A letter from a bible literalist - WTH is he talking about?

[Quindar]

A few months ago I had a discussion with a Christian who was handing out The Origin of Species with Ray Comfort's foreword (I was there handing out the retort to that - yes, I got my own copy!). He was actually a very nice and I agreed to correspond with him. I'm beginning to think that was a mistake... that said, as a non-believer and firm supporter of the scientific method, I suppose I should challenge my belief - or lack thereof - with an open mind. He sent me the following e-mail a few weeks ago. I know it's a painful read (more of my commentary to follow):

First I want to assert my view, I know what truth and what is true because The Bible States it. God's Word is in fact just that, His Word. So if it states 6 days creation then hey, it is 6 days.
Now before you excuse me of some great circular reasoning, let me explain! One can reject His word and heed it or they can choose to not choose it etc. But one will not be able to account for Science (Induction) nor logic, nor ethics, nor personal freedom and dignity nor personality etc.

Before addressing evolution, let me address that one can not make anything intelligible with out the Christian worldview. Thats why I hold to the transcendental argument, which states the preconditions of all intelligibility is the Christian worldview.
See, the Bible states in Romans that everyone knows God but they just suppress Him in unrighteousness. I will show you what it means that we all "know God."

Lets take Logic as an example. The laws of logic (law of non-contradiction or law of identity) are immaterial, universal, immutable (never changing) absolute etc. This presuppose Christian Theism easily. Logic presupposes the God of the Bible you see, even when one says there is no God, one is presupposing the laws of non-contradiction and identity when speaking. Thus showing that they know God in their heart of hearts but denying him with unrighteousness. Proof that they know him is that even though they can not account for laws of logic, they still use it. Logic in its nature presupposes God. God is truth, He does not lie, we are made in His image and therefore reason as such. In His word He demands us to reason etc. A materialistic atheist especially can not account for an immaterial, universal, never changing, absolute, law like laws of logic.

We can use another example, Induction which is to say science itself. The uniformity of nature or what others call the Inductive Principle, says we can predict things off of previous experience. See as a Christian, I can look at God's word and see that He is sustaining everything and governing all, therefore I have justification that what happened yesterday will happen to day in a law like fashion. A materialist, pagan, deist, etc can not account for induction. Lets give an example of this, a man who is a scientist figures that if he puts A formula with B formula that he would have a cure for cancer. In a random universe, he has no reason to believe that if he puts a with b that it will again come up with the same formula. You can not account for induction, if God is not governing it. If you say the universe is just predictable in nature, then I would ask you how you know that. IF you say that we do not know, then the very thing that gives explanation has no explanation in itself. Not to mention, empirically we have not observed this, so if one was an empiricist he could not account for it. Second I would ask how do you know that the property will not change or leave, especially if a lot of things do change in the universe etc making it non-predictable. See we live like there will never be a change in our laws of science, we predict things off of previous times yet we can not account for it..thus showing we know God yet deny Him.

Ethics, I mean we could go on about Social Contract theory, different forms of Utilitarianism, or egoism...thats fine but eventually morality would subjective in nature and there will be come extreme deadly consequences. For example, how do you account for Hitler being evil and doing bad things? The answer is that you can not with out the Christian worldview. Morality is based off of God's immutable (never changing) character and being, so I can judge hitler as wrong, but one who does not take God and His word can not.

How can a non-personal force create a personal being? It is impossible which is why guys like Huxley will tell you it is better to believe in God even though he doesnt exist. You see, it is impossible for a personal being to come from a non-personal force so the atheists will tell you your personality is really an illusion. You think you have personal feelings but you really do not, you are simply a material being that has chemical reactions etc. a simple bag of h20 and minerals. I mean, I think you have to be pretty blinded to reject we are personal, but if we accept we do have personalities then we must come from a personal being. If we come from a personal being (God) that Him being personal/communicative and nature, He would have to be a trinity. For God is self sufficient in nature meaning He can not rely on anyone or thing (as He is God) and yet His nature is personal and commutative, He would have to be Trinity there is no other option.

I mean, you would have to deny your mind and your free will if you truly wanted to be an consistent atheist, for mind is immaterial. So they tell you that everything you think and do is based off of an arbitrary electrical neurons and synapse firing off in the gray matter of your brain. They are acting independently and they are a end to themselves. So actually everything you are perceiving you really do not know if thats there, in fact, it could just be the neurons firing at radon that makes this computer look real. I mean, if naturalism is true then there is no way to know it is true, for you could be believing naturalism just because it what your chemicals in your mind are telling you to do and what your neurons are perceiving etc.
This is crazy, I mean these neurons are so smart they are obeying laws of logic and such lol.

Feel free to challenge any of my thoughts, but a warning, the mere fact that you are perceiving this and are going to respond to this shows that your presupposing an immaterial, universal, immutable law which in its very nature presuppose Christian Theism. I could go on and on about you can not account for concepts or love, I could talk about predictions about time frame and criteria that were predicted about the coming "christ" that Jesus fulfilled etc. But this will do!

Now a quick thought on evolution for I know this is a little long
When Darwin was trying to figure out why things evolve. He finally found an answer when he read a politcal essay by a guy named Malthus. Malthus basically stated that people produce as much as the food supply allows (though he later recanted of his theory). BINGO! Or so Darwin thought, he used this as I am sure you know as a main principle of Darwinism. Well this was all good and dandy..untill we realize that there are certain animals in certain places who do not do this any more, nor do of course humans. So they label us genetically failures and something is extreamlty wrong with us for we do not reproduce as the food supply allows. Really what has happened is that they we and a certain number of others things, do not match up to their theory so they call us genetical errors. I think the whole pressupostion (which again was recanted by the starter) is simply false. Therefore, Darwinian evolution is in fact false.

Now if you wana talk Dawkins, I am curious...what do you think of memes? You know the things he believes that are very ancient. These things that produce pretty much through learning, meaning you really do not learn anything, in fact it is really just a meme producing itself in you that comes in that form another person etc. So when you learned about pythagram theorm, it was really just the meme that the philosopher Pythagorean first came in contact with, in which produced itself through others minds over and over and over again etc. Wiki it, i think you will find it hiliarious! But this is what our top notch scientist believe! Why because we must deny the mind, and logic and many other things..simply because we deny God.

Now if you think there is fossil records then please show me, I mean besides all the neanderthal fossils* (which is really nothing more then a bigger then a normal size head type human skull) there is not to much to be proud of. Like I told you, besides that theres a handful of small controversial fossils..thats it. But regardless, even coming to a logical reason, your using laws of logic which the evolution worldview can not account for. They are using Induction which again there worldview can not account for, they are using will and personal freedom...do i need to say more?
Please take your time and read it well and type your thoughts back!

Any mention of evolution is easily refuted, and I firmly intend to reply with a decent sampling of the preponderance of evidence which supports evolution (fossils be damned, we've got ERVs!).

As for the rest... I honestly don't know WTF he's talking about. My domain expertise on logic and philosophy are virtually nonexistent, however. For those of you better versed in these topics; might you be able to explain his argument better than he?

 

[Nashy19]

He thinks evolution is the affect food supply has on reproduction, and that the purpose of actual evolution is the better correlate the food supply with reproduction :?

Ask him where he was first taught Biology(?) :shock:

 

[Durakken]

He's just throwing a lot of stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks...and also these are all well discussed by a number of philosophers.

He is using the you used the word god and thus must have a definition for god thus it must define something and that thing must exist and my god includes it being real so it I'm right. It's DeCartes argument v.v (DesCartes refutatations)

Logic is "immaterial" and since it is immaterial it proves that there is immaterial and since you accept that you must accept god. (this was covered by someone on YouTube recently within the last month)

Science works because god lays down the laws of the universe. If there was no god then cause and effect wouldn't work. (TED talk on this... the whole reason came about is the backwards of this... If there is a god then cause and effect doesn't work)

Ethics... It's subjective and therefor unfavorable and thus can not be the case thus there is a god!!!! (fallacy DJW and Tooltime talks about this)

Pantheism... Logic is God!!!! (comes up on Atheist Experience a number of times)

Inaccuracies about Mathusian whatever it's called and Darwin's ideas. (Been refuted by reality)

Display a misunderstanding of memes. (Refuted by a general knowledge of memes)

And an idiotic statement about fossils. (refuted by going to a museum)

 

[obsidianavenger]

as he said, he subscribes to the trancendental argument for god's existence...

basically the idea is that logical truths exist, and are true whether or not there are human beings to think/know them. they will always be true no matter what. christians contend that this is impossible without god's existence.

The oversimplified argument, which is expanded in outline form below, goes as follows: Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds, because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere, and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind that is authoring them. This mind is called God.

http://www.carm.org/transcendental-argument

a fairly good presentation of it, especially when it gets into the details a bit.

he repeatedly challenges the fact that they can be considered axioms, that to not explain them is to beg the question, but the fact of the matter is we *cannot conceive* of an object for which the law of identity or non contradiction doesn't hold. it being impossible to conceive of things in any other way is the definition of self evident, isn't it? i don't think it begs the question at all to say "they are true because their negation is utterly incomprehensible".

furthermore to say if there were no matter these laws would still hold is misleading, perhaps bordering on begging the question. you can't say A is A if there is no A UNLESS there is a mind present imaging A.

if there were no consciousness in the universe, the laws would hold, but no one would know about it... no one would be able to say A is A even though A must be A by definition. because no one would be thinking. just like gravity existed long before we discovered the law of gravity and had a decent understanding of it (and it will continue to do so after we are gone) A is A is A whether there is someone around to say so or not. its not any less true just because there is no god to assert it as so.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

They handed those out people at our school. I volunteered to hand out a hundred -
then made a show by ripping the intro out and thrwoing it into a garbage can, before handing it out to people. I got into some trouble before I brought up the point that they gave these books (being offered as a gift freely to all, and I was offered them free of charge) TO ME to hand out as MY PROPERTY to them.
I still got detention, though.

^^

 

[Durakken]

They handed those out people at our school. I volunteered to hand out a hundred -
then made a show by ripping the intro out and thrwoing it into a garbage can, before handing it out to people. I got into some trouble before I brought up the point that they gave these books (being offered as a gift freely to all, and I was offered them free of charge) TO ME to hand out as MY PROPERTY to them.
I still got detention, though.

^^

ummm colleges don't have detentions...if they are handing them out at your k-12 you should report them, less it's a private school...Something in there is wrong...

 

[scalyblue]

They handed those out people at our school. I volunteered to hand out a hundred -
then made a show by ripping the intro out and thrwoing it into a garbage can, before handing it out to people. I got into some trouble before I brought up the point that they gave these books (being offered as a gift freely to all, and I was offered them free of charge) TO ME to hand out as MY PROPERTY to them.
I still got detention, though.

^^

Even without the intro the book is still missing important chapters, and yeah you should definitely notify if they were passing them out at a public k-12. I was under the impression they were being distributed to universities.

 

[obsidianavenger]

my friend got one and didn't realize it was missing chapters until i LOL'd my arse off when i saw it on her bookshelf and explained.

and yeah, she got it at a university.

 

[Giliell]

Well, to the email: as people say here: You could also drill holes into your knee in search of oil, meaning: arguing with that guy is totally futile. He thinks he gets you coming and going. Heck, he's even parroting the good old "Neandertal Men" are just old men with rickets.
We don't only have the fossils, we also have the DNA. We WIN!

 

[e2iPi]

I got a headache after the first paragraph. It's obvious he can't express a cohesive idea - a problem I've noticed among creationists in general.

-1

 

[Squawk]

It's a matter I have given some thought to, forced to actually, as I ended up in a thread on another forum where the same line of bullshit reasoning was also used. It was useful in that it helped me formulate what you might call my own axiomatic philosophy. Lets take a peak.

But one will not be able to account for Science (Induction) nor logic, nor ethics, nor personal freedom and dignity nor personality etc.

He has it backwards, he just doesn't know it. Lets dig in.

let me address that one can not make anything intelligible with out the Christian worldview.

Again, he has it backwards, but we haven't got to the meat of it yet.

Thats why I hold to the transcendental argument, which states the preconditions of all intelligibility is the Christian worldview.

This line, though not well expressed and not well summarised, explains his whole position. And it is 100% backwards.

