The Anti-theist Thread

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


If there's more than a single cause, then that's the point at which we run into an irreducible complexity. Which means that ultimately, the very questions we seek to answer are unanswerable, and the only benefit of science is monkey comfort and to satisfy monkey curiousity. Nothing wrong with that, but it gets my knickers in a wad when people make the same mistake as any other believer, and fall into the trap of worshiping science. It's a tool, and frankly, I'd have more respect for someone who worshiped their Television.

At least it talks to them

We agree on this one. You've done a 180 on whether it is possible to see the causes of everything, so I'm a bit confused about that. Let's just say it may be theorectically possible but improbable.

If science was only for monkey curiousity then there would be no polio vaccine. I expect there were many onther more interesting research going on at the time. Science is not an entity. It would be more appropriate to say "the sciences". Most disciplines are interrelated in some way, but there are significant distictions in each discipline. Science is not a belief system, though you are correct in that some mistake it for one. Personally i find worship of anything silly. I think it makes people's seratonin rise or something. I found it just makes my knees hurt.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


Hmmm.... But you can not predict the rate in which it happens, nor the direction in which the adaptation can take; I still stand by some causative direction, towards a non-directed product [adaptation to natural selection; survival; best fitness, etc.] "Direction" implies a sense of design; a series of predictable steps, towards a finished product. Evolution can hardly be equated with this analogy.

Could you please give me your defination of "free will"? Who is it applicable to? Just hominids?

[Edit: If the world is actually a multi(omni?)verse, in which all possibilities exist at once (ref particle collapsing theory: in which all possibilities collide into one, because the human mind can not perceive more than one possibility), then you could almost argue that there is no free will.]

The possiblility that there is more than one solution to an evolutionary causation would eliminate the deterministic element.

My dog chose to pee on my new barbeque grill cover instead of anything else in the yard, therefore he has free will (unless dogs are genetically predetermined to pee on vinyl).

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan



telology - the doctrine that final causes exist.

Which has what to do with the idea of finite causality?

tel·e·ol·o·gy Pronunciation Key (tl-l-j, tl-)
n. pl. tel·e·ol·o·gies
The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.

If the ultimate cause happens to be a blip in a steady state, what does that have to do with design? Not a thing.

Interjecting divine intelligence is ADDING causal factors, not reducing them.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


There is a good deal of extrapolation here. What is the boundary of the closed system?

That hard bone surrounding your brain. Everything in there you can "know". Anything outside it, you can only "accept".

Factors limit choices, they do not determine them. The proposed idea that greater awareness limits choices opposes that factor greater awareness of other possibilities would come with greater knowledge. Factors that exist influence a choice, but until the choice is made it is only a possible factor. How would one know what conscious and sub-conscious factors will be deterministic? Pointing to an influencing factor after the choice is made is fairly convenient. The greater knowledge an entity has about its environment the more complex and indeterminant the entity would be. There would need to be an overwhelming reason to choose the most "efficient" behavior over something that satisfies some other desire. The perfect knowledge thing is a theorectical paradox, anyway. This has been hammered out pretty well in this thread already. If you have time to read the whole thing, good luck!

I suppose you read the part about free will requiring a certain amount of ignorance as to the ultimate consequence of one's actions too then.

[Cirdan]

That hard bone surrounding your brain. Everything in there you can "know". Anything outside it, you can only "accept".

To accept a cheeseburger is to know a cheeseburger

[Blackheart]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cirdan


We agree on this one. You've done a 180 on whether it is possible to see the causes of everything, so I'm a bit confused about that. Let's just say it may be theorectically possible but improbable.


Confused? Good! It is the begining of true wisdom.
Now let me confuse you further.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to "know" anything outside your skull. While it may be theoretically possible to determine a finite number of causes for everything (which is very different than a SINGLE cause I might point out) you could never "know" it.

If science was only for monkey curiousity then there would be no polio vaccine. I expect there were many onther more interesting research going on at the time. Science is not an entity. It would be more appropriate to say "the sciences". Most disciplines are interrelated in some way, but there are significant distictions in each discipline. Science is not a belief system, though you are correct in that some mistake it for one. Personally i find worship of anything silly. I think it makes people's seratonin rise or something. I found it just makes my knees hurt.

Ahh. well I left out Monkey profit too... I forgot to mention I don't believe in real altruism. Of course, Monkey profit = Monkey comfort, which I did mention if I recall.

But there are things worthy of worship and spiritual contemplation. You'll just have to figure those out for yourself. I'm out of the God business. Last planet I created the bastards turned it into a giant Disco, and the moon into a giant mirror ball.

I had to smite the entire planet. With chickens falling from the sky.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


My dog chose to pee on my new barbeque grill cover instead of anything else in the yard, therefore he has free will (unless dogs are genetically predetermined to pee on vinyl).

The alternative explination is that he is bound to express his opinion of your BBQ.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


To accept a cheeseburger is to know a cheeseburger

err, There's a nit there.

You only "know" the stimuli created when your sensory apparatus is contacted by the pressure, chemicals, and temperature approximating what your memory identifies as "cheeseburger".

And nowadays, you might well have gotten a soyburger, draped in non-dairy cheese tripe.

In which case, you were mistaken, "fooled" by the tricksy universe into activating those cheeseburger memories.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Which has what to do with the idea of finite causality?

tel·e·ol·o·gy Pronunciation Key (tl-l-j, tl-)
n. pl. tel·e·ol·o·gies
The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.

If the ultimate cause happens to be a blip in a steady state, what does that have to do with design? Not a thing.

Interjecting divine intelligence is ADDING causal factors, not reducing them.

We must have different dictionaries... but I think the meaning is the same. The theists claim god as the singular causality. If there is no sigular causality then there is no finite causality, except in a closed system. Sorry, i gave up existentialism when i gave up on belief systems, but i still really like camus. I'm not a closed system, and I don't accept the concept of perceptions as purely subjective. Also, if i am hit by a bus i am definitely not a closed system. Are you proposing the big blip theory?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart

err, There's a nit there.

You only "know" the stimuli created when your sensory apparatus is contacted by the pressure, chemicals, and temperature approximating what your memory identifies as "cheeseburger".

And nowadays, you might well have gotten a soyburger, draped in non-dairy cheese tripe.

In which case, you were mistaken, "fooled" by the tricksy universe into activating those cheeseburger memories.

Oh, you've eaten there too, eh?

In "The Matrix" maybe... or was it a movie, maybe this is the movie and that was the reality...

"tasty wheat... Did you ever eat tasty wheat?"

"No but technically, neither did you"

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


The alternative explination is that he is bound to express his opinion of your BBQ.

Well, I did only sense that he peed on it... or that he exists...
If he does, i agree with his opinion, bound or not... i liked the old grill better.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan


We must have different dictionaries... but I think the meaning is the same. The theists claim god as the singular causality. If there is no sigular causality then there is no finite causality, except in a closed system. Sorry, i gave up existentialism when i gave up on belief systems, but i still really like camus. I'm not a closed system, and I don't accept the concept of perceptions as purely subjective. Also, if i am hit by a bus i am definitely not a closed system. Are you proposing the big blip theory?

Finite causality doesn't mean singular. It means a countable number.

Unless you beleive that infinity can be proven to exist, you are making a metaphysical choice when you state you don't live in a closed system, That's fine, it's just as valid as any other statement of belief.

Ummm. I'm sorry, but you have to accept the concept of perceptions as purely subjective. You may choose to believe that there are objects out there causing the perceptions, but perceptions most assuridly are subjective. They are easily influenced by things such as memory, mental state etc, precisely because they are subjective.

I don't propose theories. I merely examine them for usefulness, and discard the ones that are lacking.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Blackheart
Yes. Which is why I find dates arrived at by estimation of speciation, and even to a certain extent changes in mitochondrial DNA, suspect, to a degree.

Mitochondrial DNA is very suspect. It only measures modern populations (which are significantly larger) for a start, and it's only measurable on the female side; because of these factors, a lot can be left out of the translation. It is this reason, that I don't particularly follow the argument that neanders died out according to the lack of mDNA.... the infallacies are just too great.

We don't have all the information yet, and I feel better when things are dated by several competing methods. Especially when they yeild similar results.

No we don't. It's always good to use a combination of both absolute/radiometric and chronological dating sequences. Some ARE relatively more accurate that radiometric, but not very precise, ie varves, and dendrochronology are both pretty good at setting up a time frame.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Cirdan


The possiblility that there is more than one solution to an evolutionary causation would eliminate the deterministic element.

Yes, there is always more than one way to solve an evolutionary hang up. This has been documented in many cases, for example the bat wing, and the bird wing are not homologous: they both adapted to a similar problem, but in very different ways.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Blackheart


Finite causality doesn't mean singular. It means a countable number.

Unless you beleive that infinity can be proven to exist, you are making a metaphysical choice when you state you don't live in a closed system, That's fine, it's just as valid as any other statement of belief.

Ummm. I'm sorry, but you have to accept the concept of perceptions as purely subjective. You may choose to believe that there are objects out there causing the perceptions, but perceptions most assuridly are subjective. They are easily influenced by things such as memory, mental state etc, precisely because they are subjective.

I don't propose theories. I merely examine them for usefulness, and discard the ones that are lacking.

There a time factor in causation and, if you like,

Can you prove that any event has finite causation?

Did I say I believed it existed, or that it I beleived it was possible?

So, if I can't prove infinity then all metaphysical choices are the same. Interesting logic. Subjective, of course.

Assuming that perceptions are purely subjective stretches the meaning of the word. Fire is hot. I have sensed this phenomenon. Is it subjective? Do I just think it is hot? It is utter nonsense to think that the truth is immutable and unattainable by subjective sensory perceptions. Subjective... possibly purely subjective... that would be your logic on this one. Reality actually exists whether you "believe" it or not, despite the logical mobius strip of the "pure" subjectivity of sensation. How do you know they are purely subjective? Would that be just your imagination?

When you examine theories subjectively, are you just perceiving their existence? Or are they all monkey waste prior to evaluation?

[Wayfarer]

Eh? Look at that. Lot's of Multi-Posts. Have you been hanging out with Ahab, Xandre? ]: )

first you failed trying to discredit evolution.

here is an entire web page dedicated to it. And it's not even Pro-Creation.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v3i5f.htm

the design argument

I actually never made the design argument. At least not explicitly. I don't think. Are you confusing me with emplynx, or did I forget something here?

the first cause argument
everything has a first cause EXCEPT god. so you say what caused god? well he is self created always was. Hell the universe could have always been.

Um... Duh? I did say that...repeatedly. In fact I said that I would rather believe in a self existant universe than in a self existant God. But, because of the problems I stated, I cannot.

By the By... Have I mentioned I love your new sig?

Evolution should be taken as a theory. People will believe what they want to believe. I have yet to see and valid evidence to the contrary.

Um... Does this mean you throw out the Laws of Abiogenesis and Genetics, the fossil record, Chemical and DNA similarities, et cetera?

I have no reason and would find no satifaction in resolving all your problems with "philosophical naturalism";

That's fine with me. But accepting it with out solving these difficulties is quite dangerous. After all "anyone who accepts concepts without evaluating the evidence, both pro and con, is exhibiting intellectual weakness."

If God can exist in your opinion, then why can't animal head humanoids exist as well?

Well... I do recall the two headed boy... And the three legged man, so anything is possible. But I don't believe that these were meant to be serious.

Not only have you assumed that it was indeed metaphorical speech, but you claim it is "odd".

Hebrew metaphor is based on emotion. Lions were scary, so 'faces like lions' is used to indicate fearsome-ness. Young deer are soft, and gentle, and etc, so comparing a woman's breasts to fauns is to say that they incite those feelings.

What do you base this guideline on?

Everyday speech.

So, looking at it from Hebrew thought, who was the ultimate cause in the David census issue?

The accounts were several centuries apart, and chronicles was written after the hebrews had gone into and returned from exile. So it has the babylonian influence on it's thought, and gives credit to satan, the direct cause, rather than god, the ultimate cause, the one who allowed it.

Anduril: Mere christianity has some of the most obtuse logic that I've ever read, even though C.S. Lewis does use some similar lines of thought to mine. It's a good book, though.

Anduril, It doesn't surprise me that you still don't see any proof for the Existance of God...
Emplynx, you wouldn't know evolution, if natural selection came along, and acted upon you.

Actually, I believe emplynx agrees with me on natural selection and microevolution. It's just philosophical macroevolution that gives us pause.

In either case: Evidence cannot command belief. There are people who still believe the world is flat and in the center of the unvierse.

nice... real benevolent. Well, I guess you christian theists better heed the word of your god and slay us wicked atheist posters.

You're not jews, I'm not a jew, so it's a rather pointless argument.

, that is not evidence of a divine creation...I take our existance as continued proof of evolution...

I can't decide who to staffbap first. ]: ) Seriously.

[Elfmaster XK]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
I can't decide who to staffbap first. ]: ) Seriously.

All at once!!!

I've been reading this a while, you all have very different and strong view. Interesting...

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
is an entire web page dedicated to it. And it's not even Pro-Creation.

DODGY SITE ALERT!!!

Any site that even tries to claim that the Theory of Evolution is a science, as opposed to a social science has got to have a cork plugged up their rear end.

Oh, and I can't be obnoxious like you? Do you have the license for being obnoxious? Damn. Well :P

*Puts on anti-bap sheild.*

[Cirdan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nice... real benevolent. Well, I guess you christian theists better heed the word of your god and slay us wicked atheist posters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're not jews, I'm not a jew, so it's a rather pointless argument.

Jesus was a jew, was he not?

Abandoning the old testament after all this time? Well, at last we now agree that most of the bible is pointless. Matthew claimed that jesus said he was the law enforcer not the law giver. Hebrew law, maybe?

Wayfarer, may I introduce Blackheart? You two should get along famously. I'm off for dinner. Try not to hit fifty pages before I get back.

[Blackheart]

Originally posted by Cirdan

There a time factor in causation and, if you like,

Can you prove that any event has finite causation?

Prove? Hell I can't prove I exist! Can you Prove that any event doesn't? No. But you can gather a preponderance of evidence and make an assumption. At which point I think that yes, some events can be said to have a finite set of causes.

Did I say I believed it existed, or that it I beleived it was possible?

Why are you asking me? Don't you remember?

So, if I can't prove infinity then all metaphysical choices are the same. Interesting logic. Subjective, of course.

Everything is. Subjective that is. The fact that we all get the same results when we look at the same "object" is ultimately subjective, as is the concept of "other". It's at the root of epistomology, however in practical terms it makes for a paralysis in any process.

Assuming that perceptions are purely subjective stretches the meaning of the word. Fire is hot. I have sensed this phenomenon. Is it subjective? Do I just think it is hot? It is utter nonsense to think that the truth is immutable and unattainable by subjective sensory perceptions.

Is it? oddly enough, peple thought it was utter nonsense that the earth revolved around the sun, because they percieved quite clearly that the sun moves across the sky.

As for truth being immutable, I'm afraid that's your interjection. My point is that it's merely unobtainable unless you are willing to grant certain assumptions.

Subjective... possibly purely subjective... that would be your logic on this one. Reality actually exists whether you "believe" it or not, despite the logical mobius strip of the "pure" subjectivity of sensation. How do you know they are purely subjective? Would that be just your imagination?

If I had a nickle for everytime I head someone say that, I'd be a rich man. The only thing I can respond with is : "Why the hell are you arguing with a figment of your imagination?"

"Reality isn't" doesn't mean that nothing exists. It means that it isn't what you or I or anyone else thinks it is. It is "unknowable".

When you examine theories subjectively, are you just perceiving their existence? Or are they all monkey waste prior to evaluation?
[/B]

I didn't say I examine them subjectively. If you note I said that I examine them for usefullness. Which is done in the realm of mind, which isn't subjective to the individual. At which point I have to notice which assumptions I am making if I accept the theory, and whether or not it is useful to my understanding of the universe.

Something subjective must have gotten in your eye.

Your coming at this far to literally I'm afraid, as if you were aghast that suddenly the world was going to vanish from underneath your feet. The real point is, unless you examine the subjectiveness of human experience, and account for it, then anything you examine is going to be biased to an unknown degree. If you do note which assumptions you are making, then you will still be a biased observer, but at least you'll know that you are, and possibly take it into account.