Love sucks???????
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2017, 10:38 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(22-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 09:08 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, Tom. I use these terms exactly how they are meant to be used.

You use the words how you think they're "meant" to be used

Well, yes. In the same way, I add two and two the way I think that it's meant to be added.

It just so happens that I am right, and demonstrably so, in both cases.

(22-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  in contrast to how others, not just myself use them

Why, yes. Many people are stupid and don't understand how these things work. How astute of you to notice.

Unfortunately, no matter how many idiots there are that you think support your position, it will never make you any more right.

(22-02-2017 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And in the many cases where the terms are created, and defined by theists themselves, who clearly meant something different by them, then your application.

No.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2017 11:39 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Love sucks???????
(22-02-2017 10:38 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It just so happens that I am right, and demonstrably so, in both cases.

No I am right, and demonstrably so, in both cases.

In fact you have no support from any of the experts, professors on the subject that would agree with you or your use of these concepts.

In fact in reading some of your older post, I learned that you rejected God prior to ever actually learning about any of these rules and their meanings. You believed that you were led to that conclusion following these rules at the time, even though you had no real knowledge of them, and believed your brain naturally follow such rules organically.

So you didn’t learn of these actual rules, then apply those rules to reach your conclusion. You reached that conclusion based on your natural inclinations, and then attempted to frame your own natural inclinations, as synonymous with these rules of logic.

You may believe it’s synonymous with all your heart, believing with all your heart that your application is correct, and in fact there’s no real way to show it to you, because you’ll just claim that everyone else is wrong, that everyone else’s application is wrong, that they’re just idiots that don’t know what 2 and 2 add up to, including professors on the subject. But just because you believe it doesn’t mean your right. The fact that you use of these concepts were applied after the fact, on what you believed your natural inclinations are, give ample reasons to why your views here are problematic from the start.

Quote:Why, yes. Many people are stupid and don't understand how these things work.

Or you don’t.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:55 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(22-02-2017 11:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact you have no support from any of the experts, professors on the subject that would agree with you or your use of these concepts.

The various academics of the world would disagree that evidence is something that supports a conclusion, that the null hypothesis is the one that posits the existence of no entities or properties of those entities not in evidence, and that logic is the system for creating arguments, would they?

You are a very sad, deluded little man, Tom.

(22-02-2017 11:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact in reading some of your older post, I learned that you rejected God prior to ever actually learning about any of these rules and their meanings.

No. I lacked belief in gods from a very early age, because I never saw a reason to believe. As I grew older and gained a more solid understanding of things like logic and reason, my conclusion was strengthened.

And even if this were not the case, your armchair psychology would remain entirely irrelevant until and unless you actually demonstrate how I have misused any of these terms, or committed a fallacy in my reasoning.

But you can't.

Because I haven't.

So you won't.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 01:20 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(22-02-2017 11:55 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The various academics of the world would disagree that evidence is something that supports a conclusion

Probably not.

Quote:that the null hypothesis is the one that posits the existence of no entities or properties of those entities not in evidence

No, the null hypothesis is not exclusive to entities or properties of entities, it can be applied to pretty much any hypotheses, ones the include an entity and one that doesn't. Such as a null hypotheses regarding the types of water and flower growth, where a null hypotheses, would be position that holds there is no relationship between the type of water being used, and flower growth. It can be applied to a non-theistic hypothesis like physicalism as it can to any variety of theism.

You on the other hand want to disagree, and think that everyone that points this out is wrong.

Quote:and that logic is the system for creating arguments, would they?

No, your belief that logic indicates that atheism is true, and all god beliefs are illogical.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 05:40 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(22-02-2017 01:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, the null hypothesis is not exclusive to entities or properties of entities, it can be applied to pretty much any hypotheses, ones the include an entity and one that doesn't. Such as a null hypotheses regarding the types of water and flower growth, where a null hypotheses, would be position that holds there is no relationship between the type of water being used, and flower growth. It can be applied to a non-theistic hypothesis like physicalism as it can to any variety of theism.

...Which are hypotheses about entities or properties of entities, yes.

You really don't seem to understand what these words mean.

(22-02-2017 01:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, your belief that logic indicates that atheism is true, and all god beliefs are illogical.

Which has nothing to do with the definition of the word "logic", so I'm not sure why you brought that up.

If you disagree that a logical examination of the evidence results in the conclusion that gods do not exist, present your evidence.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 09:55 PM
Love sucks???????
(22-02-2017 05:40 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You really don't seem to understand what these words mean.

My mistake I thought you were using entity as meaning a being.

But the point was in the previous post, that you seem to not get that the null hypothesis could just as easily be applied to theistic hypotheses, as well as opposing atheist hypotheses like physicalism. Pretty much any hypotheses atheistic of theistic can have a null hypothesis.

Quote:If you disagree that a logical examination of the evidence results in the conclusion that gods do not exist, present your evidence.

It's an entirely logical conclusion far someone to casually observe the intricacies, and complexities of life, his moral intuitions, desire for meaning and purpose, goal orientation, and assume we're part of teleological or created order. He may be wrong about this conclusion, he could very well be operating off of incomplete information, but it's an entirely logical conclusion. A conclusion drawn many times over.

Any professor teaching about logic, could tell you that

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2017, 11:40 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(22-02-2017 09:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But the point was in the previous post, that you seem to not get that the null hypothesis could just as easily be applied to theistic hypotheses, as well as opposing atheist hypotheses like physicalism.

And the point is wrong, Tom. That is not how the null hypothesis works.

Theistic arguments posit the existence of entities or properties of those entities that are not in immediate evidence. They are, by definition, not the null hypothesis, because they are attempting to establish the existence of something.

(22-02-2017 09:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:If you disagree that a logical examination of the evidence results in the conclusion that gods do not exist, present your evidence.

It's an entirely logical conclusion far someone to casually observe the intricacies, and complexities of life, his moral intuitions, desire for meaning and purpose, goal orientation, and assume we're part of teleological or created order.

No, it isn't. You have repeatedly asserted that it is, but since you cannot even coherently define what it is that teleology is exactly arguing, asserting that it is logical to conclude that teleology is true is rather nonsensical.

In order to logically conclude that teleology has any merit, you must first be able to define what it is that teleology asserts - that is, you must be able to answer a certain question.

What difference would there be between a universe that is designed and one that is not, and why?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
23-02-2017, 08:17 AM
RE: Love sucks???????
(22-02-2017 11:40 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  =
And the point is wrong, Tom. That is not how the null hypothesis works.

Theistic arguments posit the existence of entities or properties of those entities that are not in immediate evidence. They are, by definition, not the null hypothesis, because they are attempting to establish the existence of something.

So does atheistic hypothesis like physciallism/materialistic monism, which one easily formulate a null hypotheses for. If you don't understand this, then you don't know how a null hypothesis works.

Quote:No, it isn't. You have repeatedly asserted that it is, but since you cannot even coherently define what it is that teleology is exactly arguing, asserting that it is logical to conclude that teleology is true is rather nonsensical.

I didn't know you didn't know what a fairly basic term like teleology means, but when in doubt wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

Quote:What difference would there be between a universe that is designed and one that is not, and why?

A universe that's designed appears to have goal oriented features, a human desire meaning, purpose, moral direction, appears goal oriented, and as a result it's logical, even if ultimately incorrect, for a person to assume based on such an observation, that life was created, based on the fact that goal oriented objects are created.

If you need to email your professor in school who taught you about logic, why this is correct, by all means go ahead.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2017, 03:51 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(23-02-2017 08:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-02-2017 11:40 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Theistic arguments posit the existence of entities or properties of those entities that are not in immediate evidence.

So does atheistic hypothesis like physciallism/materialistic monism

No, they don't. That is the whole point.

Theistic positions assert that a god exists. Teleological arguments assert that the universe is designed. The former is an entity whose existence is not yet established. The latter is a property of an entity (or entities) that has not yet been established. They are not the null hypothesis.

Atheistic positions assert that there is no god, and that the universe is not designed. They do not posit the existence of an entity that has not yet been established to exist, and they do not assert that the universe has a property that it has not yet been established to have. They are the null hypothesis.

This is not complicated. Neither is it something that is going to change, regardless of how much you want it to.

(23-02-2017 08:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you don't understand this, then you don't know how a null hypothesis works.

Ha.

(23-02-2017 08:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I didn't know you didn't know what a fairly basic term like teleology means

No, I fully understand what teleologists want to argue. The point that I am making, and the one that you keep failing to grasp, is that the position is incoherent.

And I mean that in the most literal sense. It is not coherently defined, because-

(23-02-2017 08:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:What difference would there be between a universe that is designed and one that is not, and why?

A universe that's designed appears to have goal oriented features, a human desire meaning, purpose, moral direction, appears goal oriented

-because believers in teleology cannot coherently answer the question of what exactly their position is, as you just failed to do.

Ignoring, for the moment, that everything after "goal-oriented features" entirely fails to parse (it flatly cannot be understood - "a human desire meaning" is an incoherent jumble of words), you failed to answer the "and why" part. And even if we ignore that problem, you just tried to answer the question of "what about the universe makes you think it is goal-oriented?" with "the fact that it is goal-oriented".

The point, because you have failed to grasp it yet again, is that you have not yet supplied a coherent definition of "goal-oriented" that can be shown to apply to the universe.

Try again, Tom.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2017, 04:57 PM
RE: Love sucks???????
(23-02-2017 03:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And the point is wrong, Tom. That is not how the null hypothesis works.

Theistic arguments posit the existence of entities or properties of those entities that are not in immediate evidence. They are, by definition, not the null hypothesis, because they are attempting to establish the existence of something.




The only form of atheism that even remotely works as a null hypothesis when it come to theism is the sort of rebranded agnostic kind, “a lack of belief”. While others forms of atheistic views, such as physciallism, are not the null hypothesis. In fact one can formulate a null hypothesis in regards to someone proposing physciallism is true.

You seem unable to get your head around that idea that positions like physiciallism are not the null hypothesis, it’s an alternative atheistic hypothesis.

Quote:The point that I am making, and the one that you keep failing to grasp, is that the position is incoherent.



Incoherent to who? Is that just your way of saying you have trouble understanding teleology, even when providing you the wikipedia article on it? Plenty of theists and atheists understand what it means, and some even use it analogously for a variety of purposes, such as in biology. I’m not sure how much better I can explain it to you then the wikipedia article which appears to do it quite sufficiently in my view.

Quote:"what about the universe makes you think it is goal-oriented?" with "the fact that it is goal-oriented”.




I said it appears goal-oriented, and that it’s perfectly logical to assume from that appearance, that it is in fact goal-oriented. Let’s give you an example here, such as a common sense moral direction. A person perceives a sense in which he ought to be morally good, be kind to others, be just, be fair, charitable, empathetic, etc…he perceives that he’s oriented in that direction, that he ought to be good, and it’s not matter of his own choice of preference, but a purpose he is to pursue, even if he fails in that endeavor. Now for competent atheists aware of such perceptions, this perception is an illusion. But those who hold it as real, and hold it as illusion, recognize the appearance here. 

The ones who claim it’s an illusion may be right, but it’s still logical to perceive the appearance, and conclude it’s real, thereby holding a teleological view of nature. Where as in a non-teleological view of nature, such goals can not exist, at best their illusions.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: