Stephen Meyer

6.55– AAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
SALLY KERN IS HERE!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

7.06– Pretends hes talkin up Darwin. DIRP! John Lynch would be having a seizure.

7.09– Intelligent Design>Evilution

7.10– Meyer is clueless on origin of life and Darwin. He sounds exactly like a parrot. I know the people studying origin of life, and they are waaaaaaay beyond this kindergarten shit Meyers talkin bout. This is like listening to a fourth graders report on ‘origin of life’. My god this hour is going to be long…

7.18– Proteins are ‘precise three-dimensional structures’. News to HIV-1 env, which is not at all precise. Flutters. Pulsates. Causes a lot of trouble, actually… As someone who deals with protein structure and AA neutrality and evolution, this is a very bizarre portion of the talk (as if this whole thing isnt going to be a drug trip LOL!)

7.23– The animation stolen from PBS

7.24– I get it. I get what Meyer is doing. Superficial, and incorrect statements to elicit a ‘GEE WIZ!’ response in audience. Cells = CAD.

7.27– ‘Origin of information in DNA’. HAHAHA I made all the mathematicians *facepalm*

7.30– INFORMATION! Bored. Before he was talking under the audience, now hes talking over them and confusing them/terms. Bored….. CHARLES THAXTON!

7.37– I think hes just reading an outline. This talk is really weird. Like, hes saying the same thing over and over, or saying the same thing in different ways… over and over.

7.40– Bored. Now watching porn.

7.43– My god this is weird… Glad Im not a mathematician right now. Pretty sure theyre raging right now. Im just still bored. Hes on stage, multiplying numbers, trying to tell everyone the odds of something spontaneously generating… not evolving. BUY MY BOOK!

7.49– Ian, “You know what you should do, Abbie”
Me, “Wat?”
Ian, “Yo, Meyer, Im really happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but I just got to say Susana Manrubia is one of the best astrobiologist of all time!”

8.01– Why isnt this over yet? Talking about discussions he had in 1985. This is liek, so current. I was 2 years old. 2.

8.07– Rosetta Stone was made by people, NOT NATURE! SUCK IT, EVOLANDERS!

8.10– So, apparently my research is impossible. Theres a big orange X over exactly what I do in the lab, every day. Wish I could take a pic to rub his nose in it when I publish, LOL! Loser.

8.12– JUNK DNA!!!

8.14– Problem: I dont think I can ask a Q without taking a dig at Kern. Giving Ian my car keys– Hes not going to give them back unless I stay away from her.

8.22 Q&A– Meyer doesnt believe in ERVs, Alus, or pseudogenes.

8.24 Q&A– Meyer doesnt know what a ribozyme is. Oh wait, ya he does! Kinda! I mean, he used the word… But then brushed them off, LOL!

8.34 Q&A– So, basically scientists can never ‘prove’ evilution, because if we do experiments that use randomness/chance/necessity and get new information, there is intelligence involved.

8.37 Q&A– Kerns husband– JUNK DNA DIRP!!! Specially created junk DNA AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHA!!! Humans and chimps are specially created!!! AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Im embarased for him!

Meyers is diggin it! Humans and Chimps might not be related! AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! He knows whos paying him!!

What a waste of time.

Comments

  1. #1 Tyler DiPietro
    October 5, 2009

    “That’s why I keep wanting someone to prove materialism/naturalism.”

    I thought we were arguing over the reality of evolution.

    “Everything depends on the presuppositions…”

    And presuppositions can be of varying quality. Mathematicians, for instance, spent the better part of the last century arguing over the justifiability of using some version of the Axiom of Choice. Just because you can make presuppositions which yield valid conclusions doesn’t mean that those presuppositions yield sound conclusions.

    “Internal consistency is enough to disqualify any worldview I’ve ever encountered except for mine…”

    A real mastery of philosophy would allow you to avoid red herrings like this. You still haven’t provided any method for discerning truth.

    Sure you are. “ID needs to be falsifiable. But not the scientific method.”

    You’re glossing over details and creating a strawman.

    Here is my contention, as clear as day: logically contingent propositions or hypotheses about empirical phenomena have to be falsifiable. This does not apply to methodological claims, which have their own meta-scientific justifications. It also doesn’t apply to tautological claims in propositional calculus or higher order logic, since we know a priori that such things are true regardless of assignment to the variables.

  2. #2 Joshua White
    October 5, 2009

    Um, you were the one who made the boneheaded statement, not I. May I suggest the retraction, medium-rare? It goes well with a robust Bella Sera.

    you are going to have to expand on that because I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Also I still need an example of where falsifiability is being applied inconsistently.

  3. #3 Rhology
    October 5, 2009

    Tyler @201
    I thought we were arguing over the reality of evolution.

    We have to go deeper since you claim your worldview can explain the data we observe. I claim my worldview explains those data just as well. Now it’s off to see which worldview is right, since if my worldview is true, ToE is false.

    Just because you can make presuppositions which yield valid conclusions doesn’t mean that those presuppositions yield sound conclusions.

    Which is itself one of the criticisms I level against materialism. Also, atheists often borrow from the explanatory power of the Christian worldview and then act like their worldview is valid as well, b/c they thought the thought and they’re an atheist, not realising the limitation of their presuppositions.
    For example, I had begun questioning you about the laws of logic. On materialism, is it possible that they exist? If not, then materialism cannot account for even the most basic of rational questions. So, is materialism your position? If not, what else besides matter, energy, and the observable universe exists, and how do you know?

    You still haven’t provided any method for discerning truth.

    2 basic ways – divine revelation and logic.
    Now, how do YOU discern truth? If via inductive empirical observation, how do you know that inductive empirical observation correctly discerns truth, and that your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true thoughts?

    As far as your statement on falsifiability, I’m happy for you that you have a cute little statement you can use.

    Joshua White,
    Go back and read the last 2 posts of yours and the last 2 of mine. If you can’t figure it out, you’re not someone I need to spend my time on anyway.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  4. #4 Shirakawasuna
    October 5, 2009

    Joshua White wrote: “Where does Shirakawasuna say that falsifiability is not crucial? She says that the “argument is skipped over” on occasion. But I am pretty certain that what she means by that is that falsifiability is so ingrained into our thinking processes for experimental design, that it is assumed and not mentioned unless someone else sees a proposed experiment that is unfalsifiable.”

    Precisely. Also, I’m a dude (as if it matters).

    Did you notice, Brian, how Joshua understood the point quite well and I didn’t need to correct him? Notice how long the explanation took versus saying ‘no rabbit in the precambrian’. It’s nice to avoid being pedantic so you don’t overwhelm the audience, especially when the intended target is ignorant of biology…

  5. #5 Shirakawasuna
    October 5, 2009

    Rhology: “Fine, but we’ve already seen that the principle of falsifiability (PoF) is discarded when it doesn’t fit in. You bring it up as a rebuttal; I’m pointing out that you apply it inconsistently. I agree it’s useful in general, but not always.”

    Nonsense. You simply don’t understand the nature of falsifiability: the evidences must be weighed against one another. A single result going contrary to what is expected may or may not falsify the hypothesis or theory, depending on how ‘conclusive’ it is: in physics, a single precise observation can destroy a notion because extremely specific predictions can be made and easily refuted (conceptually). On the other hand, when there’s a large body of evidence for a more general idea, i.e. common descent, and contrary evidence suffers from the same touches of ambiguity as ‘positive’ evidence (e.g. geological events move fossils around so the substrate is extremely important). A single precambrian rabbit would be evidence against common descent. A set of precambrian rabbits from different deposits would force a rethinking of it (falsification). Yet more evidence of ‘out of place’ clades would add to this until the idea is discarded. That’s what you expect from a theory drawing from large amounts of evidence, each part of which can have ambiguity (but on the whole, there’s a clearn pattern).

    Of course, this is all for the purposes of theological masturbation. There aren’t Precambrian rabbits, Rho.

    “Tyler DiPiero said that. I’m not at all sure that Shirakawasuna has even followed that convo with any comprehension.”

    Hahahahaha, man you can be bitchy, Rho, for someone who hasn’t even responded to my points yet continues to make the same mistakes corrected in them.

  6. #6 Joshua White
    October 5, 2009

    Go back and read the last 2 posts of yours and the last 2 of mine. If you can’t figure it out, you’re not someone I need to spend my time on anyway.

    That’s funny considering that you are the one that has no idea what they are talking about as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. Something that I have proven thoroughly in this thread.

    Speak clearly or fuck off!! Seriously, you are the one in this post who comes on to a science friendly blog and can not make themselves understood. I totally understand why vhutchenson did not understand what you were talking about after the talk. You can not make your self understood. Do you even want people to understand you? Seriously, at this point you seem to be simply trying to confuse people and declare victory like a common creationist.

    Explain where falsifiability is being used inconsistently or fuck off! Also expand on what you were talking about because you are making no sense! I am not going to patronize your detraction tactics. Seriously you have no idea what you are talking about. On a creationist blog you would be lauded with no criticism but not here!

  7. #7 Tyler DiPietro
    October 5, 2009

    “For example, I had begun questioning you about the laws of logic. On materialism, is it possible that they exist?”

    You are in desperate need of a course on formal logic. Tautologies follow once you define operators (conjunction, disjunction, conditional, etc.) via their effect on truth values, since there are statements that are true regardless of truth assignment to specific variables. They are abstract, which is distinct from supernatural.

    “Now, how do YOU discern truth? If via inductive empirical observation, how do you know that inductive empirical observation correctly discerns truth…”

    I’m not saying it does. In mathematical terms the process of induction enumerates truth, in that it can approximate some ideal empirical truth from above or below. Check out any of the literature on Solomonoff induction and/or Bayesian decision theory.

    “…and that your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true thoughts?”

    You need to make a distinction between “are” and “can be”. They don’t always have to be correct to be justified in use. Given my observations up till now, there is a low probability that I am, in fact, a cabbage (analogy due to commenter abb3w, who posts around these parts). But I discount that particular possibility without being absolutely certain.

  8. #8 Tyler DiPietro
    October 5, 2009

    BTW Rho, I can’t help but notice that your methods of discerning truth, even if accepted for the sake of argument, do not include any method for resolving contingent empirical propositions or hypotheses (like evolution or ID). That was actually what I had in mind.

  9. #9 Rhology
    October 6, 2009

    Tyler @207 –
    there are statements that are true regardless of truth assignment to specific variables. They are abstract, which is distinct from supernatural.

    Didn’t claim they were supernatural. I asked you about materialism. Mind answering the question, please?

    In mathematical terms the process of induction enumerates truth, in that it can approximate some ideal empirical truth from above or below.

    My question is more fundamental than that. On what I think is your worldview (and you can correct me if I’m wrong on this), you are a collection of atoms banging around, producing chemical reactions within your brain, much like a can of Dr Pepper shaken up. Dr Pepper produces gas in bubbles, your brain produces brain gas that you call “thoughts”. How do you know they can produce ANY true thoughts?

    Given my observations up till now, there is a low probability that I am, in fact, a cabbage

    You THINK you’re not a cabbage.
    We’ve been down this road recently before, and you should know where I’m headed – I see no reason a materialistic worldview doesn’t lead just as justifiably to extreme skepticism and solipsism as to what most materialists actually think, that they can indeed access the outisde world and think about it.
    Fortunately, such is not at all true of the Christian worldview. Puts a smile on my face, to be honest.

    your methods of discerning truth, even if accepted for the sake of argument, do not include any method for resolving contingent empirical propositions or hypotheses (like evolution or ID).

    Sure they do. It’s a common misconception on the part of materialists and Darwinists that the Christian worldview doesn’t include any natural component, but that’s totally wrong. In fact, Christianity is the only worldview in which science makes any sense and finds its justification, since it solves the problem of induction whereas materialism can’t. Christianity holds that the natural AND the supernatural and immaterial (the latter two of which are not interchangeable) all exist. You get careless b/c the creation event was a one-time miracle and so we argue that a natural explanation won’t suffice. You thus conclude that we categorise EVERYthing as a supernatural event, when in reality very few events are supernatural.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  10. #10 Joshua White
    October 6, 2009

    Precisely. Also, I’m a dude (as if it matters).

    Ack, sorry. I need to start googling names to get the sex right.

  11. #11 Joshua White
    October 6, 2009

    Also I meant to say “distraction tactics” in my #206 comment. Why do the really arrogant creationists always have to play annoying games. Just get to the fucking point and be clear.

  12. #12 phantomreader42
    October 6, 2009

    Rhology being stabbed to death with his own rubber shiv:

    My question is more fundamental than that. On what I think is your worldview (and you can correct me if I’m wrong on this), you are a wad of mud magically animated by the invisible man in the sky, much like the Pilsbury Doughboy. The Doughboy giggles when poked, the magic man in the sky makes you produce giggles that you laughably call “thoughts” purely for his own musement. How do you know they can produce ANY true thoughts?

    Rhology, YOU are the one who has been going around claiming that all reality is contingent on the whims of an all-powerful being whose motives are beyond our comprehension. YOU are the one who thinks that things actually observed in the real world don’t exist, unless the magic man in the sky says so. YOU are the one who worships a deranged trickster who can rewrite reality on a whim, who speaks through a magic book and by causing hallucinations. YOU are the one who asserts that true thoughts are impossible. Of course, you haven’t ever even tried to support your claims with evidence, since the very concept of evidence is anathema to your cult.

