Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
(28-06-2015 05:51 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  A meteor is a price of a whole that was broke off.

Frequently true. So what?

Quote:Said whole would have an orbit or pattern prior to a collision with another body.

And afterwards the pieces each had their own trajectory. So what?

Quote:Sure some kind of life might thrive if the sun was a different distance from the earth, Just not ours.

So what? For our perspective we got lucky but our perspective is biased. There is no reason to assume we were destined to be.

Quote:Pretty sure life as we know it is not possible without our sun.

Without A sun, maybe... although there are other energy sources and it's a big universe.

Quote:The evedence is in everything that we witness.

You can't jump from what is to what caused it no matter how comforting it is to tell yourself that you have answers. You don't. You have only fantasy.

Quote:Some can only see through science. Kinda sad that people are aware that science can't prove everything and that it only works for breaking down things into individual prices without ever explaining them in real life scenarios. Science is nearly useless in making real world connections with real meaning. If our very instinct can be thrown out the he window in favor of views that work only under controlled circumstances then we really are screwed.

What I find sad is that people would prefer to make up stories rather than investigate to learn more about reality. Science is by far the best tool we have for actually understanding how the things around us work and many of us find much more beauty and sheer awe in the things we see after we begin to understand them than we did before. Our instinct is useful, but we can move beyond that and not let it limit us like you are advocating.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 06:07 PM
RE: Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
(28-06-2015 05:51 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  A meteor is a price of a whole that was broke off. Said whole would have an orbit or pattern prior to a collision with another body. Sure some kind of life might thrive if the sun was a different distance from the earth, Just not ours. Pretty sure life as we know it is not possible without our sun. The evedence is in everything that we witness. Some can only see through science. Kinda sad that people are aware that science can't prove everything and that it only works for breaking down things into individual prices without ever explaining them in real life scenarios. Science is nearly useless in making real world connections with real meaning. If our very instinct can be thrown out the he window in favor of views that work only under controlled circumstances then we really are screwed.

You clearly need to learn more about scientific methodology. Has I mentioned to you in another thread (and several others have said before), you are stuck in a very anthropomorphic vision of the universe which is completely wrong. It's like if you tried to study animals, but were attributing human emotion and values to their behaviors. You would be incapable of understanding their real communication methods and expression. For example, showing teeth amongst humans is called smiling, amongst ape too, but amongst monkeys or wolves that can be signs of fear or a challenge. Don't smile at a monkey or a wolf.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
28-06-2015, 07:01 PM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2015 07:05 PM by Chas.)
RE: Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
(28-06-2015 05:51 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  A meteor is a price of a whole that was broke off.

No, it's not.

Quote:Said whole would have an orbit or pattern prior to a collision with another body.

No, it wouldn't.

Quote:Sure some kind of life might thrive if the sun was a different distance from the earth, Just not ours.

No, there is a range of habitability for our kind of life.

Quote:Pretty sure life as we know it is not possible without our sun. The evedence is in everything that we witness. Some can only see through science.

No, we know facts about our physical universe through sciebce.

Quote:Kinda sad that people are aware that science can't prove everything and that it only works for breaking down things into individual prices without ever explaining them in real life scenarios.

No, that is an incorrect understanding of science.

Quote:Science is nearly useless in making real world connections with real meaning.

Define "real meaning".

Quote:If our very instinct can be thrown out the he window in favor of views that work only under controlled circumstances then we really are screwed.

Your knowledge of astronomy is abysmal. Read a book. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
28-06-2015, 07:03 PM
RE: Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
I do not describe things as if they have human characteristics. People are trying to arque that a metior didn't have an orbit or something similar before it becomes a meteor.I can actually communicate with animals better than some humans because animals use there senses and instinct. Many animals do have a choice they can make and even grasp morality. More than can be said for most of humanity. So what am I being anthropomorfic about exactly. Just skip right to it. I don't need your definitions or reasoning , Just examples in laymens terms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 07:17 PM
RE: Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
Quote:If our very instinct can be thrown out the he window in favor of views that work only under controlled circumstances then we really are screwed.

What you call instinct I call superstition. Science does not arbitrarily "throw it out the window", it proves it wrong.
Speaking of "controlled circumstances", you want to invent a god, then put it in control of all that you cannot or will not understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 09:02 PM
RE: Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
(28-06-2015 07:03 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I do not describe things as if they have human characteristics. People are trying to arque that a metior didn't have an orbit or something similar before it becomes a meteor.I can actually communicate with animals better than some humans because animals use there senses and instinct. Many animals do have a choice they can make and even grasp morality. More than can be said for most of humanity. So what am I being anthropomorfic about exactly. Just skip right to it. I don't need your definitions or reasoning , Just examples in laymens terms.

You might not think you need our definitions or reasoning, but until you provide any for your own shit you're peddling, all your words are just piss in the wind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 09:09 PM
RE: Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
Read post in "'re: I'm a new philosopher
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 09:16 PM
RE: Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
(28-06-2015 09:09 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Read post in "'re: I'm a new philosopher

You're just another asshole.

You've proven that you don't deserve reciprocation of serious dialogue. Logic, reason, evidence. These are irrelevant to you but crucial in the search of factual truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 09:24 PM
RE: Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
Did you read it?. I assure you I am not an asshole. That would be counter productive to my path and even though I sin daily I try to at very least keep everything in a morally correct perspective. I am sorry you feel that I am an asshole. We can all make a difference together. I wish only the best for you all, but wishes don't amount to much of shit, real conscious thought at the lowest level in every desision and good actions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 09:33 PM
RE: Fundamental problem with presuppostional apologetics
(28-06-2015 09:24 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Did you read it?. I assure you I am not an asshole. That would be counter productive to my path and even though I sin daily I try to at very least keep everything in a morally correct perspective. I am sorry you feel that I am an asshole. We can all make a difference together. I wish only the best for you all, but wishes don't amount to much of shit, real conscious thought at the lowest level in every desision and good actions.

You're an asshole in terms of debate. You are dishonest and evasive.

And I didn't find any thread with the title mentioned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: