Insurmountable gap?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-04-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(18-04-2014 06:51 AM)Bows and Arrows Wrote:  Banana_zorro

we got a live one!! This is going to fun to watch!

Popcorn

Meh. Nothing to see here. It's the same old hackery.

1) Refuse to define terms.
2) Refuse to substantiate assertions.
3) Conclude god.

If pressed, defend 1) and 2) by appealing to "common sense", misrepresent questioning assertions as denying assertions in a 1-2 combo proof-shifting straw man, and last but not least, the pièce de résistance,

4) A god, therefore MY God.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like cjlr's post
18-04-2014, 01:10 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(18-04-2014 06:17 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Stevil argued: Any gap, permanent or temporary, is invalid to fill with god.

Answer: Please see the above answer to Cjlr. Gaps under the purview of science pertain to things that can be explained naturally which is why filling them with God would be fallacious. The gap I am referring to, however, can never have a natural explanation. It’s not subject to the scientific method, and thus we can posit only possibilities that are (at the risk of sounding redundant) untestable scientifically. God, or some intangible cause, can be suggested for this gap without it being a logical fallicy.
Ever heard of the logical fallicy "Begs the question"?
If you fill the gap with god, then there are many questions:
How do you know there is a god?
How do you know what attributes/abilities this god has?

When you state
Quote: I'm stating "we don't know, hence maybe god, maybe nothing"
Why don't you instead say "We don't know, hence we don't know"?

For some reason you are discounting natural materialistic phenomena.
Scientists don't know everything about natural materialistic phenomena so how can it be discounted?

You seem to assume causes
Quote:who's cause is not a scientific subject.
When we look to the quantum level we see probabilities rather than classical cause and effect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
18-04-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(18-04-2014 06:17 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  CJlr mentioned: It’s an example of infinite regress (ie. turtles all the way down)

Answer: The scientific method, and more basically human rationale, is subject to limitation. If you will: along the path of regress, whether it’s infinite or not, human beings have a point which they cannot go beyond.
It seems the human imagination is limitless.

Unlike material existence where there are known constraints, when we postulate about supernatural existence we don't need to bother with pesky constraints because absolutely nothing is known about the supernatural realm.
It seems we are free to dream and imagine, unconstrained and unchallenged.
Which makes a search for actual "Truth" impossible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
18-04-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(18-04-2014 11:46 AM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  Build your entire case on logical fallacies, shift the burden of proof, move the goal posts and use argumento ex crulo and you will be mocked mercilessly.

Just give the word and I'll unleash the memes! Tongue

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(18-04-2014 01:26 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 11:46 AM)Blackhand293 Wrote:  Build your entire case on logical fallacies, shift the burden of proof, move the goal posts and use argumento ex crulo and you will be mocked mercilessly.

Just give the word and I'll unleash the memes! Tongue

You can do it!

The requirement of evidence to back your claim does not disappear because it hurts your feelings, reality does not care about your feefees.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2014, 08:41 PM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2014 11:37 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(18-04-2014 04:59 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  
(17-04-2014 07:44 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  No, disingenuous semantic prestidigitation doesn't stand here in the real world at all.

You can't have your special pleading and eat it too.

And no, your "definition" is not "clear"; it is deliberately vague as fuck.

It's the God described by Deism. Sorry if you don't (or are unwilling) to understand that.

Which means precisely....nothing.Just as this business about "a cause for uniformity in nature" means precisely nothing.



(18-04-2014 04:41 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  I'd like to posit that the observable phenomena of uniformity in nature is also outside of the purview of science.

Word. Salad.


You say that this "uniformity in nature" is "observable". If that is the case -- and you still have failed to define/describe this supposed phenomenon -- then it is not outside of the purview of science at all. What we can observe we can test.


Quote:This is because there’s no way to conduct a test about any theoretical cause.

REALLY? Extremely sloppy excuse for "thinking" there. You take your word salad "phenomenon" and then claim that the "cause" of your word salad "phenomenon" can't be observed, therefore gawd.

I could equally say the same thing for Monkeys Flying Out Of My Butt. And it would carry equal weight.