    Rhology babbling more idiocy:

    Christianity is the only worldview in which science makes any sense and finds its justification

    [CITATION NEEDED]

    Either you actually believe this, in which case you’re too delusional to ever be reachable, or you don’t believe it, in which case you’re a lying sack of shit. Either way you’re a worthless phony who flees in terror from reality.

    Your cult doesn’t get to declare itself the source of all knowledge.

    YOU are the one who keeps saying that everything is dependent on worldview, so why don’t YOU prove your own worldview? Simple, you know you can’t, because your worldview is an absurd load of crap based on the whims of a magic man in the sky who can’t even be bothered to show himself. Why don’t YOU prove you’re not a cabbage using only “the christian worldview”? Because you’re too much of a coward to even attempt it.

    Another bald assertion pulled from Rhology’s anus:

    Christianity holds that the natural AND the supernatural and immaterial (the latter two of which are not interchangeable) all exist.

    So, where is your EVIDENCE that the “supernatural” and the “immaterial” acutally exist? For that matter, since you assert that both of these things exist, and are distinct, can you even attempt to provide a definition? Don’t strain yourself, we all know you’re utterly incapable of supporting any of your assertions.

  13. #13 Shirakawasuna
    October 6, 2009

    You’re either extraordinarily incompetent or a liar, Rho. All one has to do is quote you back to yourself. Where is the method for resolving empirical and materially-contingent hypotheses?

    “2 basic ways – divine revelation and logic.
    Now, how do YOU discern truth? If via inductive empirical observation, how do you know that inductive empirical observation correctly discerns truth, and that your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true thoughts?”

    Divine revelation does not give one a way to find a discernable pattern of lafe and test it. If it has any meaning at all, it failed repeatedly and yet was still highly respected until alternatives came about like explanations of cosmology and the transmutation of organisms. You know, science.

    Deduction is great, but without an inductive portion your premises have no grounding in empiricism. I would hope that would be obvious.

    Parroting Plantinga will also get you nowhere…

  14. #14 Rhology
    October 6, 2009

    phantomreader42 @212 –

    YOU are the one…

    God has revealed Himself as a truthful being who does not lie and whose promises are true and reliable. That’s the basis of my solid epistemology.
    Now, you wasted a lot of space whining and using naughty words when you could have been answering the question. Answer the question.

    Your cult doesn’t get to declare itself the source of all knowledge

    1) Prove it. Start by providing a basis for intelligibility on materialistic presuppositions, as I keep asking you to.
    2) 2 strawmen. I’m not a member of a cult, and we’re not the source of all knowledge. God is the BASIS for all reason, knowledge, and intelligibility, but we’re hardly the only ones who know God.

    Why don’t YOU prove you’re not a cabbage using only “the christian worldview”?

    Ph42, you’re barely worth talking to b/c you’re so intentionally offensive and so amazingly ignorant of the other side.
    Genesis 1 says that God created man in His own image, and the doctrine of man runs all throughout the entire Bible. We have more value than cabbage b/c God has placed more value on us by His generous love and shown it by dying to save His people. He didn’t die for cabbage.
    Now, on your worldview, prove you carry more value and can think better than a cabbage, please.

    Shira @213 -

    Divine revelation does not give one a way to find a discernable pattern of lafe and test it

    When you said “lafe”, did you mean “life”? If not, sorry, I didn’t understand.
    This discussion is about the viability of your presuppositions, and here you simply beg the question by imposing your presuppositions onto my own worldview. I don’t grant that “testing it” in the sense that you most probably mean it (ie, by scientific experimentation) is the only way to discover truth, and I dispute that science’s ability to find truth is even possible on materialism, since I haven’t seen why thinking that one’s cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true thoughts is a preferable view to extreme skepticism and solipsism, on materialism. You’ve got work to do; get on it.
    Instead of blindly ripping Plantinga, just answer the questions. It’ll save everyone some time.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  15. #15 phantomreader42
    October 6, 2009

    Rhology:

    God has revealed Himself as a truthful being who does not lie and whose promises are true and reliable. That’s the basis of my solid epistemology.

    THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD:

    Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (1 Kings 22:23)

    Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. (Jeremiah 4:10)

    And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. (Ezekiel 14:9)

    For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

    Okay, Rhology, there’s what your precious “divine revelation” says, now admit that “the basis of your solid epistemology” is a load of shit, or fuck off.

  16. #16 Tommykey
    October 6, 2009

    Hey phantomreader42, take a deep breath and calm down. I used to be the same way, but then you realize, “so he disagrees with me! Big deal!” We believe we’re right and Rhology is wrong, and he believes the opposite. No need to get all hot and bothered about it.

    Now, on your worldview, prove you carry more value and can think better than a cabbage, please.

    What kind of cabbage? There are over 400 varieties!

    http://homecooking.about.com/od/howtocookvegetables/a/cabbagevariety.htm

    But seriously, what is this “think better than a cabbage” nonsense? In what sense are cabbages in any way in competition with people that they can outhink us? “Damn, I thought I had my client acquitted for sure, but then that damned cabbage attorney for the prosecution destroyed my star witness on cross-examination!”

    Their value, such as it is, lies in that a segment of the population likes to eat them (though not I), so either people who like cabbages grow them themselves in their own vegetable gardens, or farmers make an income growing and selling them on the market. To ask whether cabbage has more value than a human is a meaningless comparison because there is no situation where one comes into conflict with the other.

    Probably a more apt comparison would be whether humans can “think” better than microbes. Now there is a situation wherein two forms of life are in conflict with one another. We can create antibiotics to combat bacterial infections, but then the buggers develop immunity to it over time. Other bacteria are beneficial to us (as well as other organisms) in terms of promoting the digestion of food. So, if God allegedly created Man to have dominion over the Earth, bacteria seem not to have gotten the message.

    Genesis 1 says that God created man in His own image

    Who cares what Genesis says? I need corroboration in order to accept that the planet Earth was created, with plants on it, before the sun around which it orbits. Like I wrote to you in another thread, I need to see the human detritus that one should expect to show a post-Flood human migration from Mesopotamia into Egypt and thence throughout Africa. Instead, what we have found shows the opposite, that humanity arose in Africa and then spread into the Middle East. Sorry, but making a special pleading that the Bible is the highest authority on the matter just doesn’t cut it for me.

    and the doctrine of man runs all throughout the entire Bible.

    Of course it does, because it was written by men. It’s a product of human egocentrism. Our planet was created before all other heavenly bodies. God put stars in the sky to provide us with light at night, never mind the fact that many of these stars have planets of their own for which they are the primary source of light and heat. “God has a special plan for me.” When it comes right down to it, your worldview is a construct to provide yourself with a sense of self-validation because either you felt on your own or someone else convinced you that you were missing something in your life. Again, as I’ve told you before, if that’s what gets you through the day, that’s just fine by me. It is more important to be that you have a happy, fulfilled life than whether or not you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist.

    Regards,

    TK

  17. #17 Tommykey
    October 6, 2009

    Darn, meant “It is more important to me”!

  18. #18 Rhology
    October 6, 2009

    ph42,

    And about whom are all of those psgs speaking? About those who had abundant access to the truth and yet have turned their hearts and minds away from God. He just ratifies their decision. Most atheists are big fans of freewill; what’s wrong with God respecting the choices made by autonomous human agents?
    In the future, I don’t recommend making an argument against a knowledgeable Christian (especially a Calvinist) by just doing biblegateway word searches and copy+pasting the results or using the Skeptics Annotated Bible. Just doesn’t turn out well.

    Tommy,
    In what sense are cabbages in any way in competition with people that they can outhink us?

    I contend that, if materialism is true, there is no reason to believe your cognitive faculties work better (ie, can produce true thoughts) than those of a cabbage. So prove me wrong.

    Their value, such as it is, lies in that a segment of the population likes to eat them

    Humans’ value, such as it is, lies in that a segment of the population likes to eat them. A small segment, but so what?

    Sorry, but making a special pleading that the Bible is the highest authority on the matter just doesn’t cut it for me.

    Yes, I know that. But since you hold to materialism, which is irrational, that doesn’t bother me.

  19. #19 Tommykey
    October 6, 2009

    I contend that, if materialism is true, there is no reason to believe your cognitive faculties work better (ie, can produce true thoughts) than those of a cabbage. So prove me wrong.

    I just gave you an example to show the absurdity of your challenge as to whether cabbages have better cognitive faculties than humans. You would need some criteria to demonstrate it. Besides, your contention as to what materialism means if it is true is not binding on the rest of us. I don’t need to prove you wrong because your contention is ridiculous on its face.

    Humans’ value, such as it is, lies in that a segment of the population likes to eat them. A small segment, but so what?

    That’s nowhere near as clever as you think it is.

  20. #20 Rhology
    October 6, 2009

    Nuh UH! YOUR contention as to what ID means if it is true is not binding on the rest of us. I don’t need to prove you wrong because your contention is ridiculous on its face.

    ;-)

    Seriously. Argument, please.

  21. #21 Fortuna
    October 6, 2009

    Rhology;

    And about whom are all of those psgs speaking? About those who had abundant access to the truth and yet have turned their hearts and minds away from God. He just ratifies their decision.

    I can’t see any way to reconcile this viewpoint with Ezekiel 14:9. It explicitly says that God is the cause of the deception, not that he’s merely rolling along with it.

    Most atheists are big fans of freewill; what’s wrong with God respecting the choices made by autonomous human agents?

    On Calvinism, human agents aren’t free to make any choices other than the ones that God knows ahead of time that they will make. As such, you must maintain that God created millions, if not billions, of people for the express purpose of roasting them in the celestial barbecue for all eternity. Since you also maintain that God is omnipotent and omniscient, you must also accept that God could have chosen to create people otherwise, but didn’t.

    For those reasons, one could say that what’s “wrong” with God respecting choices is that he’s deliberately behaving like a massive prick.

    I contend that, if materialism is true, there is no reason to believe your cognitive faculties work better (ie, can produce true thoughts) than those of a cabbage.

    Whether materialism is true or not, there’s no reason to suppose that cabbages have any cognitive faculties at all.

    By contrast, whether materialism is true or not, it isn’t possible to maintain that one’s cognitive faculties cannot produce true thoughts, even in principle.

    So prove me wrong.

    You put out a contention, but it’s someone else’s job to prove it wrong. Does that strike you as backwards at all?

    Humans’ value, such as it is, lies in that a segment of the population likes to eat them. A small segment, but so what?

    I thought that humans’ value, such as it is, lies in the declaration of such by an invisible, omnipotent wizard.

    But since you hold to materialism, which is irrational

    In what sense is materialism irrational?

  22. #22 Optimus Primate
    October 6, 2009

    Rhology said:

    I contend that, if materialism is true, there is no reason to believe your cognitive faculties work better (ie, can produce true thoughts) than those of a cabbage. So prove me wrong.

    Here’s the thing, though, Rho: you’re making wild, untestable claims, then asking to be proven wrong, without clearly stating what sort of thing you would accept as proof. On top of that, your contention is simply so ludicrous, one wonders how to even begin addressing it. You’re comparing the brain — whose inner workings are so complex as to be downright baffling — to a shaken up can of soda or a cabbage.

    I mean, seriously. One has to assume you’re just arguing for the sake of argument. The mechanism of thought may not be completely understood, but at least it’s known. And it can be measured. Hook up an EEG to a cabbage and anyone can plainly see that it’s a vegetable, whether materialism is true or goddidit.

    You’re playing freshman philosophy here, and quite frankly no one is impressed except for you.

  23. #23 phantomreader42
    October 6, 2009

    So, rhology, do you admit that the god you worship is a liar (as stated in the bible)? Or are you going to pretend that your precious “divine revelation” is only reliable when it’s convenient for YOU? If your god can’t be depended on to tell the truth, then divine revelation is worthless as a means of arriving at the truth, since it’s nothing more than another way to be lied to.

    Of course, we all know you don’t really give a flying fuck about the truth, you just want an excuse to keep deluding yourself. This is why you love this presuppositionalist bullshit, you just wrap yourself in delusion to hide from reality, reject all evidence, and flee in abject terror from the burden of proof.

  24. #24 Fortuna
    October 6, 2009

    Incidentally, it also occurs to me to point out that the evidence for evolution looks like evidence for evolution regardless of whether you “presuppose” materialism or Christianity, analogous to the way that a family tree constructed using genetic sequencing is evidence for relation by common descent, regardless of whether you like to believe in Big Spooky Person or not.

    Sure, BSP could have poofed the Johnsons into existence ex nihilo looking just as we would expect, in every detail, if they came to be through the usual messy biological processes. That doesn’t detract from the explanatory power of positing common descent; you don’t have to actively assume there’s no BSP to acknowledge that common descent explains their apparent relatedness.

  25. #25 Eric Saveau
    October 6, 2009

    Rho-

    I contend that, if materialism is true, there is no reason to believe your cognitive faculties work better (ie, can produce true thoughts) than those of a cabbage.

    That’s an assertion. Argument, please.

    God has revealed Himself as a truthful being who does not lie and whose promises are true and reliable.

    That’s an assertion. Argument, please.

    Christianity is the only worldview in which science makes any sense and finds its justification, since it solves the problem of induction whereas materialism can’t.

    That’s an assertion. Argument, please.

    atheists often borrow from the explanatory power of the Christian worldview

    That’s an assertion. Argument, please.

    I’m more interested in logic.

    That’s not an assertion, it’s a weak joke. Argument, please.

    God is the BASIS for all reason, knowledge, and intelligibility

    Seriously. Argument, please.

  26. #26 Tyler DiPietro
    October 6, 2009

    “Didn’t claim they were supernatural. I asked you about materialism. Mind answering the question, please?”

    Well, if they’re not supernatural, then there is nothing excluding their possibility under materialism, is there?

    “My question is more fundamental than that. On what I think is your worldview (and you can correct me if I’m wrong on this), you are a collection of atoms banging around, producing chemical reactions within your brain, much like a can of Dr Pepper shaken up.”

    Chemical reactions are some of the most orderly things in the universe, we can describe them with relatively precise mathematics. I see no problem with admitting my thoughts are the results of physical and chemical processes.

    Let us take another observation for the purpose of analogy. A modern semiconductor based electronic computer is based on the exact kind of process you describe, yet it can implement precise algorithms. Our brains are much the same way, except observably more messy.

    “Sure they do. It’s a common misconception on the part of materialists and Darwinists that the Christian worldview doesn’t include any natural component, but that’s totally wrong. In fact, Christianity is the only worldview in which science makes any sense and finds its justification, since it solves the problem of induction whereas materialism can’t.”

    This is a handwave. If you only accept divine revelation and logic you can only believe in those things which can be shown to follow analytically from the divine revelation. What is the explicit solution to the problem of induction that follows from divine revelation?

  27. #27 Tommykey
    October 6, 2009

    Nuh UH! YOUR contention as to what ID means if it is true is not binding on the rest of us. I don’t need to prove you wrong because your contention is ridiculous on its face. ;-)

    Seriously. Argument, please.

    I didn’t make any contention as to what ID means. However, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Heck, you’re comparing apples to broccoli.

    You keep making these wildly unsupported contentions that under materialism or naturalism that I can’t trust this or that or how do I know I am not this or that. Funny then that I don’t encounter these dilemmas that you think I should be encountering.

    ID, as I understand it, is a way of trying to argue that the universe must be created by an intelligent entity because it is too complex to have come about by the result of purely natural forces. As I have written numerous times, I don’t rule out 100% that there is no higher intelligence. What I don’t see is how you go from an immensely powerful being capable of creating a vast universe filled with billions of galaxies each filled with billions of stars and planets to aforesaid creator acting as a tribal god to a confederation of semi-nomadic tribesmen in a patch of land in the Middle East for a couple of thousand years and then impregnating a virgin Jewish teenage girl in the Galilee.

    As I wrote in an earlier comment today, which you seemed to have not noticed, “as I’ve told you before, if that’s what gets you through the day, that’s just fine by me. It is more important to me that you have a happy, fulfilled life than whether or not you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist.

    When I say I don’t need to prove anything to you, what I mean by that is that I don’t see it as my goal to get you to renounce Christianity, accept evolution or become a secular humanist. All I can do is tell you why I don’t believe what you believe. You immersed yourself in the denomination of Christianity in which you find yourself because it provides you with a sense of validation. It’s a shame really, because you obviously are a very bright guy, but psychologically you feel the need to buy into a world view that separates what you believe to be you and a select few who are “saved” by virtue of a specific religious belief, and the rest of the human race who are doomed to damnation and suffering because we don’t buy into what you believe. You don’t have to be that way, Alan, and I really hope one day you find the wisdom and the courage to escape from it.

  28. #28 Shirakawasuna
    October 7, 2009

    Rhology, you avoided the point. You did *not* list any way to deal with inference, despite your claim that your methods for discerning truth can resolve contingent empirical questions. I believe your words were, “sure they do”, as you went off on talking about how Christians believe in a natural world and the immaterial. HOWEVER, none of that actually resolves contingent empirical questions – you don’t simply declare ‘X exists’ if you don’t have a reason for saying why, otherwise it’s arbitrary and lacking, you know, methodology.

    If you want an argument about Plantinga, you’ll have to tell us why it’s relevant to your failures at attacking science and the scientific method rather than being yet another rabbit hole.

  29. #29 Rhology
    October 7, 2009

    Fortuna 221
    there’s no reason to suppose that cabbages have any cognitive faculties at all.

    Absent an argument from you, I don’t see why we would think that about humans. What’s the difference? Just an ugly bag of mostly water, atoms banging around.
    It’s not as fun when someone is skeptical of YOUR view, is it?

    whether materialism is true or not, it isn’t possible to maintain that one’s cognitive faculties cannot produce true thoughts, even in principle.

    No, I want to know why one would maintain that on materialism.
    I obviously don’t accept materialism, so I don’t doubt them mostly, but this is one of the reasons why I’m not a materialist.
    Given your “wizard” comment, you don’t understand what I’m talking about. This will help.

    You put out a contention, but it’s someone else’s job to prove it wrong. Does that strike you as backwards at all?

    You contend Darwinism, but it’s my job to prove it wrong? Does that strike you as backwards at all?

    Optimus Primate 222
    You’re comparing the brain — whose inner workings are so complex as to be downright baffling — to a shaken up can of soda or a cabbage.

    You can build up an awesome mess of complexity by accident, so you need to demonstrate something other than complexity to demonstrate intent. Weather patterns are complex.
    So it’s complex, so what? Why should I listen to sthg more complex than another thing?

    The mechanism of thought may not be completely understood, but at least it’s known. And it can be measured.

    Congratulations, you mark electrical signals from a brain. Now tell me why I should trust them or think they can access reality or produce true thoughts.

    ph42 223
    Whenever you feel like interacting with the context of your Bible psgs to show where I’m wrong, we can talk.

    Fortuna 224
    Sure, BSP could have poofed the Johnsons into existence ex nihilo looking just as we would expect, in every detail, if they came to be through the usual messy biological processes. That doesn’t detract from the explanatory power of positing common descent

    Except it would be false. Guess YOU’RE not a scientific realist…

    Tyler 226,
    if they’re not supernatural, then there is nothing excluding their possibility under materialism

    Did I not say that immaterial is not identical to supernatural?
    So… the laws of logic are material, then? Of what elements are they composed? Where are they found? If they were to be destroyed, would it become true that they were in fact not destroyed?
    No, of course not – they are immaterial, abstract, universal principles. And therefore not matter. Materialism posits all is matter and energy. Materialism is false.

    A modern semiconductor based electronic computer is based on the exact kind of process you describe, yet it can implement precise algorithms. Our brains are much the same way, except observably more messy.

    1) Computers are intelligently designed.
    2) You THINK your brain is the same way, but you’re still assuming what you need to prove – that your brain can produce true thoughts (in this case, about the computer).

    If you only accept divine revelation and logic you can only believe in those things which can be shown to follow analytically from the divine revelation.

    Except in this case the revelation also promises stability in the universe and the power of inductive observation, thus solving the problem of induction and also the problem of extreme skepticism and solipsism. God has promised the world will operate according to these physical laws until the End, the Eschaton, and that’s the solution. Materialism has no such power.

    Tommykey 227,
    Funny then that I don’t encounter these dilemmas that you think I should be encountering.

    It’s b/c you’re not looking, and b/c you borrow liberally from Christianity on these important epistemological and metaphysical topics. Like, you make moral judgments whereas materialism offers ZERO basis for any normative morality. You act like a Christian and then retreat to materialism when convenient.

    It’s a shame really, because you obviously are a very bright guy, but psychologically you feel the need to buy into a world view that separates what you believe to be you and a select few who are “saved” by virtue of a specific religious belief,

    There’s a perfect example of what I mean. You are one bag of protoplasm among billions, on an insignificant planet in a speck of a smallish galaxy, and you’d presume to make some kind of judgment about what’s a shame or not? To know what’s good and bad, or compare my life to some standard and find it wanting?
    At least TRY to be consistent.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  30. #30 Optimus Primate
    October 7, 2009

    Rhology obviously thought he was making a good point when he said:

    Congratulations, you mark electrical signals from a brain. Now tell me why I should trust them or think they can access reality or produce true thoughts.

    Given your disconnect with reality, Rho, I honestly couldn’t care less whether you trust them or not. I just wish you would stop pulling elementary philosophy like this out of your ass and pretending you’re saying something intelligent. You’re not.

    To answer your question in a roundabout way, though: I trust the measure of electrical signals as a good indicator of cognitive activity because, as a rule, the presence of such electrical signals in a person coincides with consciousness. I can interact with a person whose EEG indicates consciousness. We can share ideas. They’re doing all of the things they need to do to indicate that they’re actually, you know, thinking.

    When those electrical signals aren’t present, sorry, I’m not getting much out of them.

    Furthermore, activity in different regions of the brain is consistent with specific components of consciousness. By measuring electrical activity and blood flow in the brain, we can literally see things like depression and musical ability manifest.

    You know these things, jackass. You’re perfectly well aware of them, yet you still insist upon making such ridiculous arguments, which leads me to believe you’re just sticking your fingers in your ear and singing “I’m Henery the Eighth, I Am” to amuse yourself.

    Seriously, I’m very nearly bored with you.

  31. #31 Rhology
    October 7, 2009

    All you’ve done here is beg the question, Optimus. You apparently don’t understand what I’m getting at. This will help you, too.
    You’re doing two things:
    1) Expressing your blind, unproven faith in your own reason. (God calls this idolatry.)
    2) Borrowing, ironically, from Christianity, in which human cognitive faculties ARE trustworthy. When are you going to be consistent enough either to stop arguing with anyone about anything or change to a worldview that actually does support rational argumentation?

    Peace,
    Rhology

  32. #32 Fortuna
    October 7, 2009

    Rhology;

    there’s no reason to suppose that cabbages have any cognitive faculties at all.

    Absent an argument from you, I don’t see why we would think that about humans.

    I assume by “that” you mean “that humans have any cognitive faculties at all”, rather than what you’re quoting, which is the point I was trying to make about cabbages.

    What’s the difference? Just an ugly bag of mostly water, atoms banging around.

    I suspect you are well aware of the biochemical differences between cabbages and humans, but do not consider differing biochemistry relevant in itself.

    And my bag is quite pretty, thanks, although you may get a differing opinion from crystalline entities.

    It’s not as fun when someone is skeptical of YOUR view, is it?

    Eh? Why would you assume I find skepticism unpleasant? Jumping to conclusions much?

    No, I want to know why one would maintain that on materialism.

    If one thinks to onself “I cannot think true thoughts”, you’ve contradicted yourself.

    Given your “wizard” comment, you don’t understand what I’m talking about. This will help.

    Will it? That looks like an incredibly boring pile of dreck. I especially liked this:

    In his (the skeptic’s) view of origins, the material universe sprang into being from nothing and under not rational oversight. The rational, then, is built upon the irrational.

    Aaaaaand false dichotomy for the win!

    I also like the continual reification of the “laws of logic”, which I gather is a signature move of yours, and the cute little demolition of naive empiricism.

    Seriously, if there’s a relevant point in there, you’re gonna have to spell it out for me, real clear-like.

    You contend Darwinism, but it’s my job to prove it wrong?

    No, dear. That was rather the point.

    Does that strike you as backwards at all?

    It would in a world where I had made such a claim.

    Except it would be false.

    You’ll note, in my example, that I didn’t say that BSP actually did poof the Johnsons into exixtence ex nihilo, merely that it could have. The point was to compare competing explanations. Do try to keep up, honey.

    Guess YOU’RE not a scientific realist…

    Given your misunderstanding of the above, that looks like quite the foolish assumption. In future, perhaps refrain from tossing in the ol’ capslock? Foolish statements look worse when you emphasize them.

  33. #33 Tyler DiPietro
    October 7, 2009

    “So… the laws of logic are material, then?”

    In the sense that a tautology or a valid deductive inference doesn’t depend on a particular material state of affairs, no. But I think you are confusing the abstract with the ethereal.

    “1) Computers are intelligently designed.”

    But this is irrelevant. If your contention is the fact that our thoughts are physical processes places them in doubt, then you cannot hold that in the face of the observation that physical processes produce orderly phenomena.

    “2) You THINK your brain is the same way, but you’re still assuming what you need to prove – that your brain can produce true thoughts…”

    But this isn’t dependent at all on our thoughts being physical processes, it’s just a basic skeptical conundrum. I make the abductive inference that my brain producing true thoughts is consistent with all my other experience. It’s relatively weak, but tenable.

    On the other hand, I don’t see how Christianity solves this problem. To make such a judgment you’d have to assume that your brain is also producing true thoughts about revelation…something that assumes what you’re trying to prove.

    “Except in this case the revelation also promises stability in the universe and the power of inductive observation…”

    Except that this would seem to be an a posteriori judgment based upon your particular reading of the divine revelation. Or in other words, inductive inference. You’re using the same circular logic you have been accusing us of using the entire time you’ve been here.

  34. #34 phantomreader42
    October 7, 2009

    Rhology, Lying For Jesus™ yet again:

    Borrowing, ironically, from Christianity, in which human cognitive faculties ARE trustworthy.

    Of course, as we have come to expect from rhology, this just plain is not true. It is explicitly stated in the christian bible that god is capable of causing human cognitive faculties to give completely wrong results, and that he has repeatedly done so, for a chance to show off, or simply for his own amusement (I quoted an explicit mention of this above, but as always rhology whined and lied and hid from the truth). Think of the bit in Exodus where, after inducing Moses to demand Pharoah “let my people go”, god deliberately fucked with his mind to prevent him from doing so, repeatedly, to manufacture an excuse to send plagues, including one that demonstrated that even GOD could not tell which houses belonged to the Israelites without a mark on the door painted in blood.

    If the above is a true story, then christianity cannot trust human cognitive faculties, as god could easily be fucking around with them for fun, on a whim, as he has been established to do in the past (not to mention the fact that god himself has questionable cognitive faculties, given that he apparently can’t figure out where his followers live without animal sacrifice). If the above story is NOT true, then christianity cannot trust ANYTHING, as all of christianity is built on a foundation of “divine revelation” which is thereby exposed to be false and useless.

