Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well good luck telling people they "should" follow the scientific method in order to conduct science without morals. I completely stand by my assertions that morals are a necessary precondition for intelligibility.
I am not claiming people "should" anything. I pointed out that science can be conducted without introducing morals. Can != should.
(May 5, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I feel you are being nothing more than intellectually lazy on this one. To say that making a statement like, "irrational events never yield rationality" is somehow an argument from ignorance is absurd. It would be no different than saying the statement, "humans don't give birth to cats" is somehow an argument from ignorance. We have done extensive investigation into the matter and cannot even device a method as to how it could happen (which is probably why you have not presented one). So I can rationally conclude that irrational natural events cannot give birth to rational minds. I think you tap dance around the issue because you realize how powerful the implications are.
You are misunderstanding which part of your argument is from ignorance. You fallaciously assume that events are irrational, which in itself is a nonsensical statement. Events happen, rationality or irrationality does not enter into it. A quantum particle jumping in and out of existence is neither rational nor irrational, it just is. It may seem irrational from our perspective since it is counter intuitive, but that is a failing on our part.
You keep referring to "extensive investigations", but you have not pointed out which investigations and what they concluded. I do not simply take your word for it, especially since I find the entire argument to be from ignorance and based on fallacious premises(see my previous point).
Your flawed premises also means you draw incorrect conclusions regarding the origins of rational minds. The origin of our brains is presumably the same as with all life, through the long and arduous process of evolution and natural selection. Since all observed life evolves, and can be proven to have evolved from common ancestors I can rationally infer that we, and by extension our brains, have followed the same path.
I have not pointed it out yet, but I will draw in that you presume a rational creator is necessary for rational beings to exist, but then you make an unproven and irrational presumption in regards to the existence of a rational creator. Where did the rational creator come from, or do you presume it always existed which is also an unproven irrational presumption?
As for the implications, I do not tap dance, as there is nothing to tap dance around.
Forgive me for using your own definition of "irrational"; I do believe you said that it is anything that is not rational. Maybe a better term would be "non-rational". Does not change the argument at all, rational minds still don't arise from n0n-rational events and matter.
Well I would argue that since you are the one asserting that rational minds arose from non-rational events and matter the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how this could happen. It has never been observed to happen, that is what I meant by investigation. I reject your premise that you can logically prove life arose from a common ancestor through natural selection, but even if you could this would not give rise to rational minds. Thinking rationally is completely irrelevant to survival, an animal can have irrational thoughts, but as long as they enhance survival the irrational mind will be preserved.
As to the old, “well who created God argument?”…
God is not a contingent being by definition, so he does not need to be created or formed by a rational mind. Men are contingent beings, they are material.
Somehow you completely missed the part where events and rationality do not intersect, even though I spelled it out in clear text.
The fact that you reject evolution from a common ancestor when the body of evidence for this is vast and readily available tells me you do not care to know about it. Your preconceived notions about reality has made you irrational in your thinking process, which makes any rational debate with you inherently difficult. Your irrationality is exampled in your continued stating of claims without evidentiary support or rational reasoning (see "but even if you could this would not give rise to rational minds").
You also throw out the old and worn "god did not need to be created" fallacy, creating a special exception for your preferred deity. This once again highlights your irrational line of reasoning and your logical schism.
I have not been completely blind to your previous history on this forum, and I see that the pervasive opinion of your lack of rational thought on certain topics was correct. I will likely have further discussions with you in the future, but this discussion I can see will lead nowhere.
One suggestion, educate yourself on evolutionary biology.
II am quite aware that events and rationality do not intersect; it is you that is suggesting that events somehow gave rise to rational minds. A bold claim that would require a lot of proof, of which you have given none.
I said you could not provide any valid logical proof that life originated from a common ancestor, which of course still stands because you didn't even attempt to.
You toss out the word "rational" as if you have a clue about what it means, but it's obvious you are clueless (as evidenced by your claim that a non-contingent being is somehow contingent). You pretty much just toss out the same old leaky bucket arguments that all atheists do, nothing new here folks, move along.
I find it funny your only response is to "educate myself in evolutionary biology", which of course is not an argument at all. However, if you knew anything about me you would realize that the reason I do not buy into common descent is because I have TOO MUCH education in evolutionary biology. I have a natural sciences degree and was the highest achieving student in my advanced evolutionary biology course in university. I taught high school biology and now work for the USDA in the natural sciences and continuing education departments. So nice try, I am still waiting for your proof of common descent, or even a little evidence.
