You want to kill me with all your questions I will take all my life to answer
. You ask very good questions and I will try to make as good answers as I can but next week end because my stomach is crying and you can't do metaphysics in that state 
.
to the atheists on the board
- Thread starter kungfoofighting
- Start date
You want to kill me with all your questions I will take all my life to answer
. You ask very good questions and I will try to make as good answers as I can but next week end because my stomach is crying and you can't do metaphysics in that state .Quote from harrytrader:
>you say both Descartes and Pascal were believers in God, >presumably therefore, contained within their thinking, was the >premise that assumed God existed!! Well if it's good enough for >Descartes then it's good enough for me
Maybe you are fooled by the use of terms and by the use of scholastic
But I only speak of them, I don't mean that ALL believers in God are rational, I say that it CAN be rational but some people would believe in God either by faith because they have been "illuminated" by some "revelations" - they are only a few of course - others by education and tradition, others because they can reason as if it was a bet on God "I have nothing to lose in believing in God but everything to win: if I'm wrong nothing happens, if I'm right I will go to paradise"
(As for the rest about Science and God It will be too long to answer so I postpone for another day).
You said â..this is not about using logic.â Then you say â¦â¦ "they have deduced by logic reasoning that God should exist".
Which is it Harry !?!?
Then why not say that in the first place?
I think there are ample ways of expressing that. You have just demonstrated one.
No. I focus on the words and meanings they convey. In one sentence you say - it is not about logic - then you say -they deduced by logical reasoning that God should exist
If you think I am not understanding you properly then it might just be because an outright contradiction doesnât make much sense. A rational or logical explanation should do it.
I think you will find it rather difficult to show Descartes or Pascal had a logical reasoning for the existence of God. If they have, then it has illuded the most capable and learned people.
Metaphysics does not by necessity have to be outside of reasonable explanation
Then show me how. Will you use logic and definition to do so?
Well some would say people believe because of the misuse of education. And tradition⦠from culture? Both are seen to change their values overtime
Yes, you have described irrational belief. I think in this discussion there was already awareness of that.
All âreasonsâ to believe, based on what? Only an emphatic assertion by the looks of it.
So where in that is the deduction by logical reasoning, which you say Descartes or Pascal used ??.
Are you not making a premise which assumes they had actually reached a deduction by logical reasoning !!??
And what's your own definition of God and arguments to refute it so that I can see if your pretention to be rational is better than mine ? BTW read my signature below: I have just changed it in the honor of this thread
A new inspirational quote everyday. For Sunday February 01th:
"Mind Projection Fallacy: We are all under an ego-driven temptation to project our private thoughts out onto the real world, by supposing that the creations of one's own imagination are real properties of Nature, or that one's own ignorance signifies some kind of indecision on the part of Nature"
-- E.T. Jaynes in "Probability theory: the Logic of Science"
? BTW read my signature below: I have just changed it in the honor of this thread A new inspirational quote everyday. For Sunday February 01th:
"Mind Projection Fallacy: We are all under an ego-driven temptation to project our private thoughts out onto the real world, by supposing that the creations of one's own imagination are real properties of Nature, or that one's own ignorance signifies some kind of indecision on the part of Nature"
-- E.T. Jaynes in "Probability theory: the Logic of Science"
Interestingly I found this quote in Jean Bricmont's article (Bricmont is Professor of Physical Theory and author with Alan Sokal of the famous book "Fashionable Nonsense : Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science" I have recommanded to read many times because of abuse of refering to Science for justifying some social or politics ideas by researchers in Psychology and Social Science http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/103-6667391-6211802?v=glance&s=books)
http://dogma.free.fr/txt/JB-Determinism.pdf
<IMG SRC=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=422397>
http://dogma.free.fr/txt/JB-Determinism.pdf
<IMG SRC=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=422397>
Quote from harrytrader:
And what's your own definition of God and arguments to refute it so that I can see if your pretention to be rational is better than mine
A new inspirational quote everyday. For Sunday February 01th:
"Mind Projection Fallacy: We are all under an ego-driven temptation to project our private thoughts out onto the real world, by supposing that the creations of one's own imagination are real properties of Nature, or that one's own ignorance signifies some kind of indecision on the part of Nature"
-- E.T. Jaynes in "Probability theory: the Logic of Science"
Good idea Harry! First go and do your little Pi theorem for us. As long as you let us hang on this, why should we take you serious on the heavier stuff! You are a far cry from your compatriot Pascal, who certainly didn't weazel out like you.
nononsense
Please read all sentences before responding. If anyone is tripping, it is clearly you! You are seeing things in my posts that are not there.