    Furthermore, the mythology of the christian cult is littered with denouncements of the ability of human beings to understand anything at all. The whole load is fundamentally opposed to cognition itself, rejects any form of reason, and promotes belief in propositions totally unsupported by evidence, while disdaining thinking. It teaches that humans are irrevocably flawed and incapable of being trusted to make their own decisions, ESPECIALLY the calvinist strain of this malignant death cult.

    So, rhology, how can christianity be the only worldview in which human faculties are trustworthy, when christianity explicitly teaches that they are not?

    More relevant to this discussion, what idiotic dodge will you use to defend your delusions THIS time?

  35. #35 Optimus Primate
    October 7, 2009

    More relevant to this discussion, what idiotic dodge will you use to defend your delusions THIS time?

    I’ve got five bucks on “I know you are, but what am I?” Because, honestly, that and “I’m rubber, you’re glue” are just about the only arguments he has left at his intellectual level.

  36. #36 Tommykey
    October 7, 2009

    Just remember though, he loves every single one of us!

  37. #37 Rhology
    October 8, 2009

    Fortuna 232,

    If one thinks to onself “I cannot think true thoughts”, you’ve contradicted yourself.

    Alright, now we’re getting somewhere.
    1) Perhaps you could give me a reason to think that any thought beyond “I can think true thoughts” can accurately represent reality. That doesn’t help you much beyond that one thought, b/c you can also think lots and lots of thoughts that are false or that you think are true but which don’t accurately represent reality.
    2) Besides, in a solipsistic scenario, one could easily grant that you can think, sorta, but that you can’t access reality otherwise.
    3) Besides that, what makes your thoughts, which are chemical processes produced by molecules banging around, more valuable w.r.t. truth than shaking up a Dr Pepper can and opening it?

    I also like the continual reification of the “laws of logic”, which I gather is a signature move of yours, and the cute little demolition of naive empiricism.

    Oh, so logic doesn’t exist?
    What is the nature, then, of the laws of logic? Are you a materialist? If so, how is their existence consistent with materialism?

    Tyler 233,

    In the sense that a tautology or a valid deductive inference doesn’t depend on a particular material state of affairs, no. But I think you are confusing the abstract with the ethereal.

    So you’re not a materialist, right?

    I make the abductive inference that my brain producing true thoughts is consistent with all my other experience.

    I make the abductive inference that my brain producing that which it was stimulated to produce by the apparatus to which it’s connected is consistent with all my other experience. Why is yours better than mine?
    Blind faith (ie, wishful thinking) gets you out of the conundrum, nothing else. And that makes me laugh b/c you so often assert “I believe that for which there’s evidence.”

    I don’t see how Christianity solves this problem.

    We have the word of a truthful outside observer to let us know it’s not actually like that.

    To make such a judgment you’d have to assume that your brain is also producing true thoughts about revelation…something that assumes what you’re trying to prove.

    Yep, but I’m not the one going around claiming that I’m a “slave to the evidence”, as ERV said in her most recent public debate. Rather, I claim that presupposing the God of the Bible is the only route to rationality and to a world where evidence actually has value.

    Except that this would seem to be an a posteriori judgment based upon your particular reading of the divine revelation. Or in other words, inductive inference.

    I’ve never claimed not to be using circular arguments. But mine are not viciously circular b/c the God of the Bible is self-justifying. Is materialism? Since it can’t even answer the question of solipsism or ground the laws of logic, no.

    ph42, Optimus, TK, I can’t deny that it makes me smile to see what you’re reduced to here.

    Peace,
    Rhology

  38. #38 phantomreader42
    October 8, 2009

    Rhology still trying to pretend that his cult is the only way brains can work, even though it’s done the exact opposite to him:

    We have the word of a truthful outside observer to let us know it’s not actually like that.

    Except that there exists not the slightest speck of evidence that this “truthful outside observer” actually exists, much less that it’s truthful, and said “truthful outside observer”, even if it were real, is stated in its own myths as having a history of fraud, dishonesty, and fucking around with human minds purely for amusement, and is also reported to be incapable of identifying the inhabitants of a house by any means other than looking for lamb’s blood on the door, and supposedly predicted the apocalypse at least twenty centuries too early. So this “truthful outside observer” is at best nonexistent, at worst a pathological liar who can’t find its butt with both hands.

    As usual, rhology disdains evidence and embraces the mindless worship of an imaginary refugee from a mental ward with the eyesight of Mr. Magoo and a penchant for clumsy stage magic.

    And yep, optimus got it right, perfectly predicted that the rhobot would flee in terror while trying to throw his own feces at everyone who dared expose his utter lack of substance. Lucky for all of us that rhology, like his imaginary friend, can’t hit the broad side of a barn.

    Rhology, face it, you’re a solipsist who falsely accuses others of solipsism to hide from your own stupidity. You’re a pathological liar who wouldn’t know the truth if it bit you in the ass. You’re a fraud, and you worship a fraud.

  39. #39 Tommykey
    October 8, 2009

    TK, I can’t deny that it makes me smile to see what you’re reduced to here.

    You mean you don’t love me?

  40. #40 Optimus Primate
    October 8, 2009

    ph42, Optimus, TK, I can’t deny that it makes me smile to see what you’re reduced to here.

    So you finally admit that you’re just being an antagonistic douche just for giggles. Finally! Isn’t if funny? The truth just sounds different.

  41. #41 Tyler DiPietro
    October 8, 2009

    “So you’re not a materialist, right?”

    It depends on how one wants to characterize the ontological status of those things that don’t depend on particular material states of affairs. If materialism means something like “everything that exists has a discernible material manifestation”, then I don’t believe that. But this whole discussion is so tangential to the original topic at this point that it’s probably not even worth continuing.

    “I make the abductive inference that my brain producing that which it was stimulated to produce by the apparatus to which it’s connected is consistent with all my other experience. Why is yours better than mine?”

    The fact that I’m reasoning by default. I have no particular reason to assume my experiences are illusory, so given the multiplicity of explanations consistent with my experience I make an inference to the “best” one. Like I said, it’s weak in comparison to some analytical deduction, but tenable.

    “We have the word of a truthful outside observer to let us know it’s not actually like that.”

    Well, logically you don’t know if that “truthful” outside observer is just Descartes evil demon or the Gnostic demiurge confusing you. I only make the assumption that the patterns of my experience are not illusory, you make the assumption that a benevolent God exists and therefore the patterns of your experience are not illusory. My set of assumptions is more minimal than your’s.

    “I’ve never claimed not to be using circular arguments. But mine are not viciously circular b/c the God of the Bible is self-justifying.”

    It’s self-justifying if you assume that it’s self-justifying, which is viciously circular.