Let us be clear on what the argument here is. The position being held by your correspondent is that we cannot know that reason, induction or determinism actually hold true. We cannot use them as evidence of themselves. For example, we cannot point to billions of examples of empiricism adequately explaining reality because we must make the assumption that we can actually perceive reality in the first place, and further, that we can reason about it.

We see that he is alluding to this with this line

Proof that they know him is that even though they can not account for laws of logic, they still use it.

Somewhat amusingly he doesn't actually mean logic here, though he thinks he does. Logic is an abstact, a human concept that in some forms maps to reality. There are many systems of logic that are internally consistent and not applicable to the real world. A logical inference does not necessarily map to reality. Think, for example, of the logical deduduction that you can always travel faster than your current speed. If you start at 1m/s and continue to increment your speed every second for eternity you will continue to get faster and faster. A perfectly sound logical inference, and one that doesn't map to reality since you butt heads with relativity and the speed of light.

What he actually refers to is reason and determinism.

Now turn directly to his argument. In short his proposition is that everybody, in day to day life, uses reason and inference (determinism?) without any justification for doing so. He then proposes that only by presupposing the Christian God (or a deity, anyway) can one be justified in this presumption.

Instead of trying to defend our position (which I will do, in any case), let us examine his hypothesis. That the Christian God is neccessary to explain Reason/logic.

What do we find? We find that, in order to suggest that Reason and Logic require an explanation, he must already have accepted reason and logic, and indeed have actively used them, in order to arrive at the conclusion that they require an explanation.

Let me stress this, because it is important. If you wish to postulate an entity as an explanation and justification for reason and logic, you cannot use reason and logic to form the postulate. If you must do so (and of course, you must), then you must also concede that you have used reason and logic before they were justified, indeed without any justification.

So what does this tell us? It tells us that reason and logic are actually necesary assumption if we are to philosophise about reality. We have a name for a necessary assumption. it is called an axiom.

Ergo, reason and logic (logic in the form of A=A) are actually axioms.

Do I have justification for using them? If we wish to be strict, no I don't. Not a jot of justification actually. They are simply axioms that I must accept despite a total, 100%, lack of justification.

To postulate god as an explanation for them is to grant that they have already been accepted and to further posit that they require an explanation. When we look at the claims made we find that God, far from being a necessary presupposition, is actually an assumption that requires the prior acceptance of reason and logic, and that as an assumption it provides no explanatory power for reason and logic.


Put simply, an empiricist is capable of stripping away all his beliefs/inferences and observations right down to a very small set of assumptions. I have listed this before on these boards, and will do so again now.

1. Reality exists.
2. Reality can be perceived.

Contained within axiom 2 is the notion that one can reason about reality, though it could technically be added as a third axiom.

God, as an assumption, can only ever come after these axioms have already been accepted, and thus cannot be used as a justification for them. If God is real then he must be a part of reality, ie, you must have already conceded that reality exists. If you wish to speculate that God accounts fore reality and reason then you must already concede that reality and reason then you must, again, have accepted as a priori that reason exists.

So, tell your Christian friend that he has his arguments backwards. If you wish I would be happy to entertain a dialogue with him myself and will set this out somewhat more formally.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Oh dear...! What a circular argument he makes!

First I want to assert my view, I know what truth and what is true because The Bible States it. God's Word is in fact just that, His Word. So if it states 6 days creation then hey, it is 6 days.

Circular thinking and a "Literalist" (my term for a believer who takes their holy book literally - regardless of whether they're Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc).

Apart from the usual questions about "What's a day to God?", and if he says "1000 years" (most likely he's referring to Bishop Ussher's date of 4004BC) - say, "You're forgetting something - 'And on the seventh day, God rested": in other words, there's a missing 1000 years. Apart from the original 4 year error, which a Spanish priest pointed out, there's the even bigger one of 1000 years for the seventh day: shouldn't God have gotten the mathematics right? So who made the error - God or man? Man: ergo, all the date(s) - calculated by man - for the Creation, are wrong.

Have a look at:
Dating Creation
Beliefs In The Earth's Age

Now before you excuse me of some great circular reasoning, let me explain! One can reject His word and heed it or they can choose to not choose it etc. But one will not be able to account for Science (Induction) nor logic, nor ethics, nor personal freedom and dignity nor personality etc.

Before addressing evolution, let me address that one can not make anything intelligible with out the Christian worldview. Thats why I hold to the transcendental argument, which states the preconditions of all intelligibility is the Christian worldview.
See, the Bible states in Romans that everyone knows God but they just suppress Him in unrighteousness. I will show you what it means that we all "know God."

Lets take Logic as an example. The laws of logic (law of non-contradiction or law of identity) are immaterial, universal, immutable (never changing) absolute etc. This presuppose Christian Theism easily. Logic presupposes the God of the Bible you see, even when one says there is no God, one is presupposing the laws of non-contradiction and identity when speaking. Thus showing that they know God in their heart of hearts but denying him with unrighteousness. Proof that they know him is that even though they can not account for laws of logic, they still use it. Logic in its nature presupposes God. God is truth, He does not lie, we are made in His image and therefore reason as such. In His word He demands us to reason etc. A materialistic atheist especially can not account for an immaterial, universal, never changing, absolute, law like laws of logic.

Squawk is dealing with the Transcendental Argument.

We can use another example, Induction which is to say science itself. The uniformity of nature or what others call the Inductive Principle, says we can predict things off of previous experience. See as a Christian, I can look at God's word and see that He is sustaining everything and governing all, therefore I have justification that what happened yesterday will happen to day in a law like fashion. A materialist, pagan, deist, etc can not account for induction. Lets give an example of this, a man who is a scientist figures that if he puts A formula with B formula that he would have a cure for cancer. In a random universe, he has no reason to believe that if he puts a with b that it will again come up with the same formula. You can not account for induction, if God is not governing it. If you say the universe is just predictable in nature, then I would ask you how you know that. IF you say that we do not know, then the very thing that gives explanation has no explanation in itself. Not to mention, empirically we have not observed this, so if one was an empiricist he could not account for it. Second I would ask how do you know that the property will not change or leave, especially if a lot of things do change in the universe etc making it non-predictable. See we live like there will never be a change in our laws of science, we predict things off of previous times yet we can not account for it..thus showing we know God yet deny Him.

He is assuming that, without God, the universe is "random". (Still part of his TA.)

Everything occurs through, what I think of as, "guided probability" - the Laws of Nature govern what can and can't happen, therefore, nothing is truly "random". These laws came into being at, or soon after, the "Big Bang" (expansion rather than explosion) - the Big Bang occurred due to (a) quantum fluctuation(s).

The difference is that he puts "God" as the cause for the Big Bang.

References:
Big Bang
A Universe From Nothing

Ethics, I mean we could go on about Social Contract theory, different forms of Utilitarianism, or egoism...thats fine but eventually morality would subjective in nature and there will be come extreme deadly consequences. For example, how do you account for Hitler being evil and doing bad things? The answer is that you can not with out the Christian worldview. Morality is based off of God's immutable (never changing) character and being, so I can judge hitler as wrong, but one who does not take God and His word can not.

The idea that "Godless" people are "amoral" is a common misunderstanding of believers: a God-given conscience governs morality. Equally, the Christian world view is not the only religion which espouses morality.

Actually, years ago in school (I was brought up in Ireland as a Roman Catholic), a priest gave our class (early teens) a list of titles from which to choose one to write an essay: I chose "Conscience governs morality".

However, I turned it round and pointed out that our upbringing - the morality with which we're surrounded in childhood - informs our conscience.

For example, if you're born and grow up in a head-hunting and/or cannibalistic society, you'll consider head-hunting and cannibalism as perfectly normal = "right". Children born into criminal families (the Mafia, for example) grow up thinking (believing) that crime is normal - despite Mafia families going to church and being religious!

It is human societies which decide what's "right". [I got 98% :mrgreen: ]

The only principle of which I'm aware as being common across cultures is "fairness" - children, regardless of culture, understand this concept by age 7 or 8. Whether this is due to it being common to all cultures or whether there's a genetic/behavioural driver, I don't know.

