The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

[greatcalgarian]

Tachyons break laws of Relitivity and Causality ammong others... just one of thier crimes, they can be in two places at once. (they also lose speed as they gain energy )

wa:do

It is nice to see Planet of the Apes (Ape makes law) and Star Track (tachyons) coming into play as evidence for ID. What's next?:biglaugh:

 

[painted wolf]

hey now...not evidence for ID:tsk:

evidence that a "lawmaker" argument is as faulty as our understanding of the "law"

wa:do

 

[Fascist Christ]

You've addressed my conclusion, not my argument.

You compared natural laws to man-made laws; arguing that since they were both called "laws" taht similar origins were inferred.

Ok. A similar origin would be "man made". So the existance of natural laws implies that they are man-made. What's the problem with the argument?

Do try to understand the differnece between an argument and a conclusion. I'm not disucssing whether God exists or made the universe; I'm discussing whether "natural laws" infer a lawgiver.

The most we could say is something that is apparently similar could have a similar origin. To claim that they have the same origin is more precise and would require additional evidence. By specifying the type of lawgiver, you have excluded all other possible types. Such an elimination of options would require additional evidence.

Consequently, the justification for ascribing intelligence to the lawgiver is purely subjective.

 

[JerryL]

The most we could say is something that is apparently similar could have a similar origin. To claim that they have the same origin is more precise and would require additional evidence. By specifying the type of lawgiver, you have excluded all other possible types. Such an elimination of options would require additional evidence.

So we can infer things by analogy, but only what you arbitrarily decide we can infer.

Where, exactly, is the line of delimination between "vague" and "more precise" were evendence magically becomes neccessairy where it was not before.

Can we infer that the laws of nature must have been written down before they went into effect, like all other laws?

Consequently, the justification for ascribing intelligence to the lawgiver is purely subjective.

Your hypocracy is astonishing, truely.

Analogies do not support conclusions. The sun is bright like a light-bublb doesn't mean it's also powered by electricity; the computer is red like an apples doesn't mean it's grown or edible.

That a houseplant and powerplant are both "plants" has no relevence; nor does the fact that the mathmatical equasions describing reality are called "laws" as well as the rules passed by people to control behavor mean that they are similar.

 

[Fascist Christ]

So we can infer things by analogy, but only what you arbitrarily decide we can infer.

Where, exactly, is the line of delimination between "vague" and "more precise" were evendence magically becomes neccessairy where it was not before.

Can we infer that the laws of nature must have been written down before they went into effect, like all other laws?

Your hypocracy is astonishing, truely.

Analogies do not support conclusions. The sun is bright like a light-bublb doesn't mean it's also powered by electricity; the computer is red like an apples doesn't mean it's grown or edible.

That a houseplant and powerplant are both "plants" has no relevence; nor does the fact that the mathmatical equasions describing reality are called "laws" as well as the rules passed by people to control behavor mean that they are similar.

It is clear that you have no intent of understanding my perspective.

 

[JerryL]

It is clear that you have no intent of understanding my perspective.

I think the problem is quite the opposite. I think that you don't understand your perspective.

I think your perspective is to draw whatever analogy you like and draw the line wherever serves your itnerests. I don't believe you to have any consistant and objective standard. I've been asking hoping that you would either come up with one, or realize that none exists.

Also, Analogies can be useful; but they are really arbitrary. "Natural laws" are nothing at all like man-made laws. You are indeed comparing apples to oranges (or powerplants to houseplants if you prefer).

 

[Fascist Christ]

I think the problem is quite the opposite. I think that you don't understand your perspective.

I think your perspective is to draw whatever analogy you like and draw the line wherever serves your itnerests. I don't believe you to have any consistant and objective standard. I've been asking hoping that you would either come up with one, or realize that none exists.

Also, Analogies can be useful; but they are really arbitrary. "Natural laws" are nothing at all like man-made laws. You are indeed comparing apples to oranges (or powerplants to houseplants if you prefer).

As I have said before, believe what you want, it does me no harm.

 

[Fatmop]

No actual response to Jerry's argument against analogies? Just an apathetic "whatever..."?

 

[Fascist Christ]

No actual response to Jerry's argument against analogies? Just an apathetic "whatever..."?

Jerry's "arguments" can be summed up as thus:
1) If he disagrees with me, I am delusional.
2) If he agrees with me, I am a hypocrite.

He is not interested in evidence alone. His interest is focused on the idea of a conclusive proof, which I have already stated does not exist. Therefore, we have no basis for discussion.

Debates on the subjectivity of perception are pure nonsense. So... whatever.

 

[Angama]

JerryL and Fatmop, is there anything non-physical that can be considered as true? Like a thought or memory that was activated by nothing physical. Like me closing my eyes and imagining something beautiful. Nothing physical activated the initial matter that tells my brain to go get that thought. I think I saw this discussed else where and JerryL is a hardcore materialist maximus it seems. No answer to this was provided by this though.

AA

 

[mr.guy]

Your brain functions could be considered physical. That you don't recognize any physical stimulation to trigger your thoughts doesn't mean they ain't there.

 

[JerryL]

He is not interested in evidence alone. His interest is focused on the idea of a conclusive proof, which I have already stated does not exist. Therefore, we have no basis for discussion.

I have no idea where you are getting this from.

For many pages now, what I've been trying to get you to understand is that arbitrary analogies are not evidence at all. You've propositioned entirely fallacious support saying "they are called laws, so they likely have a lawgiver".

"natural laws" are not similar to "man-made laws". There is no correlation between the two. They are called with the same name because some guy decided to. That some guy decided to call gravity a "natural law" says/infers/concludes nothing whatsoever about gravity. I'm not sure how much more obvious nor clear-cut this could be.

 

[scitsofreaky]

Your brain functions could be considered physical. That you don't recognize any physical stimulation to trigger your thoughts doesn't mean they ain't there.

Depends on what you mean by brain functions. The chemical reactions that occur in the brain are obviously physical. But they may just be the physical aspect of what is going on. While you can measure the electical output of the brain, you can't tell what a person is actually thinking. It seems to me that we are more than just the sum of chemical reactions, but chemical reactions are a part of who I am.

 

[Fascist Christ]

I have no idea where you are getting this from.

For many pages now, what I've been trying to get you to understand is that arbitrary analogies are not evidence at all. You've propositioned entirely fallacious support saying "they are called laws, so they likely have a lawgiver".

"natural laws" are not similar to "man-made laws". There is no correlation between the two. They are called with the same name because some guy decided to. That some guy decided to call gravity a "natural law" says/infers/concludes nothing whatsoever about gravity. I'm not sure how much more obvious nor clear-cut this could be.

It is not arbitrary. It is not based on what someone said. It is based solely on my perception.

I smell cookies, you do not.

 

[JerryL]

Depends on what you mean by brain functions. The chemical reactions that occur in the brain are obviously physical. But they may just be the physical aspect of what is going on. While you can measure the electical output of the brain, you can't tell what a person is actually thinking. It seems to me that we are more than just the sum of chemical reactions, but chemical reactions are a part of who I am.

The only apparent reasons we cannot "read your mind" more throughly are:
- Ignroance as to what means what
- Inability to get states on all the neurons simultaniously.

It would be like trying to tell what a computer was computing without asking the computer. We can read that there are electrons moving through the circutry, but we can't tell what they are doing.

 

[JerryL]

It is not arbitrary. It is not based on what someone said. It is based solely on my perception.

It's not arbitary, it's what you decided. It's not based on what someone said, it's based on what you said.

Tell me how your perception has any bearing at all on reality. We were discussing reality were we not?

 

[Fascist Christ]

It's not arbitary, it's what you decided. It's not based on what someone said, it's based on what you said.

Tell me how your perception has any bearing at all on reality. We were discussing reality were we not?

Reality is perception. We discussed this in the reality thread.

 

[michel]

hey now...not evidence for ID:tsk:

evidence that a "lawmaker" argument is as faulty as our understanding of the "law"

wa:do

Hehe...good one painted wolf.

Just a question I'd like to as - This is addressed to both Fascistchrist and JerryL.............
"Do either of you guys remember what point you are making ?" :biglaugh:

 

[JerryL]

Reality is perception. We discussed this in the reality thread.

This isn't the reality thread, this is the evidence thread.

"Do either of you guys remember what point you are making ?"

I do. I was refuting his claim that because he's called gravity a "natural law", that it therefore likely has a lawgiver who made it a law.

 

[Fascist Christ]

This isn't the reality thread, this is the evidence thread.

I do. I was refuting his claim that because he's called gravity a "natural law", that it therefore likely has a lawgiver who made it a law.

You have answered your own question. We are not discussing reality, but evidence. I maintain that perception is evidence to the perceiver.