Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 11:23:24 PM |
|
|
In article <MLmdna2aFIji1FnfRVn-rQ@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:6co6c1pvpn1itbpm4g2fe78hsdmtligstn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:03:50 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , The_Sage
<The_Sage@msn.com> in <4pm6c1ptmo44velgf2ehna2cqj5frb1tv7@4ax.com>
wrote:
Reply to article by: Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
Date written: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:21:23 GMT
MsgID:<lj74c1d8ga44h2nr198dtmdhceq0dq3a7u@4ax.com>
"Universe" is a name we use to refer to the totality of perceptual
existence.
Not just what we perceive, 'universe' includes eveything there is.
Depends on how you take your metaphysics.
The Universe is not metaphysical in any way, shape, or form. The "meta-"
in
metaphysics means "pseudo-", or in other words, metaphysics means "not
actual
physics but pseudo-physics".
That is not right, that is not even wrong. "Meta" means "beyond"...
You forgot to look up the definition for beyond:
"That which is past or to a degree greater than knowledge or
experience; the
unknown"
Where did you get this definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beyond
But, as usual, Simple Septic gutted the definition before posting.
A more complete version is:
<quote>
be·yond P Pronunciation Key (b-nd, b-ynd)
prep.
1 On the far side of; past: Just beyond the fence.
2 Later than; after: beyond midnight.
3 To a degree that is past the understanding, reach, or scope of:
an evil beyond remedy.
4 To a degree or amount greater than: rich beyond his wildest
dreams.
5 In addition to: asked for nothing beyond peace and quiet.
adv.
1 Farther along or away.
2 In addition; more: wanted her share but nothing beyond.
n.
1 That which is past or to a degree greater than knowledge
or experience; the unknown: ³Sputnik, the first satellite
to enter the great beyond of space² (Dale Russakoff).
2 The world beyond death; the hereafter.
<\quote>
I particularly like that "Sputnik" example, which blows off Simple
Septic's limited interpretation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 04:07:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:35:31 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <MLmdna2aFIji1FnfRVn-rQ@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:6co6c1pvpn1itbpm4g2fe78hsdmtligstn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:03:50 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , The_Sage
<The_Sage@msn.com> in <4pm6c1ptmo44velgf2ehna2cqj5frb1tv7@4ax.com>
wrote:
Reply to article by: Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
Date written: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:21:23 GMT
MsgID:<lj74c1d8ga44h2nr198dtmdhceq0dq3a7u@4ax.com>
"Universe" is a name we use to refer to the totality of perceptual
existence.
Not just what we perceive, 'universe' includes eveything there is.
Depends on how you take your metaphysics.
The Universe is not metaphysical in any way, shape, or form. The "meta-"
in
metaphysics means "pseudo-", or in other words, metaphysics means "not
actual
physics but pseudo-physics".
That is not right, that is not even wrong. "Meta" means "beyond"...
You forgot to look up the definition for beyond:
"That which is past or to a degree greater than knowledge or
experience; the
unknown"
Where did you get this definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beyond
I see. Besides the other things he does not know, he does not
understand the difference between nouns and adjectives.
BTW, do you wish to defend Sage's comments on metaphysics? Or do you
see it for the ignorant nonsense it is?
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 04:23:16 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:jmn8c15dqs39r4duu2vrf2i06ps6tofo6t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:35:31 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <MLmdna2aFIji1FnfRVn-rQ@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:6co6c1pvpn1itbpm4g2fe78hsdmtligstn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:03:50 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , The_Sage
<The_Sage@msn.com> in <4pm6c1ptmo44velgf2ehna2cqj5frb1tv7@4ax.com>
wrote:
Reply to article by: Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
Date written: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:21:23 GMT
MsgID:<lj74c1d8ga44h2nr198dtmdhceq0dq3a7u@4ax.com>
"Universe" is a name we use to refer to the totality of perceptual
existence.
Not just what we perceive, 'universe' includes eveything there is.
Depends on how you take your metaphysics.
The Universe is not metaphysical in any way, shape, or form. The
"meta-"
in
metaphysics means "pseudo-", or in other words, metaphysics means "not
actual
physics but pseudo-physics".
That is not right, that is not even wrong. "Meta" means "beyond"...
You forgot to look up the definition for beyond:
"That which is past or to a degree greater than knowledge or
experience; the
unknown"
Where did you get this definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beyond
I see. Besides the other things he does not know, he does not
understand the difference between nouns and adjectives.
What does parts of speech
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/partsp.html have
to do with it? As Sage pointed out, the universe is distincly physical,
right, so metaphysics has nothing to do with the universe, metaphysics is
just philosophers' idle conjecture about the unknown, right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 01:50:47 PM |
|
|
In article <Rrednfr0J8dZ1lHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:jmn8c15dqs39r4duu2vrf2i06ps6tofo6t@4ax.com...
I see. Besides the other things he does not know, he does not
understand the difference between nouns and adjectives.
What does parts of speech have to do with it?
The meaning of a word whe uses as a noun may be different from its
meaning when used as an adjective. To deliberately refer to the wrong
one is just another of Simple Septic' standard fallacies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 05:01:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 14:23:16 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <Rrednfr0J8dZ1lHfRVn-2Q@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:jmn8c15dqs39r4duu2vrf2i06ps6tofo6t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:35:31 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <MLmdna2aFIji1FnfRVn-rQ@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:6co6c1pvpn1itbpm4g2fe78hsdmtligstn@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 20:03:50 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , The_Sage
<The_Sage@msn.com> in <4pm6c1ptmo44velgf2ehna2cqj5frb1tv7@4ax.com>
wrote:
Reply to article by: Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
Date written: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:21:23 GMT
MsgID:<lj74c1d8ga44h2nr198dtmdhceq0dq3a7u@4ax.com>
"Universe" is a name we use to refer to the totality of perceptual
existence.
Not just what we perceive, 'universe' includes eveything there is.
Depends on how you take your metaphysics.
The Universe is not metaphysical in any way, shape, or form. The
"meta-"
in
metaphysics means "pseudo-", or in other words, metaphysics means "not
actual
physics but pseudo-physics".
That is not right, that is not even wrong. "Meta" means "beyond"...
You forgot to look up the definition for beyond:
"That which is past or to a degree greater than knowledge or
experience; the
unknown"
Where did you get this definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beyond
I see. Besides the other things he does not know, he does not
understand the difference between nouns and adjectives.
What does parts of speech
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/partsp.html have
to do with it?
Because Sage took the meaning of the noun "beyond" as the meaning of
the Greek root "meta" in metaphysics. It would have been a bit better
if he had at least used the adjective to modify a noun. Better yet, he
should have rejected argument by etymology and found out what the word
itself meant.
As Sage pointed out, the universe is distincly physical,
right, so metaphysics has nothing to do with the universe,
Wrong.
metaphysics is
just philosophers' idle conjecture about the unknown, right?
Wrong. It does not behoove you to scoff simply because you don't know.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 08:14:56 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
Date written: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:01:47 GMT
MsgID:<o2loc194rqnpn38352c9rtbs5jbamji8hk@4ax.com>
That is not right, that is not even wrong. "Meta" means "beyond"...
You forgot to look up the definition for beyond:
"That which is past or to a degree greater than knowledge or
experience; the
unknown"
Where did you get this definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beyond
I see. Besides the other things he does not know, he does not
understand the difference between nouns and adjectives.
What does parts of speech
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/partsp.html have
to do with it?
Because Sage took the meaning of the noun "beyond" as the meaning of
the Greek root "meta" in metaphysics. It would have been a bit better
if he had at least used the adjective to modify a noun. Better yet, he
should have rejected argument by etymology and found out what the word
itself meant.
Obviously should have taken you own advice before saying something as ignorant
as that: http://english.donnayoung.org/sp/greek_prefixes.htm
Meta- can meaning "behind", "beyond", "among" (as in "Eumetazoa"), or "change".
You stand corrected.
As Sage pointed out, the universe is distincly physical,
right, so metaphysics has nothing to do with the universe,
Wrong.
Just because you say so?
metaphysics is just philosophers' idle conjecture about the unknown, right?
Wrong. It does not behoove you to scoff simply because you don't know.
Prove it then. Are you just going to sit there and make blind assertions or are
you going to prove something?
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
07 Jul 2005 08:57:22 PM |
|
|
The_Sage <The_Sage@msn.com> wrote in
news:560pc1dlesc60rbd5vk3l9ofn99bi1k39m@4ax.com:
Reply to article by: Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> Date written: Wed, 06 Jul
2005 22:01:47 GMT MsgID:<o2loc194rqnpn38352c9rtbs5jbamji8hk@4ax.com>
That is not right, that is not even wrong. "Meta" means
"beyond"...
You forgot to look up the definition for beyond:
"That which is past or to a degree greater than knowledge or
experience; the
unknown"
Where did you get this definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beyond
I see. Besides the other things he does not know, he does not
understand the difference between nouns and adjectives.
What does parts of speech
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/partsp.html
have to do with it?
Because Sage took the meaning of the noun "beyond" as the meaning of
the Greek root "meta" in metaphysics. It would have been a bit better
if he had at least used the adjective to modify a noun. Better yet, he
should have rejected argument by etymology and found out what the word
itself meant.
Obviously should have taken you own advice before saying something as
ignorant as that: http://english.donnayoung.org/sp/greek_prefixes.htm
Meta- can meaning "behind", "beyond", "among" (as in "Eumetazoa"), or
"change".
You stand corrected.
As Sage pointed out, the universe is distincly physical,
right, so metaphysics has nothing to do with the universe,
Wrong.
Just because you say so?
metaphysics is just philosophers' idle conjecture about the unknown,
right?
Wrong. It does not behoove you to scoff simply because you don't know.
Prove it then. Are you just going to sit there and make blind
assertions or are you going to prove something?
<snipsig>
It sounds like you and JHC are trying to apply the 'popular' description
of metaphysics rather than the philosophical description.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The_Sage" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 10:15:48 PM |
|
|
Reply to article by: Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
Date written: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:07:37 GMT
MsgID:<jmn8c15dqs39r4duu2vrf2i06ps6tofo6t@4ax.com>
You forgot to look up the definition for beyond:
"That which is past or to a degree greater than knowledge or
experience; the unknown"
Where did you get this definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beyond
I see. Besides the other things he does not know, he does not
understand the difference between nouns and adjectives.
You seem very familar with using logical fallacies, like your use of ad hominem
and unsubstantiated claim here.
BTW, do you wish to defend Sage's comments on metaphysics? Or do you
see it for the ignorant nonsense it is?
Too be too upset just because I proved your ignorance using a dictionary. No
matter how you slice it, metaphysics implies "knowledge or experience greater
than that obtained through scientific means" -- which is nonsense, just like
your claims, and therefore that makes metaphysics == psuedo-science. All you
have to do to prove me wrong is just show us a metaphysical claim that has been
established as a fact and not still a fantasy like every metaphysical claim I
have ever seen so far.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
30 Jun 2005 11:17:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:15:48 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , The_Sage
<The_Sage@msn.com> in <02d9c1lr57vgd5s1eg340m983d7o1q491g@4ax.com>
wrote:
Reply to article by: Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
Date written: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:07:37 GMT
MsgID:<jmn8c15dqs39r4duu2vrf2i06ps6tofo6t@4ax.com>
You forgot to look up the definition for beyond:
"That which is past or to a degree greater than knowledge or
experience; the unknown"
Where did you get this definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=beyond
I see. Besides the other things he does not know, he does not
understand the difference between nouns and adjectives.
You seem very familar with using logical fallacies, like your use of ad hominem
and unsubstantiated claim here.
No ad hominem and no unsubstantiated claim.
BTW, do you wish to defend Sage's comments on metaphysics? Or do you
see it for the ignorant nonsense it is?
Too be too upset just because I proved your ignorance using a dictionary.
ROTFLMAO. Again, you really should have looked up the references I
gave you.
No
matter how you slice it, metaphysics implies "knowledge or experience greater
than that obtained through scientific means"
No, it does not. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.
-- which is nonsense,
No, it is not. Science is not the greatest or highest source of
knowledge. Science is an astoundingly powerful method for producing a
constrained set of results about a constrained set of questions.
Inside its boundaries there is know human process that works better,
but it only works inside its boundaries.
just like
your claims, and therefore that makes metaphysics == psuedo-science.
You really, really, should have looked at the links. It helps if you
actually know what you are talking about. Neither ontology nor
epistemology are sciences of any sort, not less pseudo-sciences.
All you
have to do to prove me wrong is just show us a metaphysical claim that has been
established as a fact and not still a fantasy like every metaphysical claim I
have ever seen so far.
Sorry, but "established as a fact" is a silly standard. Facts are
observations (well, a particular kind of observation, but that is not
quite the issue here), they are not the be all and end all of thought.
Nominalism was the single greatest advance in human knowledge of the
last 2,000 year (IMNSHO), it is not a "fact" or even a model (theory).
(I bet you don't have a clue what Nominalism is, that you won't look
it up, and that you will object anyway. Try this, look up what
"nominal" means and make up your own definition of Nominalism.)
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"Toward no crimes have men shown themselves so cold-bloodedly
cruel as in punishing differences in belief"
-- James Russell Lowell
=============================================================
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
01 Jul 2005 01:57:41 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:khg9c19uffvg3hmvnb3okj27f75j46vur4@4ax.com...
Nominalism was the single greatest advance in human knowledge of the
last 2,000 year (IMNSHO),
Oh dear, not another lame solipsist, please.
it is not a "fact" or even a model (theory).
(I bet you don't have a clue what Nominalism is, that you won't look
it up, and that you will object anyway. Try this, look up what
"nominal" means and make up your own definition of Nominalism.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Nominalism is the position in metaphysics that there exist no universals
outside of the mind.
Nominalism is best understood in contrast to realism. Philosophical realism
holds that when we use descriptive terms such as "green" or "tree," the
Forms of those concepts really exist, independently of world in an abstract
realm. Such thought is associated with Plato. Nominalism, by contrast, holds
that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond our
imaginations.
[Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations? Sounds like solipsism to me.
And solipsism is summarily rejected due to the logically fatal problem
inherent in it, that the only way to ever reach a conclusion solipsism is
true is to just take it for granted (begging the question), then argue _ad
ignorantiam_ that the non-believers can't prove it false, just like theism!
Watch Matt work, you will soon see what I mean.]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
01 Jul 2005 05:34:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:57:41 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <ItWdnRC6xMj8dFnfRVn-hA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:khg9c19uffvg3hmvnb3okj27f75j46vur4@4ax.com...
Nominalism was the single greatest advance in human knowledge of the
last 2,000 year (IMNSHO),
Oh dear, not another lame solipsist, please.
Please explain to me how solipsism comes into this discussion. I can't
see even how a misunderstanding causes that.
it is not a "fact" or even a model (theory).
(I bet you don't have a clue what Nominalism is, that you won't look
it up, and that you will object anyway. Try this, look up what
"nominal" means and make up your own definition of Nominalism.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Nominalism is the position in metaphysics that there exist no universals
outside of the mind.
Nominalism is best understood in contrast to realism. Philosophical realism
holds that when we use descriptive terms such as "green" or "tree," the
Forms of those concepts really exist, independently of world in an abstract
realm. Such thought is associated with Plato. Nominalism, by contrast, holds
that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond our
imaginations.
Wow, you can quote.
[Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations? Sounds like solipsism to me.
Well, you can quote, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend. I am
going to give you two sentences, tell me if you can see any
difference:
1) that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond our
imaginations.
2) Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations.
Do you see the difference? If not, can anyone help him here?
And solipsism is summarily rejected due to the logically fatal problem
inherent in it, that the only way to ever reach a conclusion solipsism is
true is to just take it for granted (begging the question),
Astounding, all those philosophers doing all that work and you just
slice away and find the answer.
then argue _ad
ignorantiam_ that the non-believers can't prove it false, just like theism!
Watch Matt work, you will soon see what I mean.]
Sorry, but you have again totally and completely misunderstood.
Totally. Completely. Nominalism has nothing at all to do with
solipsism. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
02 Jul 2005 12:13:26 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:pm6ac1p8sbkd7mn8gfkfjapa3keb6ojmvf@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:57:41 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <ItWdnRC6xMj8dFnfRVn-hA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:khg9c19uffvg3hmvnb3okj27f75j46vur4@4ax.com...
Nominalism was the single greatest advance in human knowledge of the
last 2,000 year (IMNSHO),
Oh dear, not another lame solipsist, please.
Please explain to me how solipsism comes into this discussion. I can't
see even how a misunderstanding causes that.
it is not a "fact" or even a model (theory).
(I bet you don't have a clue what Nominalism is, that you won't look
it up, and that you will object anyway. Try this, look up what
"nominal" means and make up your own definition of Nominalism.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Nominalism is the position in metaphysics that there exist no universals
outside of the mind.
Nominalism is best understood in contrast to realism. Philosophical
realism
holds that when we use descriptive terms such as "green" or "tree," the
Forms of those concepts really exist, independently of world in an
abstract
realm. Such thought is associated with Plato. Nominalism, by contrast,
holds
that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond our
imaginations.
Wow, you can quote.
What do you have against quotes? You don't like what this one says?
[Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations? Sounds like solipsism to
me.
Well, you can quote, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend.
Anyone can comprehend that "Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas
represented by words [like tree] have no real existence beyond our
imaginations" sounds just like solipsism.
I am
going to give you two sentences, tell me if you can see any
difference:
1) that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond our
imaginations.
2) Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations.
Do you see the difference? If not, can anyone help him here?
Looks like nobody is coming to your rescue after two days, so you are going
to have to try to get yourself out of this hole called 'solipsism' all by
yourself. Now it is up to you to show that trees, for example, are just
figments of the imagination.
[Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations? Sounds like solipsism to
me.
And solipsism is summarily rejected due to the logically fatal problem
inherent in it, that the only way to ever reach a conclusion solipsism is
true is to just take it for granted (begging the question),
then argue _ad
ignorantiam_ that the non-believers can't prove it false, just like
theism!
Watch Matt work, you will soon see what I mean.]
Sorry, but you have again totally and completely misunderstood.
Totally. Completely. Nominalism has nothing at all to do with
solipsism. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Oh? If that is true, then you've got some 'splaining to do, Lucy, beginning
with explaining why you say that trees, for example, are just figments of
the imagination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
02 Jul 2005 01:19:30 PM |
|
|
In article <t6SdnaFGdY-tVlvfRVn-sw@comcast.com>, "JHC" <jhc@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in message news:pm6ac1p8sbkd7mn8gfkfjapa3keb6ojmvf@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:57:41 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <ItWdnRC6xMj8dFnfRVn-hA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in message news:khg9c19uffvg3hmvnb3okj27f75j46vur4@4ax.com...
Nominalism was the single greatest advance in human knowledge of
the last 2,000 year (IMNSHO),
Oh dear, not another lame solipsist, please.
Please explain to me how solipsism comes into this discussion. I
can't see even how a misunderstanding causes that.
it is not a "fact" or even a model (theory).
(I bet you don't have a clue what Nominalism is, that you won't
look it up, and that you will object anyway. Try this, look up
what "nominal" means and make up your own definition of
Nominalism.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia. Nominalism is the position in metaphysics that there
exist no universals outside of the mind.
Nominalism is best understood in contrast to realism. Philosophical
realism holds that when we use descriptive terms such as "green" or
"tree," the Forms of those concepts really exist, independently of
world in an abstract realm. Such thought is associated with Plato.
Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas represented by words have
no real existence beyond our imaginations.
Wow, you can quote.
What do you have against quotes? You don't like what this one says?
If Simple Septic could read better, he would have read that the
challenge was for Simple Septic to make up his own meaning, rather than
look one up in some dictionary. So Simple Septic fails again.
[Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations? Sounds like
solipsism to me.
Well, you can quote, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend.
Anyone can comprehend that "Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas
represented by words [like tree] have no real existence beyond our
imaginations" sounds just like solipsism.
Not at all. Nominalism does not deny reality, merely that ideas and
verbal descriptions can represent it.
I am going to give you two sentences, tell me if you can see any
difference:
1) that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond
our imaginations.
2) Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations.
Do you see the difference? If not, can anyone help him here?
Simple Septic has long been beyond human help.
Looks like nobody is coming to your rescue after two days, so you are
going to have to try to get yourself out of this hole called
'solipsism' all by yourself. Now it is up to you to show that trees,
for example, are just figments of the imagination.
Actually, Simple Septic is going to have to prove that mat ever said
that the ding an sicht did not exist. What matt said that Nominalism
said was that our words and ideas exist only in the imagination.
There is a significant difference, but significant differences tend to
be too subtle for Simple Septic to discern.
[Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations? Sounds like
solipsism to me.
Sounds like Simple Septic is missing the point again, and regurgitating
only his own misconceptions.
And solipsism is summarily rejected
Irrelevant, as it is only in Simple Septic's delusions that solispism
and nominalism are connected.
Sorry, but you have again totally and completely misunderstood.
Totally. Completely. Nominalism has nothing at all to do with
solipsism. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Oh? If that is true, then you've got some 'splaining to do, Lucy,
beginning with explaining why you say that trees, for example, are
just figments of the imagination.
Only Simple Septic said that, so if anyone has 'splaining to do, it is
Simple Septic himself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
05 Jul 2005 11:58:07 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:13:26 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <t6SdnaFGdY-tVlvfRVn-sw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:pm6ac1p8sbkd7mn8gfkfjapa3keb6ojmvf@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:57:41 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <ItWdnRC6xMj8dFnfRVn-hA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:khg9c19uffvg3hmvnb3okj27f75j46vur4@4ax.com...
Nominalism was the single greatest advance in human knowledge of the
last 2,000 year (IMNSHO),
Oh dear, not another lame solipsist, please.
Please explain to me how solipsism comes into this discussion. I can't
see even how a misunderstanding causes that.
it is not a "fact" or even a model (theory).
(I bet you don't have a clue what Nominalism is, that you won't look
it up, and that you will object anyway. Try this, look up what
"nominal" means and make up your own definition of Nominalism.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Nominalism is the position in metaphysics that there exist no universals
outside of the mind.
Nominalism is best understood in contrast to realism. Philosophical
realism
holds that when we use descriptive terms such as "green" or "tree," the
Forms of those concepts really exist, independently of world in an
abstract
realm. Such thought is associated with Plato. Nominalism, by contrast,
holds
that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond our
imaginations.
Wow, you can quote.
What do you have against quotes? You don't like what this one says?
Actually I agree with it, I just happen to understand what it means. I
intended my comment as a jibe that you substitute quoting for reading
and understanding. Do you know what "Philosophical realism" means? Can
you compare and contrast it to Essentialism?
[Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations? Sounds like solipsism to
me.
Well, you can quote, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend.
Anyone can comprehend that "Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas
represented by words [like tree] have no real existence beyond our
imaginations" sounds just like solipsism.
Anyone "can", but those who actually understand the material, won't. I
find it terribly amusing that you are actually defending philosophic
realism. I bet I can get you to defend Thomism if I try. But, not,
Nominalism is not solipsism, there is absolutely no meaningful
connection between the two. None.
I am
going to give you two sentences, tell me if you can see any
difference:
1) that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond our
imaginations.
2) Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations.
Do you see the difference? If not, can anyone help him here?
Looks like nobody is coming to your rescue after two days, so you are going
to have to try to get yourself out of this hole called 'solipsism' all by
yourself. Now it is up to you to show that trees, for example, are just
figments of the imagination.
Here is the hint again: "trees" is a word, trees are things in the
world, and the idea of trees is something that exists in people heads.
[Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations? Sounds like solipsism to
me.
And solipsism is summarily rejected due to the logically fatal problem
inherent in it, that the only way to ever reach a conclusion solipsism is
true is to just take it for granted (begging the question),
then argue _ad
ignorantiam_ that the non-believers can't prove it false, just like
theism!
Watch Matt work, you will soon see what I mean.]
Sorry, but you have again totally and completely misunderstood.
Totally. Completely. Nominalism has nothing at all to do with
solipsism. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Oh? If that is true, then you've got some 'splaining to do, Lucy, beginning
with explaining why you say that trees, for example, are just figments of
the imagination.
You really should learn to distinguish between things in the world and
ideas about things.
--
Matt Silberstein
I needed a drink, I needed a lot of life insurance, I needed a vacation, I needed a home in the country. What I had was a coat, a hat and a gun.
Raymond Chandler
.
|
|
|
| User: "JHC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
06 Jul 2005 04:02:16 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:vnmmc19th2c92fjjd45in6es2h14sstjrk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 10:13:26 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <t6SdnaFGdY-tVlvfRVn-sw@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:pm6ac1p8sbkd7mn8gfkfjapa3keb6ojmvf@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:57:41 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "JHC"
<jhc@nospam.net> in <ItWdnRC6xMj8dFnfRVn-hA@comcast.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:khg9c19uffvg3hmvnb3okj27f75j46vur4@4ax.com...
Nominalism was the single greatest advance in human knowledge of the
last 2,000 year (IMNSHO),
Oh dear, not another lame solipsist, please.
Please explain to me how solipsism comes into this discussion. I can't
see even how a misunderstanding causes that.
it is not a "fact" or even a model (theory).
(I bet you don't have a clue what Nominalism is, that you won't look
it up, and that you will object anyway. Try this, look up what
"nominal" means and make up your own definition of Nominalism.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Nominalism is the position in metaphysics that there exist no universals
outside of the mind.
Nominalism is best understood in contrast to realism. Philosophical
realism
holds that when we use descriptive terms such as "green" or "tree," the
Forms of those concepts really exist, independently of world in an
abstract
realm. Such thought is associated with Plato. Nominalism, by contrast,
holds
that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond our
imaginations.
Wow, you can quote.
What do you have against quotes? You don't like what this one says?
Actually I agree with it, I just happen to understand what it means.
So do I.
[Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations? Sounds like solipsism to
me.
Well, you can quote, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend.
Anyone can comprehend that "Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas
represented by words [like tree] have no real existence beyond our
imaginations" sounds just like solipsism.
Anyone "can", but those who actually understand the material ...
I actually understand it. "Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas
represented by words [like tree] have no real existence beyond our
imaginations" sounds just like solipsism.
I am
going to give you two sentences, tell me if you can see any
difference:
1) that ideas represented by words have no real existence beyond our
imaginations.
2) Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations.
Do you see the difference? If not, can anyone help him here?
Looks like nobody is coming to your rescue after two days, so you are
going
to have to try to get yourself out of this hole called 'solipsism' all by
yourself. Now it is up to you to show that trees, for example, are just
figments of the imagination.
Here is the hint again: "trees" is a word
I am not talking about the word. 'tree', I am talking about the tree I see
out my study window. I know it is something real. I was just out there
hugging it this morning. 8^)
[Nothing has existence beyond our imaginations? Sounds like solipsism to
me.
And solipsism is summarily rejected due to the logically fatal problem
inherent in it, that the only way to ever reach a conclusion solipsism
is
true is to just take it for granted (begging the question),
then argue _ad
ignorantiam_ that the non-believers can't prove it false, just like
theism!
Watch Matt work, you will soon see what I mean.]
Sorry, but you have again totally and completely misunderstood.
Totally. Completely. Nominalism has nothing at all to do with
solipsism. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Oh? If that is true, then you've got some 'splaining to do, Lucy,
beginning
with explaining why you say that trees, for example, are just figments of
the imagination.
You really should learn to distinguish between things in the world and
ideas about things.
Seems like you and the "nominalists" (new name for 'solipsists') are the
ones having that problem. I know from experience that trees are real, not
just figments of the imagination.
"Nominalism, by contrast, holds that ideas represented by words [like tree]
have no real existence beyond our
imaginations" sounds just l | | | | | | | | |
