Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2016, 06:35 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(21-02-2016 10:43 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-02-2016 03:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Not nothing. Tiktaalik
.

The algorithm that is evolution predicts the diversity we see.

Imperfect replication and differential reproduction make evolution certain. Mathematically certain.

I have no use for you, cat man.

Gee, I'm heartbroken.

You have no response because you haven't the faintest idea what my statement means.

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
21-02-2016, 06:49 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(21-02-2016 04:33 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  What the fuck kind is this?

[Image: platypus.jpg]
I guess it's a bird since you can define bird anyway
(21-02-2016 04:49 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  Hey, Call, can you show me the exact point where red stops being red and starts being green in the following image?

Don't worry, I'll wait.

[Image: linear_fill.gif]

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 09:26 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(19-02-2016 03:42 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is no infinite regression. There was also no cause, because a cause requires causality, and causality requires time. Positing a cause for the existence of time is nonsensical.

Be careful here. The bolded statement is adequate for a refutation of CotW's "Kalam" cosmological argument, which does imply causality requiring time, but the standard cosmological argument uses a different type of causality, as per Aristotle and Aquinas. And that type of "causality" is independent of time. It claims that a "First Cause" (i.e., God) is necessary right now for the continued existence of anything right now. It is simultaneous with the things it "causes" (more of a reason or ground than a cause). It's really a different thing than what we intuitively think "cause" means.

NOTE: I don't find the standard cosmological argument convincing either, but we can't refute it by referring to causality requiring time, because it doesn't make that claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 09:42 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-02-2016 09:26 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Be careful here. The bolded statement is adequate for a refutation of CotW's "Kalam" cosmological argument, which does imply causality requiring time, but the standard cosmological argument uses a different type of causality, as per Aristotle and Aquinas. And that type of "causality" is independent of time.

No causality is independent of time. You cannot have cause-effect relationships without time, no matter how many silly, incoherent word games you want to play.

This remains true regardless of whatever incoherence anyone wishes to spout to the contrary. Merely attempting to say "but this kind doesn't because I am really high right now, guys, like seriously you have no idea" changes nothing, and I am not concerned with arguments based on such nonsense.

And, as it is admittedly not what is heing discussed here to begin with, I am really not sure why you bring it up.

"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
22-02-2016, 10:09 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-02-2016 09:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 09:26 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Be careful here. The bolded statement is adequate for a refutation of CotW's "Kalam" cosmological argument, which does imply causality requiring time, but the standard cosmological argument uses a different type of causality, as per Aristotle and Aquinas. And that type of "causality" is independent of time.

No causality is independent of time. You cannot have cause-effect relationships without time, no matter how many silly, incoherent word games you want to play.

This remains true regardless of whatever incoherence anyone wishes to spout to the contrary. Merely attempting to say "but this kind doesn't because I am really high right now, guys, like seriously you have no idea" changes nothing, and I am not concerned with arguments based on such nonsense.

And, as it is admittedly not what is heing discussed here to begin with, I am really not sure why you bring it up.

In philosophical arguments, words often have technical meanings that are different from their everyday meaning, and I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that. "Cause" is such a word. Theistic philosophers like Edward Feser are constantly mocking atheists who argue against a different concept of "cause" than the one that the theistic philosophers are using. That's why I bring it up. You're right, it has little to do with CotW's argument, so I will say no more about it after this post, but there are philosophical uses of the word "cause" that are independent of time. Whether or not that type of cause actually exists is another question, but the word is certainly used that way by some philosophers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 10:38 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-02-2016 10:09 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  In philosophical arguments, words often have technical meanings that are different from their everyday meaning, and I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that. "Cause" is such a word. Theistic philosophers like Edward Feser are constantly mocking atheists who argue against a different concept of "cause" than the one that the theistic philosophers are using. That's why I bring it up. You're right, it has little to do with CotW's argument, so I will say no more about it after this post, but there are philosophical uses of the word "cause" that are independent of time. Whether or not that type of cause actually exists is another question, but the word is certainly used that way by some philosophers.

Yes. That's rather my point. Whatever the specific formulation of the cosmological argument, it fails, because causation requires time. It doesn't matter how hard any given philosopher attempts to redefine the term; their attempt at redefinition is always incoherent, because you cannot have a cause - or a reason, or anything they want to call it - without time.

Labeling it a "reason" is just word games.

"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
22-02-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It is extraordinarily relevant.

It is extraordinary. So extraordinary that it didn't happen.

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's really not. Again, you do not understand what the theory of evolution actually says.

I understand it, I just don't accept it.

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You cannot read.

Thats what I got out of it Laugh out load

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  "All right, Wright. If flight isn't bird magic, why hasn't anyone invented an airplane yet?"

.....

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  DNA.

Yeah, DNA is the ONLY exception...and it JUST so happens that if you INCLUDE DNA with the long lists of "codes" that require intelligent design, your whole worldview will be shattered. Coincidence? No.

Taxi cab fallacy at it best.

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And no, before you respond: that is not circular, as this is the null hypothesis until the existence or requirement of an intelligent agency responsible for its creation is established.

Nonsense. If you want to be consistent in logic, then you'd be agnostic, wouldn't you? You can't logically say "Until we can prove that God did it, then nature did it".

Why? Because you can't even prove that NATURE did it...yet, that is the default position if you negate intelligent design. That is your position.

Nonsense I tell ya, nonsense. But again, since the attitude with you guys is obviously "Anything but God", I don't expect anything different.

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I would advise you to look up integrated information theory and emergent behaviors, but I know that you will not bother and would not understand it if you did.

"I don't have an answer to his tough question, so I will create a diversion; by sending him on a wild goose chase for information that won't even answer his question".

I know the game and I watch it unfold Thumbsup

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I note the lack of actual objection.

"The past is not eternal (infinite regress) nor is there a First Cause to everything"

Oh, I get it. I've offered objections to your other nonsense, so why am I not responding to the above nonsense? Is that the question? Well, all nonsense isn't created equal.

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You seem to be unable to do anything other than ridicule when confronted by fact.

Fact? Laugh out load

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is wrong.

You do not understand evolution.

You are right, I do not understand how a reptile could have evolved into a bird, when I only see reptiles producing reptiles..and birds producing birds.

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And still does not constitute an example of any animal doing otherwise than producing another animal of its own species.

So the bird that the reptile evolved into...they were both of the same species?? Laugh out load

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You do not understand evolution.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, birds produce birds. Anything beyond that is speculation, assumptions, and faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 10:44 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(21-02-2016 04:49 PM)undergroundp Wrote:  Hey, Call, can you show me the exact point where red stops being red and starts being green in the following image?

Don't worry, I'll wait.

[Image: linear_fill.gif]

No, I can't show you the exact point where the red stops being red and starts being green. That is a cool trick you did with the image..

Now, do that same cool trick with actual living organisms. Can you do that for us??

If you can do that, then you will have my attention.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 10:48 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-02-2016 09:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No causality is independent of time. You cannot have cause-effect relationships without time, no matter how many silly, incoherent word games you want to play.

No one has made the argument that God acted independently of time, though. So what do we have here, another straw man?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 10:56 AM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2016 10:59 AM by Chas.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(22-02-2016 10:39 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is wrong.

You do not understand evolution.

You are right, I do not understand how a reptile could have evolved into a bird, when I only see reptiles producing reptiles..and birds producing birds.

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And still does not constitute an example of any animal doing otherwise than producing another animal of its own species.

So the bird that the reptile evolved into...they were both of the same species?? Laugh out load

(21-02-2016 11:09 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You do not understand evolution.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, birds produce birds. Anything beyond that is speculation, assumptions, and faith.

Your silly straw man arguments demonstrate the you really don't understand the theory of evolution.

If we had an unbroken line of offspring and parent from any modern bird back millions of years lined up side by side, you would see no appreciable difference between any two adjacent ones.

But as you move back in time, each one will be a little less bird-like and a little more reptilian. At no point can you point to an adjacent pair and claim one is a reptile and the other a bird.
That is consistent with all of the evidence while your argument about 'kinds' isn't even scientific.

You really should stop using that childish straw man.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: