Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2015, 08:55 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
I'm going to be a bit of a contrarian here and agree with Tomasia that, from the standpoint of a theist, "accidental" is a correct and appropriate word to use. To the theist, there not only could have been intention, there absolutely was intention -- the intention of a supernatural creator. "Accidental" is the alternative to that. From the "strong atheist" viewpoint, it seems nonsensical to say "accidental", but it is a reasonable alternative if you allow the possibility of intention.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
06-08-2015, 09:05 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 08:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  That utterly missed the point. When there is no intentionality possible, no accident is possible - only events.

When you have intentionality, when you have an accident, you also have an event.

Saying that something was only an event, doesn’t imply that intentionality was absent or present, or whether it was an accident or not, the same way that saying that she’s “only a girl”, doesn’t tell us if she was fat or not fat, blonde or brunette, Chinese, or Trinidadian.

“Absence of intentionally” as well as the “Presence of intentionallity” are saying something about the event.

Quote:The anthropic principle is horseshit. It has the cart before the horse.
start: postbit_signature

It doesn’t matter if it’s horseshit, it’s still a horseshit argument for intentionality. In fact to argue that it is horeshit, requires an argument for unintentionality, that it was not deliberate, etc…. Or in other words a strong arguments for it being an “accident”. This is what arguments such as the “blind watchmaker” boil down too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 09:06 AM
Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 08:55 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I'm going to be a bit of a contrarian here and agree with Tomasia that, from the standpoint of a theist, "accidental" is a correct and appropriate word to use. To the theist, there not only could have been intention, there absolutely was intention -- the intention of a supernatural creator. "Accidental" is the alternative to that. From the "strong atheist" viewpoint, it seems nonsensical to say "accidental", but it is a reasonable alternative if you allow the possibility of intention.

But Tomasia maintains he is here to learn what atheists believe and think. So, unless he is being dishonest about his intentions....Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-08-2015, 09:14 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 09:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 08:43 AM)Chas Wrote:  That utterly missed the point. When there is no intentionality possible, no accident is possible - only events.

When you have intentionality, when you have an accident, you also have an event.
You need to study set theory. Facepalm
"Accident" is a subset of "event" - it qualifies it as a certain type of event and that is precisely the issue.
Quote:Saying that something was only an event, doesn’t imply that intentionality was absent or present, or whether it was an accident or not, the same way that saying that she’s “only a girl”, doesn’t tell us if she was fat or not fat, blonde or brunette, Chinese, or Trinidadian.

By qualifying an event as an accident, you are over-specifying it - assuming intentionality where none has been shown to exist.

Quote:“Absence of intentionally” as well as the “Presence of intentionallity” are saying something about the event.

Precisely - see above.

Quote:
Quote:The anthropic principle is horseshit. It has the cart before the horse.
start: postbit_signature

It doesn’t matter if it’s horseshit, it’s still a horseshit argument for intentionality.

What? Consider

Quote:In fact to argue that it is horeshit, requires an argument for unintentionality, that it was not deliberate, etc…. Or in other words a strong arguments for it being an “accident”. This is what arguments such as the “blind watchmaker” boil down too.

The anthropic principle presupposes that humans are supposed to be here. That is assuming facts not in evidence. That is why it is horseshit.

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
06-08-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Drewpaul, you lost me with “mindless forces” in your first paragraph. Other fundamentalists use “random forces” instead. And this is why I have so little respect for the fundamentalist (as opposed to my Roman Catholic wife). I might as well be sending this to Benny Hinn, because I am confident that you both will continue to use mindless and random in your description of nature. But I thought, what the Hell, type up a comment anyway.

I think you already know this (high school chemistry maybe?), but there is nothing mindless or random about the laws of chemistry and physics. Many people have spent centuries determining those rules and laws. There is nothing random about two elements coming together. Based on available electrons, energy states. electron orbitals, etc. (see Periodic Table of the Elements if you are the least bit curious), there are a very limited number of ways for these elements to bond to each other. To imply otherwise, using mindless and random, is dishonest.

You do not have to limit yourself to the biggies like Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Pick up a copy of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (I am looking at my 1969-1970, 50th Edition). Go to Elements, description of and read through a little history.

From that 50th Edition: Fluorine (nasty stuff, I have worked with hydrogen fluoride gas). In 1529, Georgius Agricola described the use of fluorspar as a flux, and as early as 1670 Schandhard found that glass was etched when exposed to fluorspar treated with acid. Scheele and many later investigators, including Davy, Gay-Lussac, Lavoisier, and Thenard, experimented with hydrofluoric acid, some experiments ending in tragedy. The element was finally isolated in 1886 by Moisson after nearly 74 years of continuous effort.

Jesus Christ!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Walter's post
06-08-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 09:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  The anthropic principle presupposes that humans are supposed to be here. That is assuming facts not in evidence. That is why it is horseshit….By qualifying an event as an accident, you are over-specifying it - assuming intentionality where none has been shown to exist.

Well, we all seem to have our own horseshit, and seemingly default beliefs.

Where as you see me as assuming intentionality, I see you as assuming “the absence of intentionality”.

Where as you hold to a non-deliberate, unintentional cause as a default, I see deliberate, intentional causes as a default. Where as you seek that I convince you of my view, I seek that you convince me of yours. Where as you desire me to show you that it was intentional, I desire that you show me it wasn’t, that it was non-deliberate, unintentional. When you have trouble swallowing the word “accident”, it makes your case even less convincing.

You think the intentional perspective is horeshit, I think the unintentional perspective, non-deliberate perceptive proposed by folks like Alex Rosenberg is horseshit. Perhaps you think it smells better than I do.

In a lot of ways there’s a great deal of parallel between you and I, on opposite sides of the fences, though there’s still a great deal of differences. You’re not a governing authority on what is or is not horseshit, because from my perspectives your sitting upon piles and piles of it yourself, but that’s just my opinion. You’ll likely see it all the other way around of course. You may hold your horesshit detector in high esteem, but I think mines is bigger than yours.

We’re always going to meet at these impenetrable intersections. Though I likely enjoy thinking about these intersections more so than you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 07:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, so now you want to argue that car accidents, aren't accidents?

If you drive a car in front of another car, for whatever reason, (inattention, blind spot etc etc) they will collide. It is 100 % probable they will collide. They will be labeled an "accident". You can't REALLLY be this stupid, (can you ?) Oh wait. You can. Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
06-08-2015, 10:40 AM
Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 10:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 07:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, so now you want to argue that car accidents, aren't accidents?

If you drive a car in front of another car, for whatever reason, (inattention, blind spot etc etc) they will collide. It is 100 % probable they will collide. They will be labeled an "accident". You can't REALLLY be this stupid, (can you ?) Oh wait. You can. Weeping

You hear about stupid people of this caliber. But it doesn't prepare you for interacting with them.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 10:42 AM
Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 10:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 07:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yea, so now you want to argue that car accidents, aren't accidents?

If you drive a car in front of another car, for whatever reason, (inattention, blind spot etc etc) they will collide. It is 100 % probable they will collide. They will be labeled an "accident". You can't REALLLY be this stupid, (can you ?) Oh wait. You can. Weeping

And is that a semantically incorrect use of the word ?

"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
06-08-2015, 10:50 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 10:40 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You hear about stupid people of this caliber. But it doesn't prepare you for interacting with them.

You're always here to show your true colors, to be nothing more than a troll. I keep thinking perhaps one days you'd redeem yourself and not be, but you always show your stripes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: