /><i>5) Since you brought up "ripples in the Matrix", be fair. You can't give us any reason to think we're not all in the Matrix, given your presupps. I can.<br />Anyway, please give us a way to falsify the statement "we are not in the Matrix".</i><br /><br />Again, I can't falsify the statement- it's another unfalsifiable. But I can ignore it, just as I can ignore Russell's Teapot, the Gog sphere, the Bizzaro World, etc. And again, unless you're doing an external critique here, you can't falsify the Matrix either- you need your God to do that, and He remains to be proven.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-42098756690693858622011-10-15T17:39:00.020-05:002011-10-15T17:39:00.020-05:00Heading out of town for a couple of days. I'l...Heading out of town for a couple of days. I'll reply to comments directed at me on Monday. <br /><br />Other DavidDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03798437859699719795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-64521781536288093152011-10-15T17:13:14.603-05:002011-10-15T17:13:14.603-05:00Alan, as you've proved over and over again tha...Alan, as you've proved over and over again that you have no interest in evidence (or anything that's contrary to your point of view), why would I bother engaging with you at any level beyond 'you're wrong'?<br /><br />You're a trollish control freak, deeply unpleasant and very very snide. I'm sure, if he existed, Jesus would be ashamed of you.<br /><br />You've surrounded yourself with a safe little circle of sycophants, but you're seen in the wider blogging community as a nasty, self interested, crowing, wannabe-bully.<br /><br />I genuinely feel sorry for you, it must be horribly lonely thinking you're the only person in the world who's right.Alex Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09083943878149587831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-41924214064633178622011-10-15T17:06:02.261-05:002011-10-15T17:06:02.261-05:00I pointed out you were wrong, again.
Well, you as...<i> I pointed out you were wrong, again.</i><br /><br />Well, you asserted it. You didn't give an argument. Surprise surprise.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com