 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)Roger Wilco dariusgriffin ...and 88 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614125 Today 4 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You will be known as the man who scored 300 in the mertens atheist thread fiasco of 2005. Women will fall at your feet! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Excellent. |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you keep using words like superstition, myth, story and stuff like that to describe your opponents views.. I think you should tone the rhetorics down a bit more... things like that have nothing to do in a civilized discussion. don't reply to this, just continue, but you should try to choose words that doesn't degrade the opponents views. (attempt to) disprove don't [shit all over] (I don't know how to translate that) your opponents views... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
and those argument from ignorance things: remove the beam/log in your own eye before removing the thorn in someone elses. First of all, that's a pretty strong positive statement. How could you prove such a thing? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The term "argument from ignorance" has a very specific meaning - it's not just an insult. "Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true." You do that CONSTANTLY. You think there are supernatural forces working in parallel with medicines and aerodynamics because I can't prove that there aren't. Using that flawed method, you can prove that ANYTHING is true. That's why it's called a FALLACY. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah.... but the theory of universal expansion is based on that. In fact a hell of a lot of space theory is - like comets. They say Hayley's comet came again but they had no way to prove it was the same one. So perhaps proving from ignorance is the best way to make progress. Speculate now, prove later. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
But expansion wasn't hypothesized until Hubble noticed the red shift of distant light sources. There's a difference betwen speculation based on observation and plain old pulling things out of your ass. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no. but you see expansion only applies to the visible universe. If you can prove that every star we can see from any point on the earth his moving away by red shift, that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't come up to a finite point at which it stops. It's just the simplest hypothesis that has been accepted, not necessarily the right one. But yeah, I do get that stuff pulled out of the ass might be shit. ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Would someone just post some substantial evidence that a deity exists and end this debate already? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't come up to a finite point at which it stops. I wouldn't know, I'm not a cosmologist. But as far as I know no cosmologist has ever said it definitely comes to a stop because we can't prove that it doesn't. That would be an example of an argument from ignorance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I mean, ONLY because we can't prove that it doesn't. There may be positive evidence that it does, I wouldn't know. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol. I'm not either. Ignore me. Proof that God exists... hmm. I think the whole point of religion is faith, and that you are rewarded up above so to speak despite not having found evidence to support it other than circumstantial stuff. So... no. the debate goes on. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
read on, dear sir. from your own link: Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. [...] As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." You do that CONSTANTLY. Using that flawed method, you can prove that ANYTHING is false. That's why it's called a FALLACY. you also used the word supernatural again.. I haven't mentioned anything supernatural yet in this conversation. You're just, once again, using a evlauative-descriptive word to "shit on" your opponents view. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Not at all. Where have I claimed to prove that the soul does not exist? I'm only making the case that the soul is an unnecessary factor in explaining the phenomenon of the mind, so far as I can tell. It is most gratifying to see you learning the functional meaning of fallacies though. I have a feeling you're the type who studies definitions and can regurgitate them on exams without actually grasping their implications. (that's not an ad hominem - I'm not using it to win an argument or gain "points" - just making a personal observation) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Does cognitive science say that mathematical models for thought are impossible?" Maybe not impossible but certainly inconcievable. How do you suppose we create a mathmatical model for the act of creating mathmatical models? "Second of all, a model doesn't have to be 100% isomorphic in order to be valid." That's not the issue. I'm saying that the models are only valid for the behavior of matter in the system and not for the experience it relates to. "Thirdly, the lack of a current "perfect" naturalistic explanation does not mean that the supernatural explanation is true - that's both an argument from ignorance and a false dilemma." In other words, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I agree. But it COULD BE. It is a real possibility that a natrualistic(mathmatical) explanation for conciousness and intelligence simply does not exist. If one is found in the future, then I guess I'll owe you a pint. I wouldn't bet on it though. BTW Let me try to clarify that 'nasty mess of vagueness and non-sequiturs.' Any form of matter can be used to represent and communicate logic(math) or thought(language) or any other type of specified complex information. However the matter itself does not generate that information, it only expresses it. The origin of the thought represented by these words have nothing to do with the actual letters or pixels you see on the screen. This same thought can be expressed in any other language and any other form of matter. I think the brain works the same way in expressing the mind. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we don't positively know why airplanes fly.. basically, what I'm saying is that there might as well be some godly force holding the planes up while disguising himself as wind or while what he's doing only can be observed as pressure differences, and that one never should rule out the possibilities... If that's not a load of supernatural / superstitious codswallop that cries out for brutal mockery and shitting-on I don't know what is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Where have I claimed to prove that the soul does not exist? I do study definitions, but I do not simply regurgitate what I've learned at exams.. your personal observation is wrong, but what more could one expect, as you have only had one discussion to make this observation. One would think you'd follow more "scientific" methods of observation before making an observation. you seem to be pretty good at regurgitating stuff yourself, btw... your profile would be a good testament to that... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I did not say I believe that, I used it as an example.. a very exaggerated one, but still... it isn't supernatural / superstitious codswallop, it is a hypothesis. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing the two. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's a ludicrous supernatural / superstitious hypothesis shat out of the ass of a guy who'd rather win an argument than arrive at a better understanding of the world. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"If that's not a load of supernatural / superstitious codswallop that cries out for brutal mockery and shitting-on I don't know what is. " - and they laughed when the earth was suggested to be round. Yes, for all we know science is merely regression from superstition in that we are attempting to explain the inexplicable and sooner or later we all reach one final conclusion: god. It doesn't matter if the winds are godly forces or the product of them, it's still a valid explanation. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I have my understanding of the world, and I don't see why your would be "better." The hypothesis is not one I would make, but I could imagine someone making it, and the way to convince (erh.. I don't know how to translate correctly here.. convince / persuade. We have two corresponding words for that in norwegian, but I can't remember which is which.. anyway, I mean the one that has to do with bringing forth arguments, not the one that has to do with just repeating something until someone accepts it or whatever.. I hope you get it, anyway...) someone would not be to call their views "superstition." I'm done discussing the soul now, btw.. we wouldn't even be able to agree to disagree. I'm just nitpicking at your argumentation and rhetorics now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