    “Is materialism? Since it can’t even answer the question of solipsism or ground the laws of logic, no.”

    Well, it can’t if you assume that all logic is deductive. Most philosophers do, in fact, at least tacitly make this assumption, so I can’t hold it against you in particular. Still, I’ve long been of the persuasion that such an assumption is unjustified.

  42. #42 Tommykey
    October 8, 2009

    You act like a Christian and then retreat to materialism when convenient.

    Uh, no. What you try to do is label things like morality as being the exclusive province of Christianity, when it is not. The version of Christianity you adhere to (there are so many, after all) is simply a pre-packaged subjective belief system dressed up in the guise of divine command that you accept because it provides you with a sense of self-validation. That is why you prefer to ignore or discount evidence that conflicts with the Bible, because you have so much invested in maintaining your edifice of belief. Of course, the god you worship purportedly lies outside the realm of our physical universe and our instruments of detection, therefore making it impossible to disprove. How convenient for you.

    I don’t have to argue with you that evidence is the best way to learn the truth because you really aren’t interested in truth. What you’re really interested in, though on a subconscious level, is maintaining the sense of self worth you derive from believing you are a faithful servant and online culture warrior for the supposed creator of the universe. The fact is, TRUTH does not come to us gift wrapped in a box or contained entirely in a book. While believing so might give you a feeling of righteous certitude, in the end it makes you intellectually stagnant.

    Once you believe you know “the Truth”, you no longer feel the need to question it. You become like the rulers of the late Qing dynasty in China, who rather than trying to learn from the Westerners who had leaped so far ahead of them, instead tried to find solace in reassuring themselves that they were the center of civilization and that their Confucian values were all that they needed. A worldview that adheres to a literal interpretation of the Bible is like the mythical bed of Procrustes. All of Earth history has to be hammered or bent or twisted to make it fit into a chronology of 6,000 years. All present events have to be filtered through the Book of Revelation in order to find signs that we are living in the End Times. But just as Sigmund Freud said “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” sometimes a war in the Middle East is just a war in the Middle East.

    And now I have to bring this to a conclusion, as my son is waiting for me to help him with his homework. Have a nice evening.

  43. #43 Moshe
    October 9, 2009

    Abby threatened to make Steve look stupid? Hahaha… then she runs off without even a single question?

    Silly Jew killer? You are the militant atheist Christ killer correct?

    Figures, go “watch porn,” kill all that is good within you.

    Darwin is dead. Wake up fools. There is a whole new paradigm headed past you while you sink into oblivion.

    As far as not questioning the “truth” Darwin is your false idol and it is never questioned. I suggest Tommy look in the mirror.

    You represent us Jews so well.

    Tommy, little bitter, angry Abby attended the event with a closed mind of hatred for Steve and his lecture. Do not try to preach to me, or anyone here about close-minded fear mongors. That is exactly how darwinist act today, almost like fascist, threatening, lies, refusing to allow good conversations and discussions take place without throwing feces into the room.

    Abby is a hateful, spiteful person and as she so laughed before – she took upon her the title – “Christ killer.” But then Christ is Jewish, Yeshua ben Yosef. So the self-loathing atheist jew hater laughs about killing a jew?

    How sick is she? Sick in hatred in her heart?

    Smart girl, yeah boy, so clever with her hatred!

    So much for science, all she does is make hateful remarks and refuses to allow for any decent conversation. She didn’t cover ID openly before and she does not do it today.
    That makes her a close-minded bigot simply because she personally does not like possible ramifications of scientific finding and analysis done by her opponents.

    Truth is gradualism is dead, TOL is dead and Darwinism as a result of HGT and many other mechanisms are dead. Having worshipped a false idol who could barely pass algerbra, this is what happens with fools.

    Carry on… spew forth your hatred Abby of people you never met or do not know in life.

  44. #44 Moshe
    October 9, 2009

    Oh, and Shalom, ty for representing us Jews so well with your hatred. What a disaster.

  45. #45 phantomreader42
    October 9, 2009

    Moshe, pull out some evidence for your creationist bullshit and slander, or fuck off and die. This “new paradigm” you babble about, go ahead and show us the fucking EVIDENCE instead of whining about dead people. Of course we know you’re not capable of providing evidence, you’re not even capable of presenting your lies coherently. You’re the disaster here, you empty-headed worshipper of your own willful ignorance.

  46. #46 Fortuna
    October 9, 2009

    Moshe;

    Oh, and Shalom, ty for representing us Jews so well with your hatred.

    And a merry fuck-you to you, as well. Who died and left you in charge of determining what represents jews?

    Rhology;

    Longer response to follow.

  47. #47 Fortuna
    October 9, 2009

    Perhaps you could give me a reason to think that any thought beyond “I can think true thoughts” can accurately represent reality.

    The capacity for one’s thoughts to accurately represent reality is entailed in the statement “I can think true thoughts”.

    That doesn’t help you much beyond that one thought, b/c you can also think lots and lots of thoughts that are false or that you think are true but which don’t accurately represent reality.

    Indeed, having truth-apt cognitive faculties is no guarantee that any particular thought one thinks will be true, outside of thoughts that are definitionally true, of course.

    Besides, in a solipsistic scenario, one could easily grant that you can think, sorta, but that you can’t access reality otherwise.

    Well, yeah. But then, why would one prefer solipsism?

    Besides that, what makes your thoughts, which are chemical processes produced by molecules banging around, more valuable w.r.t. truth than shaking up a Dr Pepper can and opening it?

    That’s kind of funny, since shaking up a Dr. Pepper can generally requires something with truth-apt faculties to sucessfully locate, shake up and open the can (absent a mindless phenomenon like an earthquake, I guess).

    But I see what you’re driving at, so let’s say your chosen example doesn’t assume the existence of the thing in question. I know I personally can think thoughts, and it follows that at least some of them are truth-apt. I have no reason to assume that a can of Dr. Pepper, shaken or otherwise, is in the same position, so I win by default, absent something surprising.

    Oh, so logic doesn’t exist?

    Logic exists, albeit not in the form of a physical object. I’m not sure you quite understand what it means to reify something.

    What is the nature, then, of the laws of logic?

    They’re abstractions.

    Are you a materialist?

    In the sense that I think that everything that is actually instantiated in the universe is physical in nature, sure.

    If so, how is their existence consistent with materialism?

    Abstractions are supervenient on the nature of the universe that we happen to live in.

    Incidentally, do you plan to spell out what the relevance was of that link you posted for me, like I asked you to? I won’t hold it against you if you don’t; what you opt to respond to is your prerogative, really.

  48. #48 eddie
    October 18, 2009

    Maybe douchebot thinks he had a true thought that he’d responded, or something.
    Therein lies the rub. You are only reduced to needing an outside arbiter of truth because you ditched anything empirical because the empirical gave the lie to your presupposition of an outside arbiter.
    It’s viciously circular all the way down.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.