Religions > Atheism > I came across an article which suggests that morality and altruism might actually be hard-wired in our genes
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"V" |
| Date: |
07 Sep 2007 09:11:33 AM |
| Object: |
I came across an article which suggests that morality and altruism might actually be hard-wired in our genes |
AT writes:
I came across an article which suggests that morality and altruism
might actually be hard-wired in our genes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html
" ...neuroscientists at the National Institutes of Health, had been
scanning the brains of volunteers as they were asked to think about a
scenario involving either donating a sum of money to charity or
keeping it for themselves.
The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests
of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part
of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex.
Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty
that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain,
hard-wired and pleasurable...
Grafman and others are using brain imaging and psychological
experiments to study whether the brain has a built-in moral compass.
The results -- many of them published just in recent months -- are
showing, unexpectedly, that many aspects of morality appear to be hard-
wired in the brain, most likely the result of evolutionary processes
that began in other species...
What the new research is showing is that morality has biological roots
-- such as the reward center in the brain that lit up in Grafman's
experiment -- that have been around for a very long time...
Joshua D. Greene, a Harvard neuroscientist and philosopher, said
multiple experiments suggest that morality arises from basic brain
activities. Morality, he said, is not a brain function elevated above
our baser impulses. Greene said it is not "handed down" by
philosophers and clergy, but "handed up," an outgrowth of the brain's
basic propensities... [emphasis not mine]
Marc Hauser, another Harvard researcher, has used cleverly designed
psychological experiments to study morality. He said his research has
found that people all over the world process moral questions in the
same way, suggesting that moral thinking is intrinsic to the human
brain, rather than a product of culture. It may be useful to think
about morality much like language, in that its basic features are hard-
wired, Hauser said. Different cultures and religions build on that
framework in much the way children in different cultures learn
different languages using the same neural machinery..."
AT writes - In other words, religion doesn't create morality. If
anything, it is the other way round. Religion can only exploit and
modify to a degree what is already there.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
V writes:
Humans need moral guidance or a moral conscience since they have a
'free will' of sorts.
Actually it is like this.
We are free to do what we want -- but are not free to want what we
want.
All our actions have consequences, and many of our actions produce
consequences that end up destroying peace. (both ours and other's
peace).
This is what separates us from the animals that run solely on
instinct.
Humans run by instinct as well as moral guidance.
Whether this moral conscience in divinely inspired or from Nature I
don't know - that is why I am an agnostic.
But If I had to guess I would lean towards the atheistic view of
Nature based, since I have not found any evidence of a God such as the
monotheists claim.
.....my discussion of this topic from an earlier post.
http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=504.0
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
.
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
19 Sep 2007 11:57:18 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:14:26 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
Your meaning is valid, only within your own narrow frame of thought.
We do not accept your frame of thought, as valid.
That is, of course, up to you and whoever you presume to speak for here.
However, it also brings to an end this discussion.
Of course it does; if you don't get to define things your way, your stupid
little games fall apart. Imagine that.
--
Are you aware that you cannot write without typo’s? Write to me
without a typo and I will began you education... -- Don Ward
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
19 Sep 2007 07:59:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:57:18 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:14:26 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
Your meaning is valid, only within your own narrow frame of thought.
We do not accept your frame of thought, as valid.
That is, of course, up to you and whoever you presume to speak for here.
However, it also brings to an end this discussion.
Of course it does; if you don't get to define things your way, your stupid
little games fall apart. Imagine that.
I note that Chuck-the-liar has not even attempted to proffer a single
shred of any form of evidence for his puerile claims, retreating
instead into pathetic sophistry to cover his woeful lack of substance
and totally non-existent honesty and integrity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
20 Sep 2007 12:48:14 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:29:15 +0930, Michael Gray wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:57:18 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
[snips]
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:14:26 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
Your meaning is valid, only within your own narrow frame of thought.
We do not accept your frame of thought, as valid.
That is, of course, up to you and whoever you presume to speak for here.
However, it also brings to an end this discussion.
Of course it does; if you don't get to define things your way, your stupid
little games fall apart. Imagine that.
I note that Chuck-the-liar has not even attempted to proffer a single
shred of any form of evidence for his puerile claims, retreating
instead into pathetic sophistry to cover his woeful lack of substance
and totally non-existent honesty and integrity.
As expected. Godders, as a rule, don't do honest, integrity or evidence,
just games and bullcrap.
I often wonder if they actually think that sort of thing wins them brownie
points? I can see it now, them standing before the Pearly Gates:
"And what did _you_ do that warrants your entrance?"
"I lied, cheated, deceived, played stupid little games trying to trick
people into accepting my views, basically I used every dishonest tactic I
could think of to spread the word."
"Ah. The tools of Satan. Well, since you're so familiar with them
already, I'd hate to make you feel your study of them was wasted. Here's
the elevator - going down."
Or do you think they'd simply try to lie and deceive their way into
Heaven, as well, hoping that everyone involved - including God - is so
terminally stupid that they don't catch on?
Wouldn't surprise me, actually.
--
Light doesn’t care what time it is. -- David Bloomberg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
15 Sep 2007 05:24:20 AM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:24:01 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m1fqr4-q0j.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:45:17 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7k0pr4-cq1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:12:43 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
I could be the product of
some other god for all you know.
Only the God of theism is logically possible.
Would that be Odin, Ra or Bast?
You're thinking (and I use the term here in its very broadest sense!) of
polytheism, not theism.
Polytheism _is_ theism,
No, it isn't. Polytheism is polytheism, and theism is theism. Theism is
NOT some blanket rubric under which one can cram any sort of belief in any
sort of god.
Yes it is.
From th Oxford English Dictionary.
theism
n noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically
of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Compare with
deism.
DERIVATIVES
theist noun
theistic adjective
ORIGIN
C17: from Greek theos 'god' + -ism.
and this would only be polytheism if they _all_
existed.
Neither theism, nor polytheism, has anything to do with the existence
of gods, only with belief.
Odin was one god in a pantheon of gods. Ra was too during most of his
existence in the Egyptian pantheon, although I believe the Pharaoh who
introduced him believed Ra was the only true God. I'm not familiar with
Bast, but I suspect this god was also part of a pantheon.
So again, which god of theism - Odin, Ra or Bast?
There is only one logically possible God. You can't logically have more
than one absolute and eternal being.
No gods are logically possible.....
..............Other than in the brains of disillusioned homo sapiens
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
14 Sep 2007 09:35:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:24:01 -0700, in alt.atheism
"Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote in
<TvGGi.160316$zz2.151399@newsfe12.phx>:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m1fqr4-q0j.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:45:17 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7k0pr4-cq1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:12:43 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
I could be the product of
some other god for all you know.
Only the God of theism is logically possible.
Would that be Odin, Ra or Bast?
You're thinking (and I use the term here in its very broadest sense!) of
polytheism, not theism.
Polytheism _is_ theism,
No, it isn't. Polytheism is polytheism, and theism is theism. Theism is
NOT some blanket rubric under which one can cram any sort of belief in any
sort of god.
Theism is the most general term, polytheism and monotheism are more
specific terms, but still are not instances.
and this would only be polytheism if they _all_
existed.
Odin was one god in a pantheon of gods. Ra was too during most of his
existence in the Egyptian pantheon, although I believe the Pharaoh who
introduced him believed Ra was the only true God. I'm not familiar with
Bast, but I suspect this god was also part of a pantheon.
So again, which god of theism - Odin, Ra or Bast?
There is only one logically possible God. You can't logically have more
than one absolute and eternal being.
Only if you define it that way, which most of the world for most of
history did not. There is nothing inherent in the concept of gods that
requires only one god to exist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
16 Sep 2007 03:23:25 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:24:01 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
Polytheism _is_ theism,
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. Both encompass the notion of belief in a god. One merely
expands that to include more than one god.
Odin was one god in a pantheon of gods.
So? Nothing says they _all_ have to exist just because _Odin_ exists.
Nor does it say one has to believe in all of them just because you believe
in one of them.
So again... "god of theism" - would this be Odin, Ra or Bast?
There is only one logically possible God.
Actually, there are thousands, Ra, Odin and Bast being among them.
Whether any actually exist, rather than simply being "possible" in the
sense of "not being proven absolutely no way, no how, not possible" is
another matter. On that score, the count seems to be zero.
--
You heathens hold court here viciously attacking anyone who dares to
profess religious faith. Like an adolescent gauntlet, each has his
own mode of attack, and each squeals in delight at the others’
supposed conquests. -- Jesse C. Jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chuck Stamford" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
16 Sep 2007 11:42:18 PM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tuf0s4-cq1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:24:01 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
Polytheism _is_ theism,
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. Both encompass the notion of belief in a god. One merely
expands that to include more than one god.
Odin was one god in a pantheon of gods.
So? Nothing says they _all_ have to exist just because _Odin_ exists.
Nor does it say one has to believe in all of them just because you believe
in one of them.
So again... "god of theism" - would this be Odin, Ra or Bast?
I'm not going to waste time re-creating argument for you that I've already
given to someone else, and I just finished a response to Dubh Ghall in this
thread on this very point. I'll simply refer you there if you don't mind.
There is only one logically possible God.
Actually, there are thousands, Ra, Odin and Bast being among them.
That would depend on one's grasp of what it means to be "logically
possible", and how well one understands the implications of an absolute
personal being existing. I believe if that grasp is a solid one, it will be
the case that one can see the logical impossibility of more than one such
being existing without some perfect kind of unity uniting them. All the
gods of the pagan pantheons were depicted as having disagreements with each
other; competing goals, different perspectives, values, judgments, varying
levels of intelligence, etc. All these things are logically impossible in
any personal being who posseses their properties to an infinite degree, and
any group of such beings as these would logically have to have formed the
sort of perfect union we see in the Christian triune Godhead.
Whether any actually exist, rather than simply being "possible" in the
sense of "not being proven absolutely no way, no how, not possible" is
another matter. On that score, the count seems to be zero.
--
You heathens hold court here viciously attacking anyone who dares to
profess religious faith. Like an adolescent gauntlet, each has his
own mode of attack, and each squeals in delight at the others'
supposed conquests. -- Jesse C. Jones
Are you including this quote as some sort of trophy? Or as your
justification for feeling victimized by theists?
Chuck Stamford
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
15 Sep 2007 01:27:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:45:25 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:45:17 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7k0pr4-cq1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:12:43 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
I could be the product of
some other god for all you know.
Only the God of theism is logically possible.
Would that be Odin, Ra or Bast?
You're thinking (and I use the term here in its very broadest sense!) of
polytheism, not theism.
Polytheism _is_ theism, and this would only be polytheism if they _all_
existed.
So again, which god of theism - Odin, Ra or Bast?
Absent any real evidence of any one of them, ALL gods partake equally
of reality. What about Ganeesha? He seems a cheerful sort.
WOA* #2278
If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
__________
*Wicked Old Atheist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
15 Sep 2007 07:04:38 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:27:05 -0500, Don Martin
<drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:45:25 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:45:17 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7k0pr4-cq1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:12:43 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
I could be the product of
some other god for all you know.
Only the God of theism is logically possible.
Would that be Odin, Ra or Bast?
You're thinking (and I use the term here in its very broadest sense!) of
polytheism, not theism.
Polytheism _is_ theism, and this would only be polytheism if they _all_
existed.
So again, which god of theism - Odin, Ra or Bast?
Absent any real evidence of any one of them, ALL gods partake equally
of reality. What about Ganeesha? He seems a cheerful sort.
Apparently he is great in bed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
12 Sep 2007 09:36:42 PM |
|
|
On 12 Sep 2007 20:48:01 -0500, bob young <alaspectrum@netvigator.com>
wrote:
Chuck Stamford wrote:
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for my
belief that God exists and created the world.
you have not produced anything verifiable yet.
Verifiable or not, how about objective? Opinions aren't worth
anything, but that's all they ever offer.
Where is your evidence for
your belief that there is no such God?
see above
And he should also see the definition of "atheist". Lack of belief
isn't belief in lack.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then comes evil?
-Epicurus, 3rd c. BCE
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
12 Sep 2007 04:46:57 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:45:44 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for my
belief that God exists and created the world.
You're lying.
Because there is none.
Like all the other stupid theists who make this claim, you don't
realise that every time one of you talks about this alleged "evidence"
without providing any of it, confirms you have none.
Where is your evidence for
your belief that there is no such God?
What "belief that there is no such God", liar?
If we're to make degree of
objective, evidential justification for our relevant beliefs the basis upon
No, moron. It's just you and your ridiculous beliefs that you rub in
our faces, that we wouldn't otherwise give a flying ***** about.
which we may stay on or go to any particular site or ng on the Internet,
I've got a "ticket" for a great many more "places" than do you.
Liar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
13 Sep 2007 07:17:26 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:45:44 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
Now you be a good little Fella and go produce some verifiable evidence
that
your god exists
You writing that sentence.
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob, exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
and preferably don't come back here until you do.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
Where is your evidence
for your belief that there is no such God?
Who said we have any such beliefs? I certainly don't.
--
Now, if Foxtrot would like to have his head handed to him yet again,
let him post his drivelous rantings and I will oblige in his verbal
decapitation. -- Marty Leipzig
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chuck Stamford" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
14 Sep 2007 01:51:06 AM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mh0pr4-cq1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:45:44 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
Now you be a good little Fella and go produce some verifiable evidence
that
your god exists
You writing that sentence.
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the existence of
God.
and preferably don't come back here until you do.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
Where is your evidence
for your belief that there is no such God?
Who said we have any such beliefs? I certainly don't.
I was speaking to Bob Young. I don't know who "you" are, or who you think
you represent here (i.e., the "we have" perspective), so, of course, I
wasn't speaking about your beliefs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
14 Sep 2007 07:57:58 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:51:06 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mh0pr4-cq1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:45:44 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
Now you be a good little Fella and go produce some verifiable evidence
that
your god exists
You writing that sentence.
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the existence of
God.
How?
and preferably don't come back here until you do.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
All the existence of a person is evidence for, is the existence of
that person.
In order to claim it to be evidence for something else, you must show
how and why it is so.
To claim that the existence of a person is evidence for the existence
of a god, you must show that there is no other possible way that, that
person could have come into existence.
Arguments from incredulity, ignorance, warm fuzzies, or whatever other
fallacy you care to call, does not constitute evidence.
snip
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
15 Sep 2007 12:21:11 AM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:51:06 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mh0pr4-cq1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:45:44 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
Now you be a good little Fella and go produce some verifiable evidence
that
your god exists
You writing that sentence.
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the existence of
God.
How?
Indeed - we humans are evidence of the random process of evolution.
and preferably don't come back here until you do.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
All the existence of a person is evidence for, is the existence of
that person.
In order to claim it to be evidence for something else, you must show
how and why it is so.
To claim that the existence of a person is evidence for the existence
of a god, you must show that there is no other possible way that, that
person could have come into existence.
Arguments from incredulity, ignorance, warm fuzzies, or whatever other
fallacy you care to call, does not constitute evidence.
snip
--
The spelling like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
14 Sep 2007 05:18:13 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:51:06 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mh0pr4-cq1.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:45:44 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
Now you be a good little Fella and go produce some verifiable evidence
that
your god exists
You writing that sentence.
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the existence of
God.
How so, brainwashed moron?
and preferably don't come back here until you do.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
Where is your evidence
for your belief that there is no such God?
Who said we have any such beliefs? I certainly don't.
I was speaking to Bob Young. I don't know who "you" are, or who you think
you represent here (i.e., the "we have" perspective), so, of course, I
wasn't speaking about your beliefs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
14 Sep 2007 08:45:26 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:51:06 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the existence of
God.
Nope. Merely evidence that they exist. If you want to make any other
claims, you'll need to support them. Simply asserting Bob's existence is
evidence of gods doesn't cut it, as there is no demonstrated causal
correlation involved.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
I did - there's nothing there. Hence the question.
Where is your evidence
for your belief that there is no such God?
Who said we have any such beliefs? I certainly don't.
I was speaking to Bob Young. I don't know who "you" are, or who you
think you represent here (i.e., the "we have" perspective), so, of
course, I wasn't speaking about your beliefs.
Dunno about Bob, but I'm about as rabid an atheist as you're likely to
find, aside from the positivist crowd who are, IMO, a bit loony.
--
Thou shalt not use pepper, nor allow it to be used. - Robert
Curry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chuck Stamford" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
14 Sep 2007 10:29:13 PM |
|
|
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h6fqr4-q0j.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:51:06 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the existence
of
God.
Nope. Merely evidence that they exist. If you want to make any other
claims, you'll need to support them. Simply asserting Bob's existence is
evidence of gods doesn't cut it, as there is no demonstrated causal
correlation involved.
Where is it written that I have to provide any "demonstrated causal
correlation"? Did you provide any for you "Nope"? My point here is that
you're reaction transparently manifests the attitude that if you don't see
it, it's not there; if I say it, and you don't see the rationale, there is
none.
The man asked me for evidence that God exists. I pointed to him as some of
that evidence. Now either he is or he isn't, but that's completely
independent of whether or not I can, or even desire to satisfy your request
for a "demonstrated causal correlation". What your response does is proceed
from your belief that there simply is no evidence for God's existence, and
that therefore Bob couldn't be an example of what doesn't exist, and this
allows you your simple "Nope", instead of the more open-minded "Not as I
understand it, it doesn't".
In any case, if you really want to pursue this any further, you and I have
to find some common metaphysical ground somewhere to use as a launching pad
for the "demonstrated causal correlation" to come. Otherwise we're both
just wasting time.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
I did - there's nothing there. Hence the question.
I think we could both agree that metaphysical naturalism and metaphysical
supernaturalism exhaust all logical possibility.
If we can't agree on this, then I can't answer your question. This is the
common metaphysical ground I was talking about. Let me know.
Where is your evidence
for your belief that there is no such God?
Who said we have any such beliefs? I certainly don't.
I was speaking to Bob Young. I don't know who "you" are, or who you
think you represent here (i.e., the "we have" perspective), so, of
course, I wasn't speaking about your beliefs.
Dunno about Bob, but I'm about as rabid an atheist as you're likely to
find, aside from the positivist crowd who are, IMO, a bit loony.
Okay then. If you're an "a" theist, you must believe that the denial of
God's existence is true, and the assertion of the truth of the proposition
that God exists is false. To argue anything else is to attempt to make some
hopelessly naive claim that one who denies the truth of a proposition (or
its logical equivalency - asserts it's falsehood) is in the same epistemic
state as one who makes no judgement about the proposition in question at
all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
15 Sep 2007 12:18:15 AM |
|
|
Chuck Stamford wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h6fqr4-q0j.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:51:06 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the existence
of
God.
Nope. Merely evidence that they exist. If you want to make any other
claims, you'll need to support them. Simply asserting Bob's existence is
evidence of gods doesn't cut it, as there is no demonstrated causal
correlation involved.
Where is it written that I have to provide any "demonstrated causal
correlation"? Did you provide any for you "Nope"? My point here is that
you're reaction transparently manifests the attitude that if you don't see
it, it's not there; if I say it, and you don't see the rationale, there is
none.
The man asked me for evidence that God exists. I pointed to him as some of
that evidence. Now either he is or he isn't, but that's completely
independent of whether or not I can, or even desire to satisfy your request
for a "demonstrated causal correlation". What your response does is proceed
from your belief that there simply is no evidence for God's existence, and
that therefore Bob couldn't be an example of what doesn't exist, and this
allows you your simple "Nope", instead of the more open-minded "Not as I
understand it, it doesn't".
In any case, if you really want to pursue this any further, you and I have
to find some common metaphysical ground somewhere to use as a launching pad
for the "demonstrated causal correlation" to come. Otherwise we're both
just wasting time.
You are the one wasting time - you simply cannot verify your god - period
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
I did - there's nothing there. Hence the question.
I think we could both agree that metaphysical naturalism and metaphysical
supernaturalism exhaust all logical possibility.
If we can't agree on this, then I can't answer your question. This is the
common metaphysical ground I was talking about. Let me know.
Where is your evidence
for your belief that there is no such God?
Who said we have any such beliefs? I certainly don't.
I was speaking to Bob Young. I don't know who "you" are, or who you
think you represent here (i.e., the "we have" perspective), so, of
course, I wasn't speaking about your beliefs.
Dunno about Bob, but I'm about as rabid an atheist as you're likely to
find, aside from the positivist crowd who are, IMO, a bit loony.
Yes I am a rabid atheist too
Okay then. If you're an "a" theist,
he sid he was an atheist !
you must believe that the denial of
God's existence is true, and the assertion of the truth of the proposition
that God exists is false. To argue anything else is to attempt to make some
hopelessly naive claim that one who denies the truth of a proposition (or
its logical equivalency - asserts it's falsehood) is in the same epistemic
state as one who makes no judgement about the proposition in question at
all.
IOW yuo Cannot verify your god? thought so
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
15 Sep 2007 08:18:34 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:29:13 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h6fqr4-q0j.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:51:06 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the existence
of
God.
Nope. Merely evidence that they exist. If you want to make any other
claims, you'll need to support them. Simply asserting Bob's existence is
evidence of gods doesn't cut it, as there is no demonstrated causal
correlation involved.
Where is it written that I have to provide any "demonstrated causal
correlation"?
In the paragraph above. Didn't you just read it?
Now if you are actually asking if you are required to provide any
"demonstrated causal correlation", no you are not . . . unless you
want to be thought of as more than a spouter of empty rhetoric.
Did you provide any for you "Nope"? My point here is that
you're reaction transparently manifests the attitude that if you don't see
it, it's not there; if I say it, and you don't see the rationale, there is
none.
You haven't provided any to see. You have made a blatant assertion
that people are evidence for god without showing the slightest link
between your assertion and reality. One can say anything like . . .
Carl Rove's retirement is evidence that Osama Bin Laden is residing in
Savannah, Georgia. As long as one doesn't provide any "demonstrated
causal correlation" between Carl Rove's retirement and OBL residence,
the statement is merely unsupported drivel, just like your statement.
The man asked me for evidence that God exists. I pointed to him as some of
that evidence. Now either he is or he isn't, but that's completely
independent of whether or not I can, or even desire to satisfy your request
for a "demonstrated causal correlation".
Well, that seems to be your problem not the questioner's. If you
don't have objective evidence or disdain the effort to provide it,
then there is no reason to believe you.
What your response does is proceed
from your belief that there simply is no evidence for God's existence, and
that therefore Bob couldn't be an example of what doesn't exist, and this
allows you your simple "Nope", instead of the more open-minded "Not as I
understand it, it doesn't".
No, the response is to your (and every other believer's) inability to
provide any objective evidence for the existence of a deity. They and
you have all sorts of excuses. You get on your snooty high-horse and
complain that it is our fault that we can't see the invisible evidence
and that we are too stupid to understand because the "evidence" that
you provide is can only be discerned by believers.
Well, I hate to be the one to break this to you, Chuck, but evidence
must appear the same to different people despite their frame of mind
or what they happen to believe, or it isn't evidence. Plus, the point
that seems to elude you, if you claim that A, which is visible and
clearly in existence, is evidence for B, which is undetectable by any
measurement known to humans, then you must show an undeniable
relationship between the fact that A exists and the assertion that B
must exist. Otherwise, it's the unsubstantiated rumor that OBL lives
in Georgia.
In any case, if you really want to pursue this any further, you and I have
to find some common metaphysical ground somewhere to use as a launching pad
for the "demonstrated causal correlation" to come. Otherwise we're both
just wasting time.
Try the physical before jumping to metaphysics. Do you have any
physical evidence that God© exists? This is a simple yes or no
answer.
If you have any physical evidence that God© exists, then use as much
space as required to present this evidence.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
I did - there's nothing there. Hence the question.
I think we could both agree that metaphysical naturalism and metaphysical
supernaturalism exhaust all logical possibility.
If we can't agree on this, then I can't answer your question. This is the
common metaphysical ground I was talking about. Let me know.
It probably won't help, but . . . The evidence that was requested
was*real and objective evidence, not philosophy. Metaphysics is
irrelevant to the request for evidence and your desire to shift the
request from evidence to philosophy is noted.
Liz #658
"Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for
failing to produce the evidence." - Wayne M. Delia
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chuck Stamford" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
16 Sep 2007 12:49:18 AM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:nukne3dmb0ch8jhrdomdomtns74ccd830t@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:29:13 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h6fqr4-q0j.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:51:06 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the
existence
of
God.
Nope. Merely evidence that they exist. If you want to make any other
claims, you'll need to support them. Simply asserting Bob's existence
is
evidence of gods doesn't cut it, as there is no demonstrated causal
correlation involved.
Where is it written that I have to provide any "demonstrated causal
correlation"?
In the paragraph above. Didn't you just read it?
Now if you are actually asking if you are required to provide any
"demonstrated causal correlation", no you are not . . . unless you
want to be thought of as more than a spouter of empty rhetoric.
I would have thought the figure of speech was evident by my use of it, and I
don't really care how I'm thought of by you, or Kelsey, or anyone else in
this thread.
Did you provide any for you "Nope"? My point here is that
you're reaction transparently manifests the attitude that if you don't see
it, it's not there; if I say it, and you don't see the rationale, there is
none.
You haven't provided any to see. You have made a blatant assertion
that people are evidence for god without showing the slightest link
between your assertion and reality.
And again, my point was that this allows, and should encourage Kelsey to
inquire how a person can be evidnece for God's existence. But he didn't do
that now did he. Instead he made a naked assertion himself...his "Nope",
referring to the idea that the existence of persons provides us with
evidence for God's existence. The only way his "Nope" ISN'T a naked
assertion is if it's not logically possible that the existence of persons
give us any evidence that God exists, and clearly that IS logically
possible. In fact, it is LOGICALLY possible that the existence of persons
are the BEST evidence for the existence of God; that they are COMPELLING
evidence for that existence, and that no one understands that it true.
One can say anything like . . .
Carl Rove's retirement is evidence that Osama Bin Laden is residing in
Savannah, Georgia. As long as one doesn't provide any "demonstrated
causal correlation" between Carl Rove's retirement and OBL residence,
the statement is merely unsupported drivel, just like your statement.
It's unsupported; the "drivel" part is just your attitude and
presuppositions leaking out. The uninvestigated case is the one to which
the wise person doesn't attach pejorative adjectives. Have you researched
Osama Bin Laden's current address? Do you know for a FACT he's not now in
Savannah, Georgia? With Homeland Security procedures being what they are at
the airports, who can say with absolute certainty? ;-)
The man asked me for evidence that God exists. I pointed to him as some
of
that evidence. Now either he is or he isn't, but that's completely
independent of whether or not I can, or even desire to satisfy your
request
for a "demonstrated causal correlation".
Well, that seems to be your problem not the questioner's. If you
don't have objective evidence or disdain the effort to provide it,
then there is no reason to believe you.
True, but this is a whole different ball of wax from the notion that if I
DON'T provide that demonstration then that ISN'T evidence. Whether it is or
isn't evidence does NOT depend on my abliity to make an argument from it.
It depends on there BEING a compelling and necessarily true inference from
it to what it's evidence for.
What your response does is proceed
from your belief that there simply is no evidence for God's existence, and
that therefore Bob couldn't be an example of what doesn't exist, and this
allows you your simple "Nope", instead of the more open-minded "Not as I
understand it, it doesn't".
No, the response is to your (and every other believer's) inability to
provide any objective evidence for the existence of a deity. They and
you have all sorts of excuses. You get on your snooty high-horse and
complain that it is our fault that we can't see the invisible evidence
and that we are too stupid to understand because the "evidence" that
you provide is can only be discerned by believers.
This is all about your past experiences and the expectations of you and
those with whom you've danced this dance, not about the issue. I haven't
even BEGUN to provide anyone any "argument" from the evidence I've
suggested, and I've certainly not thrown a leg over "snooty high-horse" to
NOT do it.
I just don't want to waste a lot of time here, that's all. That's not about
arrogance; it's about pragmatism. Why should I try to argue the existence
of God with people who won't or can't accept that even if God doesn't exist,
as they believe, still God's existing is "possible", at least to the same
extent it is "possible" you and others who share your belief are wrong. I
mean, you are willing to grant that you're not infallible, aren't you?
Well, I hate to be the one to break this to you, Chuck, but evidence
must appear the same to different people despite their frame of mind
or what they happen to believe, or it isn't evidence.
Can you prove that? I'd love to see you try. And you really need to prove
it's true with argument from evidence that appears the same to both of us,
Liz, because otherwise it's false by its own criterion for evidence!
Plus, the point
that seems to elude you, if you claim that A, which is visible and
clearly in existence, is evidence for B, which is undetectable by any
measurement known to humans, then you must show an undeniable
relationship between the fact that A exists and the assertion that B
must exist. Otherwise, it's the unsubstantiated rumor that OBL lives
in Georgia.
What I would have to do is show an "entailment" relationship between the
propositions "persons exist" and "God exists". Moving this from the realm
of propositions to that of states of affairs, I could say essentially the
same thing by saying that I would have to show that the state of affairs
"God existing" obtaining "includes" the state of affairs "persons existing".
In any case, if you really want to pursue this any further, you and I have
to find some common metaphysical ground somewhere to use as a launching
pad
for the "demonstrated causal correlation" to come. Otherwise we're both
just wasting time.
Try the physical before jumping to metaphysics. Do you have any
physical evidence that God© exists? This is a simple yes or no
answer.
Yes.
If you have any physical evidence that God© exists, then use as much
space as required to present this evidence.
Not until we settle the metaphysical question above.
You know, there is something I will go out on a limb here and opine about
atheists in general, and that is that they seem all to anxious to ignore the
fact that you can't HAVE a scientific approach to anything with having some
metaphysical underpinning to that approach. It's not possible to separate
science and metaphysics, which is a really good reason why until relatively
recently no one has ever tried. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist
here that before getting into any demonstrations from the evidence, we find
some common metaphysical ground; at least to the point where we agree that
metaphysical naturalism and metaphysical supernaturalism exhaust the
possibilities.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification
for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
I did - there's nothing there. Hence the question.
I think we could both agree that metaphysical naturalism and metaphysical
supernaturalism exhaust all logical possibility.
If we can't agree on this, then I can't answer your question. This is the
common metaphysical ground I was talking about. Let me know.
It probably won't help, but . . . The evidence that was requested
was*real and objective evidence, not philosophy. Metaphysics is
irrelevant to the request for evidence and your desire to shift the
request from evidence to philosophy is noted.
What is noted is your understanding that logical argument is not evidence
for truth. Very interesting.
Chuck Stamford>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
16 Sep 2007 08:43:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:49:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:nukne3dmb0ch8jhrdomdomtns74ccd830t@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:29:13 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h6fqr4-q0j.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:51:06 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the
existence
of
God.
Nope. Merely evidence that they exist. If you want to make any other
claims, you'll need to support them. Simply asserting Bob's existence
is
evidence of gods doesn't cut it, as there is no demonstrated causal
correlation involved.
Where is it written that I have to provide any "demonstrated causal
correlation"?
In the paragraph above. Didn't you just read it?
Now if you are actually asking if you are required to provide any
"demonstrated causal correlation", no you are not . . . unless you
want to be thought of as more than a spouter of empty rhetoric.
I would have thought the figure of speech was evident by my use of it, and I
don't really care how I'm thought of by you, or Kelsey, or anyone else in
this thread.
That's a very good strategy. Not caring that your words are empty
rhetoric will make spouting it all that much easier for you.
Did you provide any for you "Nope"? My point here is that
you're reaction transparently manifests the attitude that if you don't see
it, it's not there; if I say it, and you don't see the rationale, there is
none.
You haven't provided any to see. You have made a blatant assertion
that people are evidence for god without showing the slightest link
between your assertion and reality.
And again, my point was that this allows, and should encourage Kelsey to
inquire how a person can be evidnece for God's existence. But he didn't do
that now did he. Instead he made a naked assertion himself...his "Nope",
referring to the idea that the existence of persons provides us with
evidence for God's existence. The only way his "Nope" ISN'T a naked
assertion is if it's not logically possible that the existence of persons
give us any evidence that God exists, and clearly that IS logically
possible. In fact, it is LOGICALLY possible that the existence of persons
are the BEST evidence for the existence of God; that they are COMPELLING
evidence for that existence, and that no one understands that it true.
It is logically possible that Lint® the Laundry God exists and that
lost socks are compellling evidence that he exists, but very few
people understand this. Of course like you, I don't feel the
necessity to satisfy any request for supporting evidence for the
asserting.
One can say anything like . . .
Carl Rove's retirement is evidence that Osama Bin Laden is residing in
Savannah, Georgia. As long as one doesn't provide any "demonstrated
causal correlation" between Carl Rove's retirement and OBL residence,
the statement is merely unsupported drivel, just like your statement.
It's unsupported; the "drivel" part is just your attitude and
presuppositions leaking out.
Unsupported drivel is unsupported drivel no matter how much you
believe it is true.
The uninvestigated case is the one to which
the wise person doesn't attach pejorative adjectives. Have you researched
Osama Bin Laden's current address? Do you know for a FACT he's not now in
Savannah, Georgia? With Homeland Security procedures being what they are at
the airports, who can say with absolute certainty? ;-)
LOL The statement was not the current address of one OBL, but the
fact that Carl Rove's retirement proves that is where OBL resides. If
we substitute Carl Rove for humans being evidence of God
The man asked me for evidence that God exists. I pointed to him as some
of
that evidence. Now either he is or he isn't, but that's completely
independent of whether or not I can, or even desire to satisfy your
request
for a "demonstrated causal correlation".
Well, that seems to be your problem not the questioner's. If you
don't have objective evidence or disdain the effort to provide it,
then there is no reason to believe you.
True, but this is a whole different ball of wax from the notion that if I
DON'T provide that demonstration then that ISN'T evidence. Whether it is or
isn't evidence does NOT depend on my abliity to make an argument from it.
It depends on there BEING a compelling and necessarily true inference from
it to what it's evidence for.
What your response does is proceed
from your belief that there simply is no evidence for God's existence, and
that therefore Bob couldn't be an example of what doesn't exist, and this
allows you your simple "Nope", instead of the more open-minded "Not as I
understand it, it doesn't".
No, the response is to your (and every other believer's) inability to
provide any objective evidence for the existence of a deity. They and
you have all sorts of excuses. You get on your snooty high-horse and
complain that it is our fault that we can't see the invisible evidence
and that we are too stupid to understand because the "evidence" that
you provide is can only be discerned by believers.
This is all about your past experiences and the expectations of you and
those with whom you've danced this dance, not about the issue. I haven't
even BEGUN to provide anyone any "argument" from the evidence I've
suggested, and I've certainly not thrown a leg over "snooty high-horse" to
NOT do it.
I just don't want to waste a lot of time here, that's all. That's not about
arrogance; it's about pragmatism. Why should I try to argue the existence
of God with people who won't or can't accept that even if God doesn't exist,
as they believe, still God's existing is "possible", at least to the same
extent it is "possible" you and others who share your belief are wrong. I
mean, you are willing to grant that you're not infallible, aren't you?
Well, I hate to be the one to break this to you, Chuck, but evidence
must appear the same to different people despite their frame of mind
or what they happen to believe, or it isn't evidence.
Can you prove that? I'd love to see you try. And you really need to prove
it's true with argument from evidence that appears the same to both of us,
Liz, because otherwise it's false by its own criterion for evidence!
Plus, the point
that seems to elude you, if you claim that A, which is visible and
clearly in existence, is evidence for B, which is undetectable by any
measurement known to humans, then you must show an undeniable
relationship between the fact that A exists and the assertion that B
must exist. Otherwise, it's the unsubstantiated rumor that OBL lives
in Georgia.
What I would have to do is show an "entailment" relationship between the
propositions "persons exist" and "God exists". Moving this from the realm
of propositions to that of states of affairs, I could say essentially the
same thing by saying that I would have to show that the state of affairs
"God existing" obtaining "includes" the state of affairs "persons existing".
In any case, if you really want to pursue this any further, you and I have
to find some common metaphysical ground somewhere to use as a launching
pad
for the "demonstrated causal correlation" to come. Otherwise we're both
just wasting time.
Try the physical before jumping to metaphysics. Do you have any
physical evidence that God© exists? This is a simple yes or no
answer.
Yes.
If you have any physical evidence that God© exists, then use as much
space as required to present this evidence.
Not until we settle the metaphysical question above.
You know, there is something I will go out on a limb here and opine about
atheists in general, and that is that they seem all to anxious to ignore the
fact that you can't HAVE a scientific approach to anything with having some
metaphysical underpinning to that approach. It's not possible to separate
science and metaphysics, which is a really good reason why until relatively
recently no one has ever tried. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist
here that before getting into any demonstrations from the evidence, we find
some common metaphysical ground; at least to the point where we agree that
metaphysical naturalism and metaphysical supernaturalism exhaust the
possibilities.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification
for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
I did - there's nothing there. Hence the question.
I think we could both agree that metaphysical naturalism and metaphysical
supernaturalism exhaust all logical possibility.
If we can't agree on this, then I can't answer your question. This is the
common metaphysical ground I was talking about. Let me know.
It probably won't help, but . . . The evidence that was requested
was*real and objective evidence, not philosophy. Metaphysics is
irrelevant to the request for evidence and your desire to shift the
request from evidence to philosophy is noted.
What is noted is your understanding that logical argument is not evidence
for truth. Very interesting.
Chuck Stamford>
Liz #658 BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chuck Stamford" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
16 Sep 2007 11:54:47 PM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:6rbqe35luvo2nh1ddak9umj3i3leog9vsi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:49:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:nukne3dmb0ch8jhrdomdomtns74ccd830t@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:29:13 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h6fqr4-q0j.ln1@spanky.localhost.net...
[snips]
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:51:06 -0700, Chuck Stamford wrote:
That would be evidence that Bob, or some person claiming to be Bob,
exists.
Any further conclusions will have to be supported.
Which was my point. Any "person" existing is evidence for the
existence
of
God.
Nope. Merely evidence that they exist. If you want to make any other
claims, you'll need to support them. Simply asserting Bob's existence
is
evidence of gods doesn't cut it, as there is no demonstrated causal
correlation involved.
Where is it written that I have to provide any "demonstrated causal
correlation"?
In the paragraph above. Didn't you just read it?
Now if you are actually asking if you are required to provide any
"demonstrated causal correlation", no you are not . . . unless you
want to be thought of as more than a spouter of empty rhetoric.
I would have thought the figure of speech was evident by my use of it, and
I
don't really care how I'm thought of by you, or Kelsey, or anyone else in
this thread.
That's a very good strategy. Not caring that your words are empty
rhetoric will make spouting it all that much easier for you.
That's also a nice, if uncalled for shifting of semantics. It does,
however, highlight to me your attitude that you see yourself as some kind of
"Pontiff of Reality", for whom such semantics shifting is a royal
perogative.
I hope you enjoyed writing this even if I don't read it beyond this point.
Chuck Stamford
Did you provide any for you "Nope"? My point here is that
you're reaction transparently manifests the attitude that if you don't
see
it, it's not there; if I say it, and you don't see the rationale, there
is
none.
You haven't provided any to see. You have made a blatant assertion
that people are evidence for god without showing the slightest link
between your assertion and reality.
And again, my point was that this allows, and should encourage Kelsey to
inquire how a person can be evidnece for God's existence. But he didn't
do
that now did he. Instead he made a naked assertion himself...his "Nope",
referring to the idea that the existence of persons provides us with
evidence for God's existence. The only way his "Nope" ISN'T a naked
assertion is if it's not logically possible that the existence of persons
give us any evidence that God exists, and clearly that IS logically
possible. In fact, it is LOGICALLY possible that the existence of persons
are the BEST evidence for the existence of God; that they are COMPELLING
evidence for that existence, and that no one understands that it true.
It is logically possible that Lint® the Laundry God exists and that
lost socks are compellling evidence that he exists, but very few
people understand this. Of course like you, I don't feel the
necessity to satisfy any request for supporting evidence for the
asserting.
One can say anything like . . .
Carl Rove's retirement is evidence that Osama Bin Laden is residing in
Savannah, Georgia. As long as one doesn't provide any "demonstrated
causal correlation" between Carl Rove's retirement and OBL residence,
the statement is merely unsupported drivel, just like your statement.
It's unsupported; the "drivel" part is just your attitude and
presuppositions leaking out.
Unsupported drivel is unsupported drivel no matter how much you
believe it is true.
The uninvestigated case is the one to which
the wise person doesn't attach pejorative adjectives. Have you researched
Osama Bin Laden's current address? Do you know for a FACT he's not now in
Savannah, Georgia? With Homeland Security procedures being what they are
at
the airports, who can say with absolute certainty? ;-)
LOL The statement was not the current address of one OBL, but the
fact that Carl Rove's retirement proves that is where OBL resides. If
we substitute Carl Rove for humans being evidence of God
The man asked me for evidence that God exists. I pointed to him as some
of
that evidence. Now either he is or he isn't, but that's completely
independent of whether or not I can, or even desire to satisfy your
request
for a "demonstrated causal correlation".
Well, that seems to be your problem not the questioner's. If you
don't have objective evidence or disdain the effort to provide it,
then there is no reason to believe you.
True, but this is a whole different ball of wax from the notion that if I
DON'T provide that demonstration then that ISN'T evidence. Whether it is
or
isn't evidence does NOT depend on my abliity to make an argument from it.
It depends on there BEING a compelling and necessarily true inference from
it to what it's evidence for.
What your response does is proceed
from your belief that there simply is no evidence for God's existence,
and
that therefore Bob couldn't be an example of what doesn't exist, and
this
allows you your simple "Nope", instead of the more open-minded "Not as I
understand it, it doesn't".
No, the response is to your (and every other believer's) inability to
provide any objective evidence for the existence of a deity. They and
you have all sorts of excuses. You get on your snooty high-horse and
complain that it is our fault that we can't see the invisible evidence
and that we are too stupid to understand because the "evidence" that
you provide is can only be discerned by believers.
This is all about your past experiences and the expectations of you and
those with whom you've danced this dance, not about the issue. I haven't
even BEGUN to provide anyone any "argument" from the evidence I've
suggested, and I've certainly not thrown a leg over "snooty high-horse" to
NOT do it.
I just don't want to waste a lot of time here, that's all. That's not
about
arrogance; it's about pragmatism. Why should I try to argue the existence
of God with people who won't or can't accept that even if God doesn't
exist,
as they believe, still God's existing is "possible", at least to the same
extent it is "possible" you and others who share your belief are wrong. I
mean, you are willing to grant that you're not infallible, aren't you?
Well, I hate to be the one to break this to you, Chuck, but evidence
must appear the same to different people despite their frame of mind
or what they happen to believe, or it isn't evidence.
Can you prove that? I'd love to see you try. And you really need to
prove
it's true with argument from evidence that appears the same to both of us,
Liz, because otherwise it's false by its own criterion for evidence!
Plus, the point
that seems to elude you, if you claim that A, which is visible and
clearly in existence, is evidence for B, which is undetectable by any
measurement known to humans, then you must show an undeniable
relationship between the fact that A exists and the assertion that B
must exist. Otherwise, it's the unsubstantiated rumor that OBL lives
in Georgia.
What I would have to do is show an "entailment" relationship between the
propositions "persons exist" and "God exists". Moving this from the realm
of propositions to that of states of affairs, I could say essentially the
same thing by saying that I would have to show that the state of affairs
"God existing" obtaining "includes" the state of affairs "persons
existing".
In any case, if you really want to pursue this any further, you and I
have
to find some common metaphysical ground somewhere to use as a launching
pad
for the "demonstrated causal correlation" to come. Otherwise we're both
just wasting time.
Try the physical before jumping to metaphysics. Do you have any
physical evidence that God© exists? This is a simple yes or no
answer.
Yes.
If you have any physical evidence that God© exists, then use as much
space as required to present this evidence.
Not until we settle the metaphysical question above.
You know, there is something I will go out on a limb here and opine about
atheists in general, and that is that they seem all to anxious to ignore
the
fact that you can't HAVE a scientific approach to anything with having
some
metaphysical underpinning to that approach. It's not possible to separate
science and metaphysics, which is a really good reason why until
relatively
recently no one has ever tried. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist
here that before getting into any demonstrations from the evidence, we
find
some common metaphysical ground; at least to the point where we agree that
metaphysical naturalism and metaphysical supernaturalism exhaust the
possibilities.
And what about you? At least I have SOME evidential justification
for
my belief that God exists and created the world.
And that would be...?
See above.
I did - there's nothing there. Hence the question.
I think we could both agree that metaphysical naturalism and
metaphysical
supernaturalism exhaust all logical possibility.
If we can't agree on this, then I can't answer your question. This is
the
common metaphysical ground I was talking about. Let me know.
It probably won't help, but . . . The evidence that was requested
was*real and objective evidence, not philosophy. Metaphysics is
irrelevant to the request for evidence and your desire to shift the
request from evidence to philosophy is noted.
What is noted is your understanding that logical argument is not evidence
for truth. Very interesting.
Chuck Stamford>
Liz #658 BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
17 Sep 2007 06:33:43 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:54:47 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:6rbqe35luvo2nh1ddak9umj3i3leog9vsi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:49:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:nukne3dmb0ch8jhrdomdomtns74ccd830t@4ax.com...
[----]
Now if you are actually asking if you are required to provide any
"demonstrated causal correlation", no you are not . . . unless you
want to be thought of as more than a spouter of empty rhetoric.
I don't really care how I'm thought of by you, or Kelsey, or anyone else in
this thread.
That's a very good strategy. Not caring that your words are empty
rhetoric will make spouting it all that much easier for you.
That's also a nice, if uncalled for shifting of semantics. It does,
however, highlight to me your attitude that you see yourself as some kind of
"Pontiff of Reality", for whom such semantics shifting is a royal
perogative.
LOL You just stated that you don't care how you are thought of and
you go off on a snit because I tell you how you will be thought of and
you care . . . you really care. (wipes emotional tear from eye)
I hope you enjoyed writing this even if I don't read it beyond this point.
Come back, Chuck! Come back!
You forgot to present your physical evidence that you claimed you had.
You know, the one where you explain that "What [you] would have to do
is show an "entailment" relationship between the propositions "persons
exist" and "God exists". " You explained what is necessary for you to
do, but you didn't do it.
That's all I'm asking, Chuck.
Oh, and I did enjoy writing my post, but I would have enjoyed it ever
so much better if you had not had such a convenient emotional response
"entitling" you to opt out of connecting the dots of your position.
But then you don't care what we think of you.
Liz #658
"Speculating on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for
failing to produce the evidence." - Wayne M. Delia
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chuck Stamford" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
19 Sep 2007 02:22:06 AM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:9aose3h7q1guta8apoh65c65gvbgmvam0m@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:54:47 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:6rbqe35luvo2nh1ddak9umj3i3leog9vsi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:49:18 -0700, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:nukne3dmb0ch8jhrdomdomtns74ccd830t@4ax.com...
[----]
Now if you are actually asking if you are required to provide any
"demonstrated causal correlation", no you are not . . . unless you
want to be thought of as more than a spouter of empty rhetoric.
I don't really care how I'm thought of by you, or Kelsey, or anyone else
in
this thread.
That's a very good strategy. Not caring that your words are empty
rhetoric will make spouting it all that much easier for you.
That's also a nice, if uncalled for shifting of semantics. It does,
however, highlight to me your attitude that you see yourself as some kind
of
"Pontiff of Reality", for whom such semantics shifting is a royal
perogative.
LOL You just stated that you don't care how you are thought of and
you go off on a snit because I tell you how you will be thought of and
you care . . . you really care. (wipes emotional tear from eye)
It's not about emotion, Liz. It's about trying to have a decent discussion
with a person who seems not to see the distinction between a factual
statement and a statement of opinion. It's been my experience that no such
discussion is possible with people like that/you, and that conclusion was
arrived at by reasoning to it from the facts, not emoting to it....and long
before you came down the pike.
Chuck Stamford
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: poot the typical Christer's bait-and-switch deception |
17 Sep 2007 08:20:12 PM |
| | | | | | | | | | |