Where did I ever mention anything about "Islamic destruction, 911"? What insinuation? Is this also a sneeze without an "atchoo"? You made the comparison between theists and Osama's followers. Your words:
"As a palliative, please note the prior post comparing you guys to to Osama's boys was intentionally imflammatory - even if not entirely off the mark."
You were suspicious of calculations shoeshineboy presented. I responded that there is no reason for him to intentionally mislead people with inaccurate numbers. Believers in anything, would have little incentive to "trick" people into believing as they do. They hold their beliefs to be true. This includes "Osama's boys", as you refer to them. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying that I was confident that you would not present false "evidence" as a means to bolster your own theories. If you believe evolution to be true, I don't believe that you would be motivated to trick others into believing that evolution is true. How you interpret this as an "absurd hypothetical/cheap trick" I am not clear.
It is not possible for me to demonstrate that a house can self build. Nor can anyone demonstrate that, provided all the starting material necessary, a living cell can self build. Therefore, why is design obvious for the house, and not so for life?
Your reponses show a clear disconnect between what is written and what you believe is written. If I were to say, "The sky is intensely blue today". A reponse from you might be, "What's so great about sunshine? We need rain. Water makes plants grow". Or, perhaps, "Who is he, and what is he so depressed about?"
Please note, my final comments were intentionally comedic - even if not entirely off the mark.
Quote from kungfoofighting:
It is not possible for me to demonstrate that a house can self build. Nor can anyone demonstrate that, provided all the starting material necessary, a living cell can self build. Therefore, why is design obvious for the house, and not so for life?
Please note, my final comments were intentionally comedic - even if not entirely off the mark.
1) Are you aware of a phenomenon called mitosis and meiosis? Have you ever seen a cell divide? It is given all the material necessary and reproduces. It builds another of itself. Is that not a demonstration? It is, and it is elementary biology. A fifth grader knows this.
2) Why are you the only one laughing?
Poor guy: btw did you read the article on Fib ratios by Didier Sornette and Philippe Bouchaud http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=27695 ? Are they mystic according to you since they pretend that they are indeed there in Stock Market ? You have a strange conception of Science: you try to deny scientific facts because it doesn't suit your own personal belief of "rationality": I'm sorry to tell you that denying facts is not rational. <font color=red>It's strange that I don't hear you about that since you vehemently deny the existence of such ratio in stock market. </font>
This is Albert Einstein position :
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am <font color=RED>convinced</font> that a <font color=RED>vivid consciousness</font> of the primary importance of <font color=RED>moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life</font> does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
Agnostic must not be confused with Atheism. Agnostic means the no-choice state as I said I choose myself. The concept of God for many scientists like Einstein is linked with Determinism or Spinoza's God, it is not the personal God of most Religions or "law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment".
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am <font color=RED>convinced</font> that a <font color=RED>vivid consciousness</font> of the primary importance of <font color=RED>moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life</font> does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
Agnostic must not be confused with Atheism. Agnostic means the no-choice state as I said I choose myself. The concept of God for many scientists like Einstein is linked with Determinism or Spinoza's God, it is not the personal God of most Religions or "law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment".
KFF, Lets' move on. I have a short questionnaire I hope you have the courage to answer.
1) Do you believe in God?
2) Do subscribe to the theory of evolution?
3) Is it possible to answer yes to both question #1 and #2?
4) Can a true believer in God accept the theory of evolution?
5) Can the idea of intelligent design be reasonably incorporated into Darwinian evolution?
6) Can one believe in intelligent design and not in God?
1) Do you believe in God?
2) Do subscribe to the theory of evolution?
3) Is it possible to answer yes to both question #1 and #2?
4) Can a true believer in God accept the theory of evolution?
5) Can the idea of intelligent design be reasonably incorporated into Darwinian evolution?
6) Can one believe in intelligent design and not in God?