Argumentum ad populum

[blü 2]

Address my post, and we can talk further, if need be.

Nothing needs to be added to what I said. You appear to have ruled out abiogenesis, and you've expressly ruled out evolution as the explanation, so simply spell out the alternative explanation you have in mind for the existence of life on earth.

 

[nPeace]

Nothing needs to be added to what I said.

What you said? How about what I said?

You appear to have ruled out abiogenesis, and you've expressly ruled out evolution as the explanation, so simply spell out the alternative explanation you have in mind for the existence of life on earth.

I did, a number of times - including in the post you don't want to address... for some reason.
However, if you're done, I'm done.

One thing I will add...
You have rejected the conclusion all the evidence points to - namely, an intelligent designer - in search for an alternative, which really will require the things you claim to object to... faith, and magic.

It's a vain and fruitless pursuit from all angles, because for one thing, no matter what scientists come up with, they cannot rule out an intelligent designer. All the models they set up, and the sparks they create to cause an effect, says this : it required an intelligent designer (in this case the scientists did it).
It's the same with the multiverse idea....

No matter what idea you prefer, none can rule out an intelligence, for which the evidence points to.

Imo, you are only saying one thing.... "I reject reality, because I don't like the fact that it includes a supreme authority that I have to answer to."
The thing about that, is that, by doing so, one is only choosing death over an opportunity to live eternally under the sovereignty of the universal designer.
To me, that's weird.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you said? How about what I said?


I did, a number of times - including in the post you don't want to address... for some reason.
However, if you're done, I'm done.

One thing I will add...
You have rejected the conclusion all the evidence points to - namely, an intelligent designer - in search for an alternative, which really will require the things you claim to object to... faith, and magic.

It's a vain and fruitless pursuit from all angles, because for one thing, no matter what scientists come up with, they cannot rule out an intelligent designer. All the models they set up, and the sparks they create to cause an effect, says this : it required an intelligent designer (in this case the scientists did it).
It's the same with the multiverse idea....

No matter what idea you prefer, none can rule out an intelligence, for which the evidence points to.

Imo, you are only saying one thing.... "I reject reality, because I don't like the fact that it includes a supreme authority that I have to answer do."
The thing about that, is that, by doing so, one is only choosing death over an opportunity to live eternally under the sovereignty of the universal designer.
To me, that's weird.

Just because an idea cannot be "ruled out" does not give it any credence. Just as scientists cannot rule out "intelligence" they cannot rule out Pink Pixelated Pixies either. Yet for some strange reason I do not see you arguing for them. Why the inconsistency?

 

[nPeace]

Just because an idea cannot be "ruled out" does not give it any credence. Just as scientists cannot rule out "intelligence" they cannot rule out Pink Pixelated Pixies either. Yet for some strange reason I do not see you arguing for them. Why the inconsistency?

I see no inconsistency.
I'm arguing for an intelligent designer. You're talking about...
We know intelligent designer design. I don't know what a Pink Pixelated Pixie is, or a Spaghetti Monster. I see those thing on Pixar and Cartoon Network.
I also see the self creating chemicals on those shows.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see no inconsistency.
I'm arguing for an intelligent designer. You're talking about...
We know intelligent designer design. I don't know what a Pink Pixelated Pixie is, or a Spaghetti Monster. I see those thing on Pixar and Cartoon Network.
I also see the self creating chemicals on those shows.

You have no clue as to what a God is either. We know that ID is a failed scientific claim. By even mentioning it you harm your argument. Now if you argued for Incompetent Design you might be able to make a point.

By not accepting all alternatives that have just as much credibility as yours you lower your claims to a special pleading fallacy.

 

[nPeace]

You have no clue as to what a God is either.

Speak for yourself.
Also, I don't see 'God' written in the words 'intelligent design'. The phrase does not even have an 'o', that one can extract letters to spell the word 'God'.

We know that ID is a failed scientific claim. By even mentioning it you harm your argument. Now if you argued for Incompetent Design you might be able to make a point.

By not accepting all alternatives that have just as much credibility as yours you lower your claims to a special pleading fallacy.

When it comes to truth and reality, I don't deal with a system that limits itself (or is limited) from finding truth.
I use a system opened to finding truth. It's not naturalism.
Nor am I concerned with that being your preference.
I already explained.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speak for yourself.
Also, I don't see 'God' written in the words 'intelligent design'. The phrase does not even have an 'o', that one can extract letters to spell the word 'God'.

No, clearly I can speak for you too since you appear to have the mistaken belief that God lies.

Also the dishonest ID argument is a false attempt to sneak God into the debate. Let's at least try to be honest.

When it comes to truth and reality, I don't deal with a system that limits itself (or is limited) from finding truth.
I use a system opened to finding truth. It's not naturalism.
Nor am I concerned with that being your preference.
I already explained.

Now there is a falsehood. You hide from reality. It appears to scare you.

Your so called explanation of how you are open to reality fails since it is based upon a false accusation.

 

[nPeace]

No, clearly I can speak for you too since you appear to have the mistaken belief that God lies.

Also the dishonest ID argument is a false attempt to sneak God into the debate. Let's at least try to be honest.



Now there is a falsehood. You hide from reality. It appears to scare you.

Your so called explanation of how you are open to reality fails since it is based upon a false accusation.

Does naturalism allow any consideration of supernatural?
Thus you are merely spouting words that have no bearing on anything - including what you are saying.

I don't limit myself to a system that has a biased leaning. So therefore there is no need for me to sneak anything in.
On the contrary, it's more a matter of closed minded bias, that attempts to close the door, in order to keep the obvious reality indicated by the evidence, out.

Why do I bother getting into these pointless back and forth arguments with you, which goes absolutely nowhere.
Why don't you pick out of a post something worth debating, rather than looking for two lines for which you can just blah blah blah?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does naturalism allow any consideration of supernatural?
Thus you are merely spouting words that have no bearing on anything - including what you are saying.

I don't limit myself to a system that has a biased leaning. So therefore there is no need for me to sneak anything in.
On the contrary, it's more a matter of closed minded bias, that attempts to close the door, in order to keep the obvious reality indicated by the evidence, out.

Why do I bother getting into these pointless back and forth arguments with you, which goes absolutely nowhere.
Why don't you pick out of a post something worth debating, rather than looking for two lines for which you can just blah blah blah?

It is not a matter of allowing or not allowing. Your portrayal of it is oversimplified. Naturalism could be said to be the observation that everything observable seems to have a natural explanation. There is no evidence of a god so why invoke one? That is why you are being inconsistent when you reject other deities.

And don't try to fool others that you do not limit yourself. You like every other creationist here refuse to even learn what is and what is not evidence. It tears you apart that there is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism.

One more time, naturalism is the observation that it appears that all phenomena have a natural explanation. Historically when people invoked a deity in the past they were shown to be wrong. This does not "prove" that deities do not exist, it only tells us that they have a terrible track record. If you can find reliable evidence for a deity most atheists will change their mind. Their is more than enough reliable evidence that Genesis is mythical and yet you seem to still want to interpret it literally.

 

[nPeace]

It is not a matter of allowing or not allowing. Your portrayal of it is oversimplified. Naturalism could be said to be the observation that everything observable seems to have a natural explanation. There is no evidence of a god so why invoke one? That is why you are being inconsistent when you reject other deities.

And don't try to fool others that you do not limit yourself. You like every other creationist here refuse to even learn what is and what is not evidence. It tears you apart that there is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism.

One more time, naturalism is the observation that it appears that all phenomena have a natural explanation. Historically when people invoked a deity in the past they were shown to be wrong. This does not "prove" that deities do not exist, it only tells us that they have a terrible track record. If you can find reliable evidence for a deity most atheists will change their mind. Their is more than enough reliable evidence that Genesis is mythical and yet you seem to still want to interpret it literally.

1. Naturalism - the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
Nothing there about observation. Nothing there about starting with an observations. Everything there about starting with a belief.

2. Almost every person but Atheists and skeptics - you included - see evidence for God - including thousands of rational, reasoning, sensible scientists.

3. I wish that some persons would get it through their skull that evidence is not in a box they create, and they can't put God in their science labs.
Why persons keep crying out scientific evidence, and talking about God, is beating me into a stupor.

Perhaps they only pretend they don't believe in God.
I suggest they do believe God is. They just don't like him very much. Like is a mild word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Naturalism - the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
Nothing there about observation. Nothing there about starting with an observations. Everything there about starting with a belief.

2. Almost every person but Atheists and skeptics - you included - see evidence for God - including thousands of rational, reasoning, sensible scientists.

