(December 16, 2010 at 4:44 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Huh? My reason for evolution being the only naturalistic explanation for life is exactly the same as your's. It's the only one thought to be possible by naturalists. You just elaborated on why they think it is the only possible one, something I was well aware of.

Yes, but your statement that all that is left is evolution and creation is unfounded. Your case for creation is unsupported by either evidence in indication or argument at this stage, so for now I maintain that evolution is the only thing on the table.

I would also challenge you to produce a theistic epistemology that demonstrates belief in God and creation is justified without becoming contingent upon fallacy or falling prone to self-refutation or incoherence. It would also have to survive the common epistemic defeaters such as the lottery problem - But perhaps that's best left for next time.

Quote:So exactly why are you requiring me to do all of my argumentation in logical form, when aside from your pyramid argument (which I had to ask for) nobody else on here has presented any argument in formal format? It's special pleading for you to ask more of me than you do of other's just because you agree with their worldviews.

This is not a case of special pleading, for starters I prefer the logical form even if it exposes the flaws in my own arguments more clearly, it helps in learning how to form better arguments and become more aware of bad reasoning. You and the other members can discuss in whatever form you like, and usually I wouldn't request a formal argument, I've just got an inclination towards it making your own fallacies more obvious.

If your argument is sound and valid in it's normal context then the formal argument will be more of a restructuring than a formulation.

Aside form that there are a few obvious advantages to a formal argument:

1. It is easier to evaluate in it's full context (coherency, efficiency)
2. Premises that might go unnoticed as assertions are picked up on (soundness)
3. Fallacies and false premises are more easily spotted (soundness)
4. it is much easier to determine if the conclusion follows from the premises. (validity)

Given your confidence that you're correct I'd assumed that you already have something like a mental map augment in your head, this is a good way to examine it.

Ok, I actually agree with you on this. I do have several syllogisms, but I first want to see if you agree with the premises. Hence why we are talking about pyramids, because they require the same premises that go into demonstrating the pyramids were built and didn't arise from natural means.

(December 16, 2010 at 4:58 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ugh, I really need to head to bed. If you (theVOID) can clarify two issues for me, I will do the "God proof" in the morning.

1. How do you know the pyramids require a builder and did not arise by naturalistic processes?
2. Just the point about how you know it was the Egyptian empire that claimed to build the pyramids.

1. Firstly, I can't require that, to require something is to necessitate or prove it, proof is mathematical and is a certain and objective truth. We could use a line of reasoning such as: no known mechanism for the formation of stone building-like structures of particular symmetry and utility == No reason to have positive belief in such a mechanism. If you can demonstrate a natural process that creates buildings with pictorial language depicting humans performing rituals then I'll reconsider, but the pyramids no doubt best represent analogous human building projects. We have never seen any analogous structures form from mechanism or self-replication either.

2. What do you mean by 2? How do I know all of the evidence from Egyptian antiquity isn't forged? It's extremely unlikely, so we can have an argument to best explanation as a minimum. Beyond that there are likely many clues from the style and structure of the symbols to decay dating methods to the paper used to the current state of the papyrus etc. I could quite easily find this I suspect, a quick search confirms it, but i've not got the time (or interest) to sort out every detail, so the argument from best explanation would suffice, it necessarily makes it more likely than the other completely unsupported possible explanations such as forgery or trickster aliens.

(December 16, 2010 at 4:27 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Wait wait, I was heading to bed until I saw this. Are you saying you can't prove the Egyptians built the pyramids but you believe they did anyways? Are you also saying that the reason you believe this is because of evidnece against anyone else building them? So you are using disjunctive reasoning? Evidence against A equals B when A and B are the only two options. The same reasoning everyone else flamed me for using? Somehow I doubt you will get flamed for using it though.

No, I can't necessitate that the Egyptians built the pyramids. Also, something does not need to be shown to be necessary for belief in that proposition to be justified, you need to show that the belief is permitted by an epistemology that is both sound and valid. Something that is necessarily true is always justified, something that is justified is not necessarily true.

No it is not a disjunctive syllogism as I am not proposing any other possible explanations other than A or stating that there are B or C or D possible explanations total and then ruling them out which is required - You need to establish B, C, D are the only possible values for A, and then establish that A =/= C or D making B the only possible and thus the necessary value.

What I am saying is that based on any sound and valid epistemology the only belief that is justified is the one that the Egyptians were responsible. There may be another logically possible explanation or many logically possible explanations, but there is no way of establishing belief in any other logically possible position as valid.

I have no problem with disjunctive syllogisms, if the premises are true the conclusion is necessarily true. Establishing a finite set of possible values for A and then ruling out all but B can be very tricky, you don't see them used too often for that reason.

---

(December 16, 2010 at 5:14 am)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

---

Quote: This is not a case of special pleading, for starters I prefer the logical form even if it exposes the flaws in my own arguments more clearly it helps to learn how to form a good argument. You and the other members can discuss in whatever form you like, and usually I wouldn't request a formal argument, I've just got an inclination towards it making your own fallacies more obvious.

If your argument is sound and valid in it's normal context then the formal argument will be more of a restructuring than a formulation.

Aside form that there are a few obvious advantages to a formal argument:

1. It is easier to evaluate in it's full context (coherency, efficiency)
2. Premises that might go unnoticed as assertions are picked up on (soundness)
3. Fallacies and false premises are more easily spotted (soundness)
4. it is much easier to determine if the conclusion follows from the premises. (validity)

Given your confidence that you're correct I'd assumed that you already have something like a mental map augment in your head, this is a good way to examine it.

---

Ok, I actually agree with you on this. I do have several syllogisms, but I first want to see if you agree with the premises. Hence why we are talking about pyramids, because they require the same premises that go into demonstrating the pyramids were built and didn't arise from natural means.

You have one problem to overcome that i'll point out straight away:

Disproving a natural mechanism for evolution does not necessitate that a God exists. You need to then establish that it is a God and not spontaneous formation (or any logically possible explanation), thus you need argument or evidence that indicates the presence of a deity where none can be found for spontaneity (or any other logically possible yet unknown explanation). You could use an epistemology that is sound and valid and permits theism but cannot be used to lend credence to another explanation

If you want to use a disjunctive syllogism you'd have to necessitate that the options you presented are the only logically possible ones - If you can do that i'd be really impressed, like I said before it's extremely difficult to do any doesn't really arise in many non-hypothetical or controlled situations.

You could have a totally different strategy though, so i'll wait and see.

Biblical Creationism has made many successful predictions -mmmm

Creationists knew the Universe had a beginning long before the rest of secular science caught up. Even Richard Dawkins admits this in his "God Delusion" debate with John Lennox. - There really are only 2 options for this;it had a beginning or it is eternal. Getting a 50:50 bet right isn't impressive. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism

In fact, all of Darwin’s original predictions in the origin of species (millions of transitional fossils and hundreds of vestigial organs) have been falsified. - Be specific, but remember Darwin was a brilliant pioneer and also a man of his time. He was got many things wrong that have been corrected by scientists following his work, thats how science works so what? I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism

Creationists also predicted that there would be measurable levels of C14 in both coal and diamonds, something thought to be impossible by Evolutionists. Low and behold, there’s C14 in coal and diamonds (over ten times the minimal detectable amount) - Whats an evolutionist? I don't think evolutionary theory has anything to say about c14 in coal. Coal is fully petrified fossial organic vegetation. C14 levels would deteriorate quickly geologically speaking, but that does not rule out post fossilisation introduction of c14 and other forms of contamination. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism

Creationists also predicted that many species that were thought to be extinct could be found still today. Low and behold, we find numerous species such as the Coelacanth that were thought to be extinct for millions of years. How does that bolster your case? - Evolutionary theory makes no prediction of what happened to a certain group of Crossopterygian fish prevously only known from fossils found in Permian marine sediments. As far as evolution is concerned its a so what, there are many animals that have survived through many geologic ages relatively unchanged. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism

Creationists also predicted that all the major phyla of Organisms should appear at once in the fossil record. Low and behold, the Cambrian explosion holds all of the major phyla of organisms. When you say at once, the Cambrian explosion was about 50 million years of rapid expansion of life forms as they radiated out to fill available ecological niches which accompanyed an increase in atmospheric oxygen (enriching the seas), global arming and a retrenchment of ice sheets. There have also been other similar explosive radiations (at least in a geological sense as an explosion ould take millions fo years). I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism

Creationists also believed that finding soft tissue in Dinosaur fossils was a very real possibility. Low and behold, we find soft tissue remaining in dinosaur fossils. All it tells us is that the process of petrification isn't consistent between different sediments, which is what you'd expect. The bone itself was petrified and that still takes a very long time to achieve. I dont see this is evidence FOR creationism

The list goes on and on, so to say that creationism never makes any predictions is a complete farce.- Is it?

Still nothing, but I live in hope.

Creationism predicted that creationists will be morons. Statler is therefore strong evidence FOR creationism, right?

---

No wait, In this case, other systems makes exactly the same prediction as creationism. So I guess even Statler doesn't count as evidence FOR creationism.

Sorry, Statler. Your creationism is just screwed.

(December 16, 2010 at 4:34 am)theVOID Wrote: Natural epistemologies like scientific/methodological naturalism have already been shown without doubt to be the single most effective epistemology for establishing truth claims and getting results.

Void,

Unless I am missing something, that statement in itself is a truth claim.

So please explain for all of us how scientific/methodological naturalism (or any other natural epistemology) establishes the truthfulness of your statement (without your argument being circular, of course).

(December 16, 2010 at 2:16 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(December 16, 2010 at 4:34 am)theVOID Wrote: Natural epistemologies like scientific/methodological naturalism have already been shown without doubt to be the single most effective epistemology for establishing truth claims and getting results.

Void,

Unless I am missing something, that statement in itself is a truth claim.

So please explain for all of us how scientific/methodological naturalism (or any other natural epistemology) establishes the truthfulness of your statement (without your argument being circular, of course).

If you look around your medicine cabinate, the computer you type on, the car you drive, the plane you flew in, and the answer to what you ask is still not clear to you, then you are too stupid to ever enjoy real clarity. The bible is probably the best pretense at clarity that will ever be in your limited reach. So go back to it for you have no alternatives.

(December 16, 2010 at 3:42 pm)Chuck Wrote: [quote='rjh4' pid='110339' dateline='1292523401']
If you look around your medicine cabinate, the computer you type on, the car you drive, the plane you flew in, and the answer to what you ask is still not clear to you, then you are too stupid to ever enjoy real clarity. The bible is probably the best pretense at clarity that will ever be in your limited reach. So go back to it for you have no alternatives.

Huh? If the answer is so obvious as you claim it is, then why do you seem to have such a difficult time explaining it? I think his question stands un-answered.

---

(December 16, 2010 at 1:16 pm)Chuck Wrote: Creationism predicted that creationists will be morons. Statler is therefore strong evidence FOR creationism.

---

No wait, In this case, other systems makes exactly the same prediction as creationism. So I guess even Statler doesn't count as evidence FOR creationism.

Sorry, Statler. Your creationism is just screwed.

Haha, here we are having all of these great conversations, and intellectually intriguing discussions and the best you can contribute is this? You really are small time.

Don't flatter yourself, For you there can be no "we" in any meaningful discussion.

(December 16, 2010 at 3:42 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(December 16, 2010 at 2:16 pm)rjh4 Wrote:

(December 16, 2010 at 4:34 am)theVOID Wrote: Natural epistemologies like scientific/methodological naturalism have already been shown without doubt to be the single most effective epistemology for establishing truth claims and getting results.

Void,

Unless I am missing something, that statement in itself is a truth claim.

So please explain for all of us how scientific/methodological naturalism (or any other natural epistemology) establishes the truthfulness of your statement (without your argument being circular, of course).

If you look around your medicine cabinate, the computer you type on, the car you drive, the plane you flew in, and the answer to what you ask is still not clear to you, then you are too stupid to ever enjoy real clarity. The bible is probably the best pretense at clarity that will ever be in your limited reach. So go back to it for you have no alternatives.

What you said clearly touches on the "and get results" part, but if fails to address the main part of what I was getting at. I was wondering how scientific/methodological naturalism could be used to establish the truthfulness of a claim that scientific/methodological naturalism is the single most effective epistimology for establishing truth claims, which is, essentially, what Void was claiming. So, Chuck, maybe you can address my real point.

And by the way, I don't have a problem with the idea that scientific/methodological naturalism is fine for establishing the some truth claims and I think it is great at getting results like the ones you mentioned, i.e., those things relating to operational science. Such things are not contrary to a Biblical epistimology. However, I don't think it is useful for establishing all truth claims as Void suggests. For example, can scientific/methodological naturalism establish the truth of either of the following truth claims?

"God exists."
"God does not exist."

I don't think so. If it could establish the truth of the first, you wouldn't be an atheist. If it could establish the truth of the second, there would be no need for most of the atheists here to consider themselves "agnostic atheists".

I hope this clarifies things for you, Chuck.