Quote:If you were to discover something, it would only be smaller constituents of energy/matter which would subsequently only beg the question.

Ad hoc assertion. FAIL.


Quote:Simply: any type of existence or reality requires laws, the ultimate cause of which is outside the scope of human scientific inquiry.

You have reified, distorted and equivocated the definition of a natural "law" in a convoluted and disingenuous fashion. FAIL.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
19-04-2014, 07:21 AM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(18-04-2014 08:41 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 04:41 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  I'd like to posit that the observable phenomena of uniformity in nature is also outside of the purview of science.

Word. Salad.

You say that this "uniformity in nature" is "observable". If that is the case -- and you still have failed to define/describe this supposed phenomenon -- then it is not outside of the purview of science at all. What we can observe we can test.

Nice catch! That's exactly the point I was making to the now vanished lots2unlearn

(18-04-2014 04:41 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Simply: any type of existence or reality requires laws, the ultimate cause of which is outside the scope of human scientific inquiry.
(18-04-2014 08:41 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You have reified, distorted and equivocated the definition of a natural "law" in a convoluted and disingenuous fashion. FAIL.

Precisely! (btw that sentence of yours is a five course meal of the English language, it brought a tear to my eye Thumbsup I had to look up reified)

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."- Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2014, 08:31 AM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2014 09:01 AM by Banjo.)
RE: Insurmountable gap?
" I'd like to posit that the observable phenomena of uniformity in nature is also outside of the purview of science"

How can you know of something unknown???

As for the quote, you claim what is observable is unobservable. I think you are confused.

What you fail to grasp is that your imagination is proof only that you have an imagination. Not a unique imagination. We have heard this BS before. Your imagination is borrowed.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. You do not even earn a dime because you have no idea.

I will give you some advice. Get thee to a library. Read a real science book. And stop listening to idiots like Ken Ham.

Warning. The poster, Banjo, is currently on an experimental drug known to affect the human brain. Indeed Banjo went insane on this drug. Treat everything I say with a grain of salt. Especially if offended.
Banjo.

[Image: jg54l.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Banjo's post
19-04-2014, 10:01 AM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2014 10:59 AM by kim.)
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(18-04-2014 04:41 AM)lots2learn Wrote:  Simply: any type of existence or reality requires laws, the ultimate cause of which is outside the scope of human scientific inquiry.

Gleaned from the position above L2L, you seem to state that YOU are unable to understand the ultimate cause of existence or reality. That's fine - no one does and it's not really that big of a deal.

Are you trying to state that since YOU don't want to try to understand something, you feel that YOU personally shouldn't even try to inquire about it? That's ok as long as it pertains only to YOU. I think it's a bit sad but it's really up to you what you feel you are able to handle at any given moment.

If you are stating that no one should try to inquire about something not understood... well then, that's not ok. It is not up to YOU what someone else wishes to try to understand.

YOU and only you, govern your needs, desires, and actions. YOU are responsible for YOU - no one else.

As far as your proposed "not trying"... that's entirely up to you... I'm not going to encourage you in that (I need to deal with my own laziness, thanks Wink ). Probably not your fault ... someone took you only just so far - where they knew you'd need help - and then exploited your need for understanding.

I'll consider your username to be appropriate... I hope it might be your attempt to reach out and try. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
19-04-2014, 12:00 PM
RE: Insurmountable gap?
(19-04-2014 07:21 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(18-04-2014 08:41 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You have reified, distorted and equivocated the definition of a natural "law" in a convoluted and disingenuous fashion. FAIL.

Precisely! (btw that sentence of yours is a five course meal of the English language, it brought a tear to my eye Thumbsup I had to look up reified)

Delighted to make you cry.

[Image: tumblr_min1yu2Jo91r3k1m8o1_500.png]

Tongue




It's the whole simple-minded and obnoxious equivocation flimflam of "For there to be a law, there must be a 'law-giver'."

But this is what a natural law is:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law
6
a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions



Meaning, an expression identifying an observed pattern of behavior/etc.


...which this moron is deliberately misrepresenting by conflating it with statuatory law, which is issued and enforced by some "authority".

Craig pulls this same ignorant bullshit in his version of the "moral argument".

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: