(March 1, 2020 at 5:18 pm)Belacqua Wrote: That's right. That's what prompted Aristotle and everybody after him to work out why the assumptions behind Zeno's paradoxes were incorrect. It was the beginning of a long history of careful thought, employing a dialectic of logic and empiricism.

Quote:Yet, you’ve drawn from logic and evidence of material world to reach that conclusion, lol. I’m fine to agree that our knowledge is often wrong, and our logic is often flawed, but we have to call on those things in order to make those very assessments of them, right? If not, what else is there?

Quote:Why is this "lol"? Of course I've used logic and evidence of the material world. Where have I argued otherwise?

Sorry, perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. You said:

Quote:If people's logic seems wrong to us, then we either point to the empirical world as a rebuttal, or show that the logic is wrong. But our knowledge of the empirical world is often flawed. And our logic is often wrong as well. So it's an ongoing problem to use them in dialectic to improve out thinking.

I guess it’s the phrase “ongoing problem” that caught me off guard. Yes, we are erroneous in our execution of logic and reason, and in our understanding of the empirical world, but I don’t think it necessarily follows to say that because we sometimes miss the mark, and fall short of these objective standards, the standards themselves are in intrinsically problematic, or obstructing our attempts to improve accuracy. I mean, they’re the tools we use to identify when we’ve used them wrong. Without sound and valid reasoning, and a method for interpreting the material world, we would be lost at sea in terms of a consistently reliable way to understand reality.

Quote:if we get to the point where we’re revering individual, subjective, unverifiable experience the same as logic and methodological naturalism, I think that’s a problem. If you tell me you have an invisible, pixie-farting unicorn in your basement, would it be wise for people to just take you at your word because, ‘there might be other ways to know things besides methodological naturalism’?

Quote:I wonder how you think revelation works.

I think I know, but I could very well be wrong. 😛

Quote:If you write a letter to the Pope describing your pixie-farting unicorn revelation, he will dismiss it out of hand. He has an internally consistent system, built up over centuries, by which he judges claims of revelation. Most religious people are just as aware as you or I that people can be mistaken, deceived, or dishonest. Claims of purported revelation are subjected to logical analysis in which the premises of the religion are held as standards, and if you claim that God is made of ice cream your claim will be judged inconsistent with those premises. 

(And before the scolders start to scold me: I am aware that you and I and the other superior people on this forum do not accept the Pope's premises. I am not claiming they are true. I am only claiming that he uses them as standards of judgment and does not accept purported revelation without them.)

Personally, I think millions of people claiming to experience revelations in accordance with an internally consistent, but mostly unverifiable or demonstrable framework, built over centuries, is far more dangerous than one individual thinking they a have a magical unicorn in their basement. 

Quote:No doubt there are silly people in the world who believe anything that pops into their heads to be true revelation. If they want pizza, it's the word of God. These people are not thinking clearly. This is why I think the advice that atheists often give to believers is insufficient. We say "think for yourself," but the problem is that they are already thinking for themselves, but they are thinking stupid things. The advice would be better as: "think for yourself, but never believe what you think." And I think this is necessary for all of us. All of what we hold to be true is best subjected to the widest possible critique.

I really liked that last sentence. I completely agree; the beliefs we feel the surest about are certainly the ones that demand the most scrutiny.

From what I can tell from Bel the definitions of god are much the same as definitions of Darth Vader. Nothing but fiction.

So bells nonesense 

1. No revelations (feels) are not internally consistent they are the result of self delusion  and a lot of ad hoc nonesense heaped on more nonsense 

2. Nope there is nothing that makes  fart pixies any less rational then any nonsense religion spews the number of deluded fools and the convoluted dogma they make believe doesn't make it reasonable   


3.There is no real standard for  revelations .Just dogma.

4. Revelations don't work period

---

(March 3, 2020 at 2:59 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: From what I can tell from Bel the definitions of god are much the same as definitions of Darth Vader. Nothing but fiction.

Yup just made up nonesense ,Dogma ,Ad hoc bullocks,Convoluted nonesense ,etc

(March 1, 2020 at 6:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 28, 2020 at 6:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Except that we do know, lol.
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/a...flake-made

I didn’t see ”hand-designed by a god” mentioned anywhere in that article. Even if god were the one who set all the natural laws in motion in order to allow for snowflakes to form, it’s still a natural formation that is no mystery to scientists. 

I really think you didn't understand a word I've written.

I don’t think you understand the problems with the words you’ve written. You are equivocating definitions of the word “design”:

Quote:de·sign

1. A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.

synonyms:
plan, blueprint, drawing, scale drawing, sketch, outline, map, plot, diagram, delineation, draft, depiction, representation, artist's impression, scheme, model, prototype, proposal
"an architect submitted a design for the offices"[/size][/font]


2. An arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration.
"pottery with a lovely blue and white design"
synonyms:
pattern, motif, device; More[/size]

When asked what evidence you have that the world is designed, you use definition 1., pointing to things like chairs, cars and other man-made things. Then, when it’s pointed out to you that there are things in the world that appear man-designed (definition .1), but actually form naturally, you slip into definition .2 and attempt to blur the lines between the two definitions, not because there is a good reason to do so, but because it rescues your argument. It’s a fallacy. You’re also assuming your conclusion when you assert that natural phenomena (i.e. snowflakes) are set into motion by a designer god, and that this is evidence that the world is designed by god, lol. Another fallacy. You need to go back to the drawing board and come up with an argument that isn’t fallacious.

(February 28, 2020 at 6:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Do you believe each snowflake was hand designed by a god?

Quote:Your question is ill-formed. "The entire universe and all of its physical laws" [/i]seems a lot of work only to us[/i], I'll make it clearer :  there is no logical problem with a god bringing a slice of pizza into existence through billions of years of extremely complicated quantum operations. "billions of years" and "extremely complicated" are an additional unnecssary cost only for creatures, not for a deity with infinite resources. Wasting time and resources is undefined for any entity with infinite attributes.

And yet, he couldn’t have brought that pizza, or people, for that matter, into the world unless every single thing that came before it was just so, right? So, god is at the mercy of the physical laws of nature? I’ll ask you the same question I asked Bel: how could one tell the difference between a snowflake that formed naturally in a world designed by a god, and a snowflake that formed naturally in a world that was not designed by a god?

How ridiculous. Saying "I admit that I don't know" is the MOST HONEST stance you could take.

What world do you live in ?

(March 3, 2020 at 5:48 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 1, 2020 at 6:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I really think you didn't understand a word I've written.

I don’t think you understand the problems with the words you’ve written. You are equivocating definitions of the word “design”:

Quote:de·sign

[*]1. 
a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
"he has just unveiled his design for the new museum"
synonyms:
plan, blueprint, drawing, scale drawing, sketch, outline, map, plot, diagram, delineation, draft, depiction, representation, artist's impression, scheme, model, prototype, proposal
"an architect submitted a design for the offices"

• 2. 
  an arrangement of lines or shapes created to form a pattern or decoration.
  "pottery with a lovely blue and white design"
  synonyms:
  pattern, motif, device; More
  

[/list]

• When asked what evidence you have that the world is designed, you use definition 1., pointing to things like chairs, cars and other man-made things. Then, when it’s pointed out to you that there are things in the world that appear man-designed (definition .1), but actually form naturally, you try to slip into definition .2 and blue the lines between definitions, not because there is a good reason to do so, but because it rescues your argument. It’s a fallacy. You need to go back to the drawing board and come up with an argument that isn’t fallacious.

(February 28, 2020 at 6:47 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Do you believe each snowflake was hand designed by a god?

Quote:Your question is ill-formed. "The entire universe and all of its physical laws" [i]seems a lot of work only to us, I'll make it clearer :  there is no logical problem with a god bringing a slice of pizza into existence through billions of years of extremely complicated quantum operations. "billions of years" and "extremely complicated" are an additional unnecssary cost only for creatures, not for a deity with infinite resources. Wasting time and resources is undefined for any entity with infinite attributes.[/i]

And yet, he couldn’t have brought that pizza, or people, for that matter, into the world unless every single thing that came before it was just so, right? So, god is at the mercy of the physical laws of nature?

Gotta love since it's not a "logical " problem it somehow isn't a problem nor does he get how it makes god redundant and even worst how ad hoc his statement is .

Too be fair though nothing is really a problem when you can make stuff up to solve the problem now matter how baseless or convoluted

---

(March 3, 2020 at 2:59 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: From what I can tell from Bel the definitions of god are much the same as definitions of Darth Vader. Nothing but fiction.

But Dumb there is no logical problem with Vader using the force to choke people therefore he can do it because george lucas says so 

When you can give your characters magic powers divorced from reality everything makes sense

---

(March 3, 2020 at 2:59 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: From what I can tell from Bel the definitions of god are much the same as definitions of Darth Vader. Nothing but fiction.

The difference being we have a clear, concise definition of Darth Vader. We have pictures and video and audio of Darth Vader. I doubt you could ever get a concise definition out of Bel if you asked him what god is. He would probably avoid the question and immediately start to ramble on about Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.

(March 3, 2020 at 6:20 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:

(March 3, 2020 at 2:59 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: From what I can tell from Bel the definitions of god are much the same as definitions of Darth Vader. Nothing but fiction.

The difference being we have a clear, concise definition of Darth Vader. We have pictures and video and audio of Darth Vader. I doubt you could ever get a concise definition out of Bel if you asked him what god is. He would probably avoid the question and immediately start to ramble on about Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.

Thn insist he's given  you an answer

---

Then our local Muslim will blather on about attributes and motives  he insist we just accept exist because he says so and it's no logically impossible as if that's a defense .

(March 3, 2020 at 6:27 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

(March 3, 2020 at 6:20 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: The difference being we have a clear, concise definition of Darth Vader. We have pictures and video and audio of Darth Vader. I doubt you could ever get a concise definition out of Bel if you asked him what god is. He would probably avoid the question and immediately start to ramble on about Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.

Thn insist he's given  you an answer

Exactly. He's also quite good at changing the subject, or clouding the issue in such ambiguity that you're no longer even talking about the original issue... Bel is quite a slippery one. I'm glad someone else sees it and is finally willing to admit it publicly. Most shots I've seen fired at Bel have been in private conversations I've had with other users, who don't call him out on his nonsense because they think it's not worth the trouble, or they don't want to rock the boat. Silly.

(March 3, 2020 at 6:39 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:

(March 3, 2020 at 6:27 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Thn insist he's given  you an answer

Exactly. He's also quite good at changing the subject, or clouding the issue in such ambiguity that you're no longer even talking about the original issue... Bel is quite a slippery one. I'm glad someone else sees it and is finally willing to admit it publicly. Most shots I've seen fired at Bel have been in private conversations I've had with other users, who don't call him out on his nonsense because they think it's not worth the trouble, or they don't want to rock the boat. Silly.

Oh i make no bones about calling him being a wordy pretentious windbag