Man is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness. When he looks at the small he sees himself as great. When he compares himself to the vastness of the universe he becomes insignificant.
In the same token, man is capable of both great acts and atrocities. To what end can science account for this duality in man?
Caught between two infinities
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
Here you commit the logical fallacy known as Reductio ad Hitlerum.Icarus wrote: I do not find the inflammatory remark towards science in my statement. Hitler's Mein Kampf emphasized his total belief in Darwins Theory. Stalin firmly believed in what Evolution Science stated and executed his vision with utmost disregard for any punishment, (other than the paranoia of other more stronger leaders to come along).
Except when practising science, as you know full well, it is not acceptable to approach it with a foregone conclusion...Icarus wrote: Let me clarify my overall thoughts on science. I love it. I believe we are charged with figuring out this world and how God made it, makes it work, keeps it working, be creative with it, etc.. I believe science is a value to man kind in many facets.
The absence of this test stems from the fact that there could be no such test. Please outline one if you've thought of one.Icarus wrote: I do not believe scientists are correct in some of its conclusions about the big picture of life. I also believe that Natural Science (particularly the Evolutionary niche) has a flaw in its premise. It automatically eliminates a likely answer BEFORE testing it. Or even developing a test to see if there are other explanations outside of our natural universe.
Factual fallacy? So what was it that prompted the Geneva Spiritual Appeal of 1999?Icarus wrote: I also would like to state here that while many here have stated that most wars are of religious feuds and desires. That is a factual fallacy. A look at actual wars in the last 200 years are more from political fame and from the belief that there is no God, therefor no punishment for crimes. As well as it is science that created gun powder, guns, swords, nukes, tanks... with which we kill each other. (note: I am also not excusing any religious war here either).
An end to religion as a cause of violence:
Buddhist, Christian (Old Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Roman Catholic), Jewish and Muslim religious leaders held a meeting Geneva Switzerland during 1999-OCT. Also present were heads of secular groups: the President of the Red Cross, UN High Commissioners for Human Rights and for Refugees, and the General Director of the World Health Organization.
Many conferences have been conducted in the past to discuss how religious groups could ameliorate human suffering, and reduce conflict. However, this was one of the first to dwell on religion as a cause of violence and discrimination.
On OCT-24, they signed a document "The Geneva Spiritual Appeal." They ask political and religious leaders and organizations to ensure that religious faiths are not used to justify future violence.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_prom.htmAccording to Ecumenical News International, delegates claim that 56 current conflicts, civil disturbances, wars, etc have significant religious elements. Protestant theologian William McComish said: "Religion is part of the identity by which one ethnic group sets itself against one another."
After a few thousand years of trying answer A to no avail, perhaps we should be asking ourselves if we really heard God properly. Either that or answer B is the truth after all.Icarus wrote: Answer A) There is a God, He is personal and He has told us why we are in the predicament we are in and how to get out of it.
Answer B) There is no God and therefore no moral, ethical or absolute truths. (any other reasoning after this answer would likely make a moral statement and therefore takes it into another realm of discussion about absolutes and a moral agent guide post)
Post #32
I did as you requested. You just took too long of a lunch break.Why don't you give us a specific example of what you are talking about, or rephrase your question in objective terms as I asked you to previously?
A) Evolution presupposes human intellect ex nihilo.
B) If the evolution of intellect presupposition holds true then man is not capable of accurate reasoning.
C) Therefore man is caught between knowing and not knowing (greatness and nothingness/wretchedness).
QED,
Reductio ad Hitlerum, while funny and poignent to many discussions. I pointed him out as a recent leader who if you actually read his history and beliefs, not just throw up a funny pun, would find that my statement is not fallacious. Neither is Stalins. If you want I could bring up the scientist/bounty hunters who captured, killed, stuffed and displayed Native Australians in the Smithsonian natural sciences section as "proof" that "evolution is alive and well" up to only a few decades ago. Got a pun for those guys too? Or shall we always plug our ears and cry fallacy when you've heard the truth too much?
I know full well, but you missed what I said, I did not say they had to approach with any forgone conclusion. I said the oppostite. They have already eliminated a reasonable answer.Except when practising science, as you know full well, it is not acceptable to approach it with a foregone conclusion...
What absence? Can something come from nothing? lets test that out! Nope. Next test... Can intelligence come from complexity? Nope. Next test... Can there be an infinite regress of beginnings? Nope. Next test...The absence of this test stems from the fact that there could be no such test. Please outline one if you've thought of one.
Well it looks like something outside of our current testing style is being implicated... and it can't be aliens because that was eliminated with the infinte regress refutation. hmmm.
Misapplied facts. Maybe we should have a Geneva Evolution Believers Appeal. But regardless, these quotes are an appeal to authority. Which I'll assume you know to generally be not regarded well in debate. Mainly because I can point out that the last 200 wars with the most devastation to man are of non-religious nature. ie: politics, selfishness, disdain for another people group... in other words "Hitleresque" in nature.So what was it that prompted the Geneva Spiritual Appeal of 1999?
counter example in appealing to authority:
Some people worry that evolutionary psychology will be used to justify harmful behavior, and have at times tried to suppress its study. They give the example that a husband may be more likely to cheat on his wife, if he believes his mind is evolved to be that way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
...society it needs the occasional outlet provided by war. This combines with other notions, such as displacement where a person transfers their grievances into bias and hatred against other ethnic groups, nations, or ideologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#Causes_of_war
* 45,000,000–68,000,000 - World War II (1937–1945),
* 30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century)
* 33,000,000–36,000,000 - An Lushan Rebellion (756–763)
* 25,000,000–Manchu Conquest of Ming China (1616–1644)
* 20,000,000–50,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (1851–1864)
* 15,000,000–66,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918)
* 17,000,000 - Timur Lenk's conquests (1370–1405)
* 10,000,000+ - Sino-Japanese War (1931–1942)
* 5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War (1917–1921)
* 3,000,000–8,000,000 - Thirty Years War (1618–1648)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll ... _by_humans
Take a look at that last one's full page list and you'll see that maybe if you stretched the criteria, maybe, 2% of all wars accounted for are of a religious nature.
I see that with the line before this you are leaning towards B....Either that or answer B is the truth after all.
Post #33
A) Wrong. Evolution proposes that human intellect is the product of billions of years of trial and error (Feedback); not just Time and Chance as you incorrectly claim. Stupid animals are more likely to become someone else's food, the smarter ones live to reproduce. As for the "ex nihilo" part, we really don't know yet, do we? I don't think evolution presupposes any such thing and I don't think that you'll be able to come up with any evidence that this is the view held by evolutionary biologists.Icarus wrote:I did as you requested. You just took too long of a lunch break.
A) Evolution presupposes human intellect ex nihilo.
B) If the evolution of intellect presupposition holds true then man is not capable of accurate reasoning.
C) Therefore man is caught between knowing and not knowing (greatness and nothingness/wretchedness).
It would be much easier to produce evidence that the bible "presupposes human intellect ex nihilo" because the bible presupposes everything ex nihilo.
B) Even if we granted that (A) was true, your conclusion here is not logical. Just because human beings aren't infinitely intelligent doesn't mean they can't reason accurately. It just means that they can't reason infinitely nor do they need to. For example;
If I jump off a cliff today I will plummet to my death.
Billions of years from now when our planet no longer exists this statement may no longer be true, but it's solid reasoning NOW, ABSOLUTELY true.
C) You think that science hasn't addressed this? Have you ever taken an IQ test? Did you know that some researchers count as many as 19 types of intelligence?
Do you assume that we are intelligent for some reason other than the survival benefit to our species?
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #34
A:
Trial and Error and not Time and Chance is a distinction without a difference.
"As for the "ex nihilo" part, we really don't know yet, do we?" -That is what I call the Theory of the Undiscovered. If it were reversed you would call it God of the Gaps.
I freely admit that creation came out of nothing... but from someone. Something science has self limited itself from and calls it "smarter than those unrational 'narrow' people" whenever it can. And yet their own rules dictate that something cannot come from nothing. Now who's unrational and narrow?
B:
"Solid" reasoning now is not an absolute. Where did you get that logic? My argument is not that man cannot reason infinitely, but accurately.
C:
I am aware of the different types of intelligence. I am also aware that scientists are trying to create intelligence through complexity. And have designed/created some very complex items that can only mimic through "designed" software. Funny how that works.
Note: I may be a while in coming back. Have some work to get done.
Trial and Error and not Time and Chance is a distinction without a difference.
"As for the "ex nihilo" part, we really don't know yet, do we?" -That is what I call the Theory of the Undiscovered. If it were reversed you would call it God of the Gaps.
I freely admit that creation came out of nothing... but from someone. Something science has self limited itself from and calls it "smarter than those unrational 'narrow' people" whenever it can. And yet their own rules dictate that something cannot come from nothing. Now who's unrational and narrow?
B:
"Solid" reasoning now is not an absolute. Where did you get that logic? My argument is not that man cannot reason infinitely, but accurately.
C:
I am aware of the different types of intelligence. I am also aware that scientists are trying to create intelligence through complexity. And have designed/created some very complex items that can only mimic through "designed" software. Funny how that works.
Note: I may be a while in coming back. Have some work to get done.
Post #35
I would just like to ask why, if it is so absurd to believe a simple universe should arise from nothing, is it not equally absurd to believe God did or that God was "always" there? If simple intelligence has no chance of arising from a medium of immense resource and diversity, how would it seem more likely that a super intelligence could arise from nothing?
Post #36
Curious,
Sure. Great question. I'll give it my cliff notes answer.
Your question overstates the "everything has a cause" thought.
If everything has a cause than we have an infinite regression. Which can't happen in the naturalistic. But everything that has a beginning necessarily has a cause.
Now we could argue that that necessary is or isn't a personal intelligent God. But then we'd have a necessary naturalistic cause. Which ultimately according to natural law would demand a cause itself for explanation. Or an infinite regress.
So reasoning, logic and elimination indicates an necessary being without a beginning.
A shorter version is the Kalaam Argument that goes like this:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause
Sure. Great question. I'll give it my cliff notes answer.
Your question overstates the "everything has a cause" thought.
If everything has a cause than we have an infinite regression. Which can't happen in the naturalistic. But everything that has a beginning necessarily has a cause.
Now we could argue that that necessary is or isn't a personal intelligent God. But then we'd have a necessary naturalistic cause. Which ultimately according to natural law would demand a cause itself for explanation. Or an infinite regress.
So reasoning, logic and elimination indicates an necessary being without a beginning.
A shorter version is the Kalaam Argument that goes like this:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause
Post #37
The deductive process which results in a necessary supernatural 'being' (something with intelligence that can create all that is naturalistic) is worthy of a discussion in it's own right. It might be a good idea to start a new topic so we can concentrate on this matter.Icarus wrote: So reasoning, logic and elimination indicates an necessary being without a beginning.
Post #38
That is true but why look for something outside of the universe as the cause? Now we know that energy has no beginning or end. Energy does not require creation, it cannot be created, and has no end, it is indestructible. This energy, through it's various manifestations is capable of creating all that we see, so why do we need to look for something else other than energy for the formation of the universe and all its complexity. We have something already that fits the bill perfectly well on it's own.Icarus wrote:Curious,
Sure. Great question. I'll give it my cliff notes answer.
Your question overstates the "everything has a cause" thought.
If everything has a cause than we have an infinite regression. Which can't happen in the naturalistic. But everything that has a beginning necessarily has a cause.
Now we could argue that that necessary is or isn't a personal intelligent God. But then we'd have a necessary naturalistic cause. Which ultimately according to natural law would demand a cause itself for explanation. Or an infinite regress.
So reasoning, logic and elimination indicates an necessary being without a beginning.
A shorter version is the Kalaam Argument that goes like this:
Everything that has a beginning has a cause
Post #39
Mainly because I can point out that the last 200 wars with the most devastation to man are of non-religious nature. ie: politics, selfishness, disdain for another people group... in other words "Hitleresque" in nature.
This claim is ridiculous. Surely you can look at America today (as only one example) and understand that religion is tied up into every facet of human life. [ BTW: can we refrain from referring to all humans as mankind, and God as he- this is narrow, limiting, and frankly incorrect.]
You cannot claim, first of all, that the destruction of the European Jews was non-religious! Are you kidding??? Hitler's campaign against the Jews was a seamless intertwining of science and religion; as terrible as that time in our history was, it showed the aweful, destructive ends to which both science and religion can be applied. Indeed, to deny the implicit religious nature of the Shoa is audacious. Secondly, in many of the 200 wars you claim to be non-religious, religion was used as a means to justify the actions of both parties- holy books were raised aloft as justification for aggressions and hostilities regardless of the political impact. Yet, you cannot cleave the two inextricably apart, religion, politics, economics, SCIENCE, are all intertwined.
Are you referring to God as the likely answer? If so, then you must concede that God is not an object which can be empirically tested for- the aim of science and evolutionary biology is not to prove that God does not exist but rather to flesh out the processes by which we arrived here and are arriving towards. It is not a flaw in the premise of evolutionary biology to look for an answer less closely linked with D & D and more towards tangible reality.I do not believe scientists are correct in some of its conclusions about the big picture of life. I also believe that Natural Science (particularly the Evolutionary niche) has a flaw in its premise. It automatically eliminates a likely answer BEFORE testing it. Or even developing a test to see if there are other explanations outside of our natural universe.
Where is your evidence that the reason that these wars come from atheism. You assume much, especially when many of the countries listed are situated within deeply religious areas. [Also, though it is not listed due to its lack of war-structure, the crusades killed many tens of thousands of people, including women and children, by the decree of kings, pope's and muslim leaders.] Also, science did not create gun powder, or guns or swords or nukes or tanks. Science is not a creative force- though it allows us to understand the processes by which these weapons work, human hands and machines do the creating. Furhtermore, gun powder, knives, guns, swords- all hold religious significance throughout history and were/are used in religious rituals all over the world.That is a factual fallacy. A look at actual wars in the last 200 years are more from political fame and from the belief that there is no God, therefor no punishment for crimes. As well as it is science that created gun powder, guns, swords, nukes, tanks... with which we kill each other. (note: I am also not excusing any religious war here either).
Things of note: like science, evolution is not a thing, or creative force, but merely an observation.
Post #40
Palmera,
Wow. I go away for a bit and there is a book waiting for me. Thank you for the engagement, but I only have time to reply to some.
My claim is not ridiculous as you state. Appeal to authority is as easy to point-counter-point as is He said She said. Plus history does not show that Hitler invaded European countries, the Middle East, Africa, Rusia, etc... in an effort to look for more Jewish people to kill. The rest of the statement in the first chunk of the reply is Hasty Generalization of events and Prescriptive.
The request of not calling God a he and humans as Mankind. This Categorical Proposition fails to meet any qualifying statement as to why. Other than "I said its not correct".
And yes there is a flaw in the premises mentioned. Science uses Inductive Logic to draw conclusions and bandies about words like empirical when nothing can be empirically stated. However if science used Deductive Logic it would have to conclude necessary answers not inference to a probable. Using Deductive Logic in science would then take bias out of conclusions and be a more open system of thinking.
In which case Nobel and Einstein (and the nuke ilk) were not scientists, they were Weapons Technologist.
Wow. I go away for a bit and there is a book waiting for me. Thank you for the engagement, but I only have time to reply to some.
My claim is not ridiculous as you state. Appeal to authority is as easy to point-counter-point as is He said She said. Plus history does not show that Hitler invaded European countries, the Middle East, Africa, Rusia, etc... in an effort to look for more Jewish people to kill. The rest of the statement in the first chunk of the reply is Hasty Generalization of events and Prescriptive.
The request of not calling God a he and humans as Mankind. This Categorical Proposition fails to meet any qualifying statement as to why. Other than "I said its not correct".
Well if you read the post you would see that I was not making an argument in that section of the post. It contains words like "I" and "believe"... but nonetheless, I did make an argument in other statements in this thread that you can test for an outside necessary personal force.Are you referring to God as the likely answer? If so, then you...
And yes there is a flaw in the premises mentioned. Science uses Inductive Logic to draw conclusions and bandies about words like empirical when nothing can be empirically stated. However if science used Deductive Logic it would have to conclude necessary answers not inference to a probable. Using Deductive Logic in science would then take bias out of conclusions and be a more open system of thinking.
Hey, I have a new fallacy to create here for QED: the Reductio ad Crusadium.the crusades killed
Science is not a creative force
In which case Nobel and Einstein (and the nuke ilk) were not scientists, they were Weapons Technologist.
And a Marine Drill Sargeant is a scientist.- though it allows us to understand the processes by which these weapons work