Ethics in Religion
Children have sense of fairness by age seven

How can a non-personal force create a personal being? It is impossible which is why guys like Huxley will tell you it is better to believe in God even though he doesnt exist. You see, it is impossible for a personal being to come from a non-personal force so the atheists will tell you your personality is really an illusion. You think you have personal feelings but you really do not, you are simply a material being that has chemical reactions etc. a simple bag of h20 and minerals. I mean, I think you have to be pretty blinded to reject we are personal, but if we accept we do have personalities then we must come from a personal being. If we come from a personal being (God) that Him being personal/communicative and nature, He would have to be a trinity. For God is self sufficient in nature meaning He can not rely on anyone or thing (as He is God) and yet His nature is personal and commutative, He would have to be Trinity there is no other option.

I mean, you would have to deny your mind and your free will if you truly wanted to be an consistent atheist, for mind is immaterial. So they tell you that everything you think and do is based off of an arbitrary electrical neurons and synapse firing off in the gray matter of your brain. They are acting independently and they are a end to themselves. So actually everything you are perceiving you really do not know if thats there, in fact, it could just be the neurons firing at radon that makes this computer look real. I mean, if naturalism is true then there is no way to know it is true, for you could be believing naturalism just because it what your chemicals in your mind are telling you to do and what your neurons are perceiving etc.
This is crazy, I mean these neurons are so smart they are obeying laws of logic and such lol.

There are all sorts of arguments for a purely biological basis for the mind and personality. Is he suggesting that even microbes have "minds" and "personalities", since he rejects the possibility of behaviour being due to a purely physical (natural) explanation? If not, where does he draw the line between the God-given one and a purely physical-caused behaviour? (People versus animal? Yet, if that's the case, we too are "animals". What about "non-human persons"? - recently, scientists have suggested that dolphins be labelled as such. Do they have "minds" and/or "personalities"? ... "souls"!!?]

Equally, a review of neural networks and "fuzzy" logic will show why his last statement is false. Also, is he implying that Artificial Intelligence can never work - since it doesn't have a God-given mind/personality?

Feel free to challenge any of my thoughts, but a warning, the mere fact that you are perceiving this and are going to respond to this shows that your presupposing an immaterial, universal, immutable law which in its very nature presuppose Christian Theism.

...Or Judaic Theism or Islamic Theism or ... You get the drift!

I could go on and on about you can not account for concepts or love, I could talk about predictions about time frame and criteria that were predicted about the coming "christ" that Jesus fulfilled etc. But this will do!

See any number of books which show that the New Testament was shaped so that Jesus appeared to fulfil those Old Testament prophecies - Dr. Bart Ehrman's books, for example ("Jesus Interrupted", "Misquoting Jesus", "Lost Scriptures" and/or "Lost Christianities").

Now a quick thought on evolution for I know this is a little long
When Darwin was trying to figure out why things evolve. He finally found an answer when he read a politcal essay by a guy named Malthus. Malthus basically stated that people produce as much as the food supply allows (though he later recanted of his theory). BINGO! Or so Darwin thought, he used this as I am sure you know as a main principle of Darwinism. Well this was all good and dandy..untill we realize that there are certain animals in certain places who do not do this any more, nor do of course humans. So they label us genetically failures and something is extreamlty wrong with us for we do not reproduce as the food supply allows. Really what has happened is that they we and a certain number of others things, do not match up to their theory so they call us genetical errors. I think the whole pressupostion (which again was recanted by the starter) is simply false. Therefore, Darwinian evolution is in fact false.

A quick read of Darwin's comments about Malthus and his "An Essay on the Principle of Population" will show that this is not altogether true. [His autobiography and the writings of his son, Francis, "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" and "More Letters of Charles Darwin".]

Malthus's essay did give Darwin the "key" to the power of natural selection - although he'd already written the first draft of what became his book (1838) when he read Malthus.

Malthus' idea was essentially "exponentialism" - this did not explain the geological evidence (Lyell), heredity, genetic mutation, etc: it wasn't the whole story and did not replace the theory of natural selection, merely augmented it.

[EDIT: The claim that Malthus recanted also appears to imply that, because Malthus admitted being "wrong", therefore Darwin is "wrong".

This is simply not the case.

