(February 22, 2014 at 3:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote: How would I know this if I haven't followed your links? I wouldn't.
Yet you were telling me that my ideas are unsound, unsupported, doesn't conform with philosophy nor mathematics, and such, all the while ignoring the supporting information ...
(February 22, 2014 at 3:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote: And I know from prior experience that your lack of understanding leads you to linking to material that sounds related, but really isn't.
And your prior experience of this doesn't justify that my links will always be unrelated. You cannot possibly know whether they are related or not until you visit those specific links.
(Then again, I can't fully trust you, and so maybe you did follow the links but just telling a lie now).
(February 22, 2014 at 3:26 pm)rasetsu Wrote: But your approach to Taoism has the same failings as the rest of your thinking, composed of over-emphasis on superficial resemblances and totally lacking in any real in-depth understanding.
I know that I don't have an in-depth understanding of Taoism.
Regardless of that, the point that still remains is that Taoism teaches that the fundamental level of reality is characterized by a perfect order, not disorder. You view the opposite to be true (even though you're a Taoist), because you said that the beauty around us is more property existing in a strange and "disorganized pattern." That goes against the teachings of Taoism, the same philosophy that you claim to profess. And you haven't provided a solution nor a clarification to this contradiction yet.
^ You dodged this single point twice, by simply saying that I don't understand Taoism. But I'm predicting that you'll probably dodge this one once again, making it the third time.
(February 22, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: I find your theory very intriguing. I would say that in part you could be correct, for no one truly knows if there exists a Creator or not.
Thanks, although (of course) this was not just "my" theory. It seems to fall generally under the well-known "teleological argument."
(February 22, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: But, my question for you is why do you seem to equate randomness as chaotic? Order is not the opposite of random. It's the opposite of chaos. So, could you clarify?
No, I didn't equate randomness as chaotic. Chaotic has a different meaning from randomness, although it appears to be random. I explained it in the following post:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-23665-po...#pid591162
The opposite of "order" is "disorder," and "disorder" is the same as "randomness" because they both mean an absence of order.
"Chaotic," on the other hand, just means that the system in question is unpredictable. And it's been proven that a lot systems known as "chaotic" in fact have a great amount of order. So chaos is not an accurate antonym for order. Chaos might be the opposite of order only in a perceptual sense because chaotic systems appear disorderly to us, but not the opposite based on its actual definition.
See the article below on the meaning of "chaos" (which I posted earlier as well).
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chaos.html
