(4 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(6 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Fair point, but at one juncture or another, I always eventually qualify my claims with, "This is my opinion."  I'm not really 100% sure of anything, whether in religion or science. 

But I'm pretty sure that 2 + 2 = 4, and I'm pretty sure that the intangible won't push tangible matter, and that the shortest distance is a straight line.

The thing with science, though, is it's transparent, you could discover the evidence and reasoning involved.  So dismissing it on account of incredulity is simply laziness.  You are justified in being skeptical, but that's not the same as dismissing it, which is what your OP requires.  In other words, you've pretended to know more than you do.

That assessment seems terribly dishonest.  It's not incredulity that denies tangible-intangible collisions. It's tautology and common sense.

A tangible object is BY DEFINITION a collision-able object. (Just like a square is by definition an example of a rectangle).
Conversely an intangible object is BY DEFINITION a non-collision-object.  Therefore an intangible will never push tangible matter. Period.

Yet you endlessly and dishonestly repeat the accusation that my incredulity alone is driving this conclusion.

(2 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(4 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: The thing with science, though, is it's transparent, you could discover the evidence and reasoning involved.  So dismissing it on account of incredulity is simply laziness.  You are justified in being skeptical, but that's not the same as dismissing it, which is what your OP requires.  In other words, you've pretended to know more than you do.

That assessment seems terribly dishonest.  It's not incredulity that denies tangible-intangible collisions. It's tautology and common sense.

A tangible object is BY DEFINITION a collision-able object. (Just like a square is by definition an example of a rectangle).
Conversely an intangible object is BY DEFINITION a non-collision-object.  Therefore an intangible will never push tangible matter. Period.

Yet you endlessly and dishonestly repeat the accusation that my incredulity alone is driving this conclusion.

Based on your response to ‘Boda, I feel compelled to ask: do you prefer Tchaikovsky or Prokofiev?

Boru

Jal Wrote:Evolution is one possible extrapolation/ interpretation of the data.

Evolution is the most probable explanation.

Jal Wrote:In a deterministic metaphysics, it's an unlikely happenstance.

LoL, it is very likely happenstance since the core of metaphysical determinism is that every event in the universe is strictly necessitated by prior events combined with the laws of nature.

Jal Wrote:Yeah keep telling yourself that the scientific community is completely immune to dogma. Eventually you might believe it.

And you will never believe it because you are an ideologue and because you don't know what science is. In fact you don't know anything. You are just pulling out some philosophical and pseudoscientific terms without knowing anything about them.

Like, you don't even need examples of dogma in science to believe there is dogma in science because you believe there is based on your feelings—same nonsense you use to determine that your god exists.

(2 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(4 hours ago)The Grand Nudger Wrote: -and in that worry, actively but accidentally invites such a demonstration.

For example, we see him mistakenly claim that someone needs to prove evolution.  This is false.  Evolution is an observed fact.  However, apparently not knowing this…he chooses to imply that if an observed fact were true…then his god explanation would be imperiled.

Bad news on that count….,

Some degree of evolution (i.e. adaptation) is an observed fact.  (I opine that Yahweh designed the DNA to be highly adaptable).
That doesn't prove that DNA itself, and the primary lines of species, could have originated without Yahweh.

That's not how the burden of proof works. And you're conflating evolution and abiogenesis. Even if God created the first cell, evolution would still be true.

(5 hours ago)Fake Messiah Wrote: Indeed, you would need to see a psychiatrist to determine which exact mental disorder you have for engaging with an imaginary being.

I thought most atheists were somewhat agnostic, viz. "No one has found a good reason to believe in God, but I suppose His existence is a remote possibility."

But on this thread the atheistic disposition seems to be, "I know for a fact that God doesn't exist." Is that where you stand? You claim to be 100% sure that God doesn't exist?

In which case I wonder how you would know for sure, that is, infallibly. Are you infallible?

(2 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(2 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Some degree of evolution (i.e. adaptation) is an observed fact.  (I opine that Yahweh designed the DNA to be highly adaptable).
That doesn't prove that DNA itself, and the primary lines of species, could have originated without Yahweh.

That's not how the burden of proof works.  And you're conflating evolution and abiogenesis.  Even if God created the first cell, evolution would still be true.

No it's not a conflation since I believe that, over 4 billion years, several times Yahweh introduced new varieties of DNA. Whereas you're assuming that DNA sprouted only once (abiogenesis) and then evolved. 

So for example, having had success with apes, Yahweh probably took a segment of ape DNA, made some minor adjustments, lo and behold the first humans. 
I mean, why start fresh? Why not build on an existing proven model?

(2 hours ago)Fake Messiah Wrote: ...because you believe there is based on your feelings—same nonsense you use to determine that your god exists.

So invincible belief is irrational? What's your take on Descartes' cogito ergo sum?

(2 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(5 hours ago)Fake Messiah Wrote: Indeed, you would need to see a psychiatrist to determine which exact mental disorder you have for engaging with an imaginary being.

I thought most atheists were somewhat agnostic, viz. "No one has found a good reason to believe in God, but I suppose His existence is a remote possibility."

But on this thread the atheistic disposition seems to be, "I know for a fact that God doesn't exist." Is that where you stand? You claim to be 100% sure that God doesn't exist?

In which case I wonder how you would know for sure, that is, infallibly. Are you infallible?

Did you get those feels from the same place you got the feels that the Bible is true? To my knowledge, noone but you has talked about God, pro or con.

(2 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(2 hours ago)Jal Wrote: That assessment seems terribly dishonest.  It's not incredulity that denies tangible-intangible collisions. It's tautology and common sense.

A tangible object is BY DEFINITION a collision-able object. (Just like a square is by definition an example of a rectangle).
Conversely an intangible object is BY DEFINITION a non-collision-object.  Therefore an intangible will never push tangible matter. Period.

Yet you endlessly and dishonestly repeat the accusation that my incredulity alone is driving this conclusion.

Based on your response to ‘Boda, I feel compelled to ask: do you prefer Tchaikovsky or Prokofiev?

Boru

Follow-up question:

Do you find women with facial tattoos more or less attractive than a plate of braised pus?

Boru

(2 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(2 hours ago)Fake Messiah Wrote: ...because you believe there is based on your feelings—same nonsense you use to determine that your god exists.

So invincible belief is irrational? What's your take on Descartes' cogito ergo sum?

My own take is that a better phrasing of it would be ‘Cogito cogitio ergo cogito sum. Cogito.’

Also, I feel that Descartes’ facial hair was rather poorly executed. 

Boru