3. I wish that some persons would get it through their skull that evidence is not in a box they create, and they can't put God in their science labs.
Why persons keep crying out scientific evidence, and talking about God, is beating me into a stupor.

Perhaps they only pretend they don't believe in God.
I suggest they do believe God is. They just don't like him very much. Like is a mild word.

Where did you get your quote from? It is inaccurate as I explained to you, probably from a creationist website. You go too far. This article goes over how there is no one set version of naturalism:

Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And even Wikipedia's entry on Methodological Naturalism does not go that far:

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

And the reason that some believe that they see evidence for a God is because they do not understand what reliable evidence is in the first place. You have totally failed to ever present any reliable evidence for your God for example. You would think that if your God existed, especially with some of the claims that JW's have that there would be clear evidence for this.

And no you cannot find a rational scientist that will provide reliable evidence for a God. If they had done so it would be child's play to present it here. There are thousands of scientists that believe in God but that does not mean that they can provide evidence for one.

EDIT: And you just committed an argumentum ad populum fallacy. You claimed that scientists saw evidence based only upon their numbers rather than relying on the evidence that they supposedly have.

 

[blü 2]

no matter what scientists come up with, they cannot rule out an intelligent designer.

I'll number these questions so that you can number your answers accordingly and I'll be able to keep track of which reply goes where.

1. Is an "intelligent designer" in the sense you speak of real (ie does it have objective existence?) or is it imaginary (exists only as a concept in individual brains?)

2. If it's real, is it animal, vegetable or mineral?

3. If it's real, how will we identify it when we find it? What real thing are we actually looking for?

 

[nPeace]

Where did you get your quote from? It is inaccurate as I explained to you, probably from a creationist website. You go too far. This article goes over how there is no one set version of naturalism:

Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And even Wikipedia's entry on Methodological Naturalism does not go that far:

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Google -> Naturalism
Does it matter? Please explain the difference.

And the reason that some believe that they see evidence for a God is because they do not understand what reliable evidence is in the first place. You have totally failed to ever present any reliable evidence for your God for example. You would think that if your God existed, especially with some of the claims that JW's have that there would be clear evidence for this.

And no you cannot find a rational scientist that will provide reliable evidence for a God. If they had done so it would be child's play to present it here. There are thousands of scientists that believe in God but that does not mean that they can provide evidence for one.

Subduction Zone is the most intelligent man on the planet. So thousands of scientists do not know what "reliable evidence" is. Only he does.
I beg your pardon.

EDIT: And you just committed an argumentum ad populum fallacy. You claimed that scientists saw evidence based only upon their numbers rather than relying on the evidence that they supposedly have.

No I did not. You are the one claiming no evidence, not I.
Almost every person but Atheists and skeptics - you included - see evidence for God.

 

[nPeace]

I'll number these questions so that you can number your answers accordingly and I'll be able to keep track of which reply goes where.

1. Is an "intelligent designer" in the sense you speak of real (ie does it have objective existence?) or is it imaginary (exists only as a concept in individual brains?)

2. If it's real, is it animal, vegetable or mineral?

3. If it's real, how will we identify it when we find it? What real thing are we actually looking for?

1. Is love real (i.e. does it have objective existence?) or is it imaginary (exists only as a concept in individual brains?)

2. If it's real, is it animal, vegetable or mineral?

3. If it's real, how will we identify it when we find it? What real thing are we actually looking for?

While we are at it, let's do a little quiz.
What do these animals have in common?
Mule

Cow

Goat

Spoiler

 

[Subduction Zone]

Google -> Naturalism
Does it matter? Please explain the difference.

I did. You are making a false assumption. You are claiming that naturalism is a demand that the supernatural is not used when the fact is that there is no reliable evidence for the supernatural and therefore no rational.reason to believe in it.

Subduction Zone is the most intelligent man on the planet. So thousands of scientists do not know what "reliable evidence" is. Only he does.
I beg your pardon.

Did I saythat? No. Did I imply that? Again no. The fact is that no one has posted any reliable evidence from scientists for your mythological beliefs here. Most scientists that believe are smart enough to know this and that they believe based on faith and not reason. Why use such dishonest tactics?

No I did not. You are the one claiming no evidence, not I.
Almost every person but Atheists and skeptics - you included - see evidence for God.