When Malthus fist proposed his theory of population, he couldn't predict how the agricultural and industrial revolutions would change the naturally occurring demand-supply. It appeared to him that humans, like the animal kingdom, was doomed to run out of the Earth's ability to supply food. Farming and industry changed that. Humans, thus "broke" the cycle - hence his recantation.

Yet, Man is not the only "animal" to "go against the grain", as it were - pregnant rabbits will reabsorb the foetuses if there isn't enough food available. This is just one clear example of how Darwin's theory of evolution is not "mutton dressed as lamb", as the correspondent appears to think/imply. Darwin's theory does not rest on Malthus'.]

One could also reference, "Why Evolution Is True" (Coyne), "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design" or "The Greatest Show On Earth" (Dawkins) or "Only A Theory" (Miller). And so on...!

Now if you wana talk Dawkins, I am curious...what do you think of memes? You know the things he believes that are very ancient. These things that produce pretty much through learning, meaning you really do not learn anything, in fact it is really just a meme producing itself in you that comes in that form another person etc. So when you learned about pythagram theorm, it was really just the meme that the philosopher Pythagorean first came in contact with, in which produced itself through others minds over and over and over again etc. Wiki it, i think you will find it hiliarious! But this is what our top notch scientist believe! Why because we must deny the mind, and logic and many other things..simply because we deny God.

The last sentence is a bit of a stretch.

There is no reason why the mind and logic can't exist if memes do - what he seems to be misunderstanding (and deriding) is the idea that we don't think, memes jump from person to person?! That isn't what Dawkins originally meant or said - from what I remember of "The Selfish Gene" (I read it when it first came out).

In reality, it's difficult to conceive of an idea without something upon which to build it - something similar to the saying "standing on the shoulders of giants": we synthesize what we already know and understand to come up with a new idea. Throughout thousands - if not millions - of years, humans have passed down hard-earned knowledge-from-experience: what's safe to eat, hunting, gathering, farming, etc. Such "lore" might well be thought of as "memes" traversing the generations.

That doesn't mean that humans don't think and/or realize things - that we don't have "a new idea", a new "meme" is born. It's humans who "create" new "memes" - not they themselves.

In ancient Ireland, there are tales of bards who could understand birds - this isn't a Dr. Doolittle reference: this is a reference to when people realised that different bird-calls had meaning: alarm cries, etc.

This realization requires the existence of a mind to cogitate about bird-calls - "Why do birds make noises?", "Why that particular noise at this time (of year. season, month, day/night, etc)?".

Now if you think there is fossil records then please show me, I mean besides all the neanderthal fossils* (which is really nothing more then a bigger then a normal size head type human skull) there is not to much to be proud of. Like I told you, besides that theres a handful of small controversial fossils..thats it. But regardless, even coming to a logical reason, your using laws of logic which the evolution worldview can not account for. They are using Induction which again there worldview can not account for, they are using will and personal freedom...do i need to say more?
Please take your time and read it well and type your thoughts back!

Well, any number of books on fossils - Prothero's recent tome, "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" - to name one, would be relevant here. Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" is another example.

Sorry for the long post - just a few pointers!

However, I'm sure Squawk would "deconstruct" him and his logic, if you'd prefer to go that route.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Squawk]

Nice post DG. Saves me quite a bit of work. Well, maybe. I was contemplating a bit of a rant on evolutionary theory, but for reasons unknown decided to have a go at TAG instead. That post must have taken some putting togehter.

If the author of the original is inclined for a real discussion on the matter then the inclination to do a proper deconstruction of his post would arise. His dismissal of neanderthal fossils I find amusing. It never ceases to amaze me that all fossils presented to creos are either "too different" or "too similar", yet they never actually tell us where the sweet spot is...

Ahh well.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thank you, Squawk - I'm sure several new species of micro-organisms have evolved during the time it took me to put it together and type it! :lol:

Some of the books were Christmas presents to myself.

Your point about their rejection of evidence reminded me of the "Birthers" attitude to any evidence to the contrary - no matter how many birth certificates they're shown, the answer's the same: "Fake! Fake! Fake!". :roll:

Kindest regards,

James

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Our FCA ("Fellowship of Christian Athletes") Association was handing them out. IDK how they managed to get that many, but the school allowed it, mainly being "educational - free material" (I think it's just because this is Alabama *shrug*).

I also made it known to the people who took it that it was missing important chapters (I wanted to laugh at it before I started making a spectacle of it). The chapters' it was missing, I think, was to try to take away from the importance of the science and to make it look like a non-sequitor and circular discussion.
:facepalm:

Stupidity never fails.

 

[Dusty341]

I couldn't read all of it. The facepalms were going to give me a concussion.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I couldn't read all of it. The facepalms were going to give me a concussion.

It's as retarded as it sounds.

 

[mandangalo18]

The problem with this version of TAG is that "Logical Absolutes" do not exist. Logic is a formal system for the rules of inference, based on observations of reality like "a bird is a bird. A bird is not not a bird." Logic came about through observation. The "Logical Absolutes" is terminology specifically used by apologists, not logicians. Logicians would usually agree to call them "First Principles of Logic".
You need to ask this guy a few questions: What does he mean by "absolute"? What are the "Logical Absolutes"?
They usually define Logical Absolutes as "something that is universally true" or something similar, meaning that there are absolutely NO exceptions to these Absolutes. The proper definition would be "A statement that is universally true within the context of a given formal system" The apologists definition has them true everywhere, the real definition has them as true only within the context of the relevant system.
They usually cite the classical First Principles.

1) non-contradiction- something cannot be simultaneously true and not true in the same way and same respect. Something is either true or false.
There exists in the English language a grammatically correct sentence that is neither true nor false. "This sentence is false." So there's at least one exception. Can't be Absolute

2) excluded middle-something either is, or it is not. There is no middle ground. Between being and non-being there is no middle ground
sub-atomic particles exist in more than one place simultaneously. Classical logic does not accurately describe quantum mechanics, so the formal system of fuzzy logic was made, and it accurately describes quantum stuff. So there's an entire field of science where that's not true. Can't be Absolute.

3) sufficient reason- every effect has a cause. everything happens for a reason
physicists assure us that the movement of quantum particles appear to be uncaused. That's why physicists don't use classical logic to describe quantum particles; it doesn't. So there's an entire field of science where that's not true. Can't be Absolute.

4) identity- something is what it is, it is not what it is not.
My dog is a dog, a furry thing, a nice thing, a vertebrate, a little shit, and a buddy. She seems to have multiple identities simultaneously. This shows that Identity is a label that we put on an object that fits our definition, or at least that things can have multiple identities. Is it her absolute identity that shes a little shit? Which Identity is absolute?

Classical logic, trivalent systems, set theory, modal logic are examples ofsystems of logic that do not share the same First Principles. The "Logical Absolutes" do not exist.


edit- after re-reading his TAG, I noticed he actually did call them laws of logic, not logical absolutes. Good for him he gets a cookie. I've grown accustomed to hearing "logical absolute" in TAG arguments, hence the mistake. But he did define them as universal and absolute. Which they aren't.

 

[Quindar]

My FSM, you guys are fantastic! I'm a scientifically minded person (ex-NASA engineer) and well versed in evolutionary theory, but the philosophy, logic, and theology topics are new(ish) to me. I can't thank you guys enough for breaking it down for me. As much as I'd like to just throw the stuff in the guy's face, my goal is to understand his arguments and genuinely consider them. While I highly doubt it will change my take on the Christian god, at least I'll have done my diligence. Thanks again.

 

[Squawk]

My FSM, you guys are fantastic! I'm a scientifically minded person (ex-NASA engineer) and well versed in evolutionary theory, but the philosophy, logic, and theology topics are new(ish) to me. I can't thank you guys enough for breaking it down for me. As much as I'd like to just throw the stuff in the guy's face, my goal is to understand his arguments and genuinely consider them. While I highly doubt it will change my take on the Christian god, at least I'll have done my diligence. Thanks again.

Not a problem at all. Be aware that pretty much all my philosophy is what you might call introspective, no training or anything. It's my opinion that philosophy boils down to removing bias and assumption as far as possible and then making inferences. Not always easy to do, but well within the grasp of anybody who wishes to apply it. Then again that's just my own view