Right, I am claiming no evidence because no one has ever shown any. This is the sort of claim that cannot be supported but takes only one actual piece of evidence to refute. And it is a lie to claim that I see evidence, or that others see evidence. I do not think that you understand what that term means.

 

[blü 2]

1. Is love real (i.e. does it have objective existence?) or is it imaginary (exists only as a concept in individual brains?)

Don't answer a question with a question. State whether the Intelligent Designer has objective existence or is imaginary.

2. If it's real, is it animal, vegetable or mineral?

Don't quote my question back at me. State the answer.

3. If it's real, how will we identify it when we find it? What real thing are we actually looking for?

While we are at it, let's do a little quiz.
What do these animals have in common?

Like your 'little quiz' they're red herrings, excuses to avoid addressing the questions.

Now please tell me directly and informatively:

1. Is the Intelligent Designer you're talking about real (ie does it have objective existence?) or is it purely imaginary?

2. If it's real, is it animal, vegetable or mineral?

3. If it's real, how will we identify it when we find it? What real thing are we actually looking for?

 

[nPeace]

I did. You are making a false assumption. You are claiming that naturalism is a demand that the supernatural is not used when the fact is that there is no reliable evidence for the supernatural and therefore no rational.reason to believe in it.

Walk me. What is naturalism?

Did I saythat? No. Did I imply that? Again no. The fact is that no one has posted any reliable evidence from scientists for your mythological beliefs here. Most scientists that believe are smart enough to know this and that they believe based on faith and not reason. Why use such dishonest tactics?

This is simply not true.

Right, I am claiming no evidence because no one has ever shown any. This is the sort of claim that cannot be supported but takes only one actual piece of evidence to refute. And it is a lie to claim that I see evidence, or that others see evidence. I do not think that you understand what that term means.

This is also not true... putting it mildly.

 

[nPeace]

Don't answer a question with a question. State whether the Intelligent Designer has objective existence or is imaginary.
Don't quote my question back at me. State the answer.
Like your 'little quiz' they're red herrings, excuses to avoid addressing the questions.

Now please tell me directly and informatively:

1. Is the Intelligent Designer you're talking about real (ie does it have objective existence?) or is it purely imaginary?

2. If it's real, is it animal, vegetable or mineral?

3. If it's real, how will we identify it when we find it? What real thing are we actually looking for?

When children don't understand stuff, what do you do? Don't you sit them down and try to explain in easy terms?
What if they still don't understand, as is the case with some?
Don't you try to use their own thinking, to try to bring them to an understanding?
One can only do so much.
They can't open the child's brain, and make them understand, can they?
I have gone through numerous pages now, answering your questions - not just in this thread. This is actually the third.
You still don't understand... and why? I have two theories. 1) You are stuck in one mixed up, confused worldview, which has no room for open-mindedness.
I'm not going to tell you my second theory, out of respect.

I will tell you this. I have tried to be patient with you (you just have no idea how patient), but you are not willing to work with me.
I am not going to allow any bullies on RF to bully me. I try to be polite, but I find that's taken for granted. So rather than scream 'Please don't bother me anymore.' I will say this...
You have one of my posts to address. If you are not interested in addressing it, we're done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Walk me. What is naturalism?



This is simply not true.



This is also not true... putting it mildly.

Nope, your errors were explained to you. With links, all you had were either quotes out of context or worse yet quotes from a bogus source. You did not have any links so that others could check your sources and cliams. You had no answer, all you have is denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When children don't understand stuff, what do you do? Don't you sit them down and try to explain in easy terms?
What if they still don't understand, as is the case with some?
Don't you try to use their own thinking, to try to bring them to an understanding?
One can only do so much.
They can't open the child's brain, and make them understand, can they?
I have gone through numerous pages now, answering your questions - not just in this thread. This is actually the third.
You still don't understand... and why? I have two theories. 1) You are stuck in one mixed up, confused worldview, which has no room for open-mindedness.
I'm not going to tell you my second theory, out of respect.

I will tell you this. I have tried to be patient with you (you just have no idea how patient), but you are not willing to work with me.
I am not going to allow any bullies on RF to bully me. I try to be polite, but I find that's taken for granted. So rather than scream 'Please don't bother me anymore.' I will say this...
You have one of my posts to address. If you are not interested in addressing it, we're done.

No one is bullying you. Correcting nonsense and not letting you get away with making false claims is not bullying.