Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


snex schreef:

Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:

Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
snex schreef:
<snip>

They cannor be explained rationally, since they aren't rational but
emotional. They do not lend themselves for textbooks, but are usually
explained using metaphors, analogies and archetypical figures and
situations. For some brief introductions into this world of thinking,
reread (for instance) the tales of the Grimm Brothers.

if that is the case, then you are not allowed to say that these methods
give you knowledge about the existence of gods.

What law prevents me from saying so? Poor choice of words, i would
say... But, taking the more lenient view, if you choose to define
"knowledge" as strictly rational, that is your choice. Personally, i
think that "knowledge" is a bit more than just "rational".

then show me some knowledge that isnt rational, and how you attained
it. show me how you can demonstrate that it is true. if you cant, then
in what sense is it knowledge?


Mind you that i do not equate "knowledge" to "science"... Science _is_
strictly rational and _should_ be, but there are other forms of
"knowledge".

such as?

How do mothers know how to comfort small children?

instinct given to them by evolution.

So that's TOTALLY unscientific and non-rational? So you _do_ accept
there are other ways of knowing?

How do you know a
joke is funny when one guy tells it and not funny when some other bloke
tells it? How does the funny guy know how to be funny?

personal opinion, not a fact about the existence of external beings.

It's a bit more than just "personal opinion" given the fact that lots
of people _still_ think Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are funny. How did
they _know_ what's funny? How did these guys _know_ what the "personal
opinions" of so many people would be?

now, how do you know that gods or non-natural things exist?

How does a mother know how to console their children?

<snip>

the fact that people do it does not make those people consistent.

Consistency is not a Good Thing (tm) by definition. If you consistently
treat all patients with a couple of aspirins and let them come back in
the morning, you'll soon loose all your patients. I, for one, would
immediately switch my favorite doctor.

Same goes for consistently treating your patients in exactly the same
way. An 80-year-old with arthritis requires a different approach than
an 8 year old with a tummy-ache that doesn't go away.

wow, you gonna open a scarecrow store with all that straw?

I merely gave you an example of how consistency isn't always a "Good
Thing (tm)". No straw in sight. Since that is your only objection, i
take it you get my point?

no, you didnt give an example of how consistency isnt always a good
thing, you gave a strawman.

Whatever. Calling "strawman" at ever example you don't know how to
answer is not exactly a strong argument.

its a strawman because it has nothing to do with consistency vs
inconsistency.

Then you do not know what a strawman argument is and you're simply
yelling "STRAWMAN!" whenever you don't have any arguments. Besides,
consistency vs. inconsistency was the point of my examples.

Ok. So you don't know what the *** you're talking about. Glad to have
established at least that.

<snip>

To assert a claim is scientific requires validation by the scientific
method. The scientific method is not the only valid method of human inquiry,
and for many aspects of human existence may not be the best method of
inquiry. It is apparently the only one you recognize, but your personal
predilections are not binding on others.

again, what are these other methods, and how are they supposed to work?

Why don't you meditate on that question? Perhaps it will help you on
your way to enlightenment. A straight session of "Just Sitting" will
do. Or "Just Walking" if you prefer...

define "enlightenment."

I can't. I'm not enlightened. If I were and could "define"" you'd be
enlightened if you understood and would just laugh at me if yiu
weren't. If you had actually _read_ my post, you'd refrained from
making such silly demands.

if you cant define it, then you have no grounds to say anybody is on
their way there, or that meditating will get one there.

Have i claimed anyone is on his way there? I just suggested it might
help you on your way. If you don't want to go that way, that's your
choice.

you claimed that meditation can help me on the way there. how do you
know this if you dont even know where "there" is?

I merely suggested a commonly accepted practice. "Just Sitting" is a
form of Zen meditation. Besides, you omit a very important "perhaps" in
your portrayal of my statement, making that last statement of yours a
strawman.

Besides, the goal is not half as important as the way there. Forget
where you're going and perhaps you'll get there. Focus on it and you
never will.

from where did you gain the knowledge that this state of "enlightenment" even exists, let
alone that meditation is a path to it? is it because you read it in some ancient book?

Didn't i just tell you that i have no knowledge of this state of
"enlightenment" and put a big, fat "perhaps" in my suggestion? Besides,
i never claimed it's a "state".

what prevents these methods from being applied to origins, as
creationists are wont to do?

The great stupidity of creationists is that they _don't_ use those
methods. If they did, they would _easily_ see that their line of
reasoning (attempting to validate a creation-myth using a perverted
version of science and resorting to blunt lies to do it) is not only
doomed to be fruitless, but also counterproductive. It actually keeps
them from using those methods.

if you want to let "faith" in the door as a valid method of reasoning,
then you have no grounds to critisize creationists, for faith is what
they use.

I critisize them for their lack of faith, their deceptive methods and
blunt lies. If they claim to be scientic, it's easy enought to find the
flaws in their reasoning, if they try to gain political dominance, it's
easy to find their ulterior motives and their lies...

You would have know had you actually _read_ my post instead of skimming
it for points to object to.

creationists can claim anything they want, because their justification
for it is faith. it may seem like a lie or a falsity to you, but it is
arrived at through faith, and since you feel that faith is valid, you
have no grounds to critisize them.

That's your opinion. If creationists flatly lie on things that can
objectively be verified, i feel i have more than sufficient grounds to
criticize them. That happens, almost inevitably, when you mix faith and
science.

they arent lying, they honestly believe that what they are saying is
true, and they used the method of faith to arrive at those conclusions.

Deliberately misrepresenting someones statements so they appear to say
thee exact opposite of what the original author stated by selectively
omitting important parts of the context (a.k.a. quotemining) counts as
lying in my book, whatever your faith.

the same method of faith that leads you to believe in non-natural
things.

Well, no... I do not lie in order to convince anyone, nor do i
misrepresent other peoples statements. Not on purpose at least. So yo
equating me to creationists is rather less than truthfull.

<snip>

Besides, i can explain "how it works" untill i'm blue in the face, and
you'd still not understand.

you did not answer the question. explain the method, how it works, and
why it cant be applied to evolution.

I can't answer you question in any way that would satify you. You're
the blind man asking what the *** "light" is.

it is perfectly possible to build a machine that detects light and then
notifies a blind man when the light is hitting.

So the blind guy will know when the light is on. He _still_ does not
know what it is.

in fact, there are cseveral devices that hook up to cameras that enable blind men to detect
light.

So what?

some of them hook up to a grid of dull pins that press down on
the skin when the corresponding pixel has light in it, and release when
the pixel has darkness. this enables the blind person to detect light
on the patch of skin to where the grid is attached. other devices hook
up directly to the brain and stimulate the neurons that process light.

Halleluja! So that guy isn't blind anymore and we did not even have to
rub their eyes with mud as Vespasian did in the temple of Serapis (says
P. Cornelius Tacitus, Historiae).

what prevents this other route from also concluding evolution to be false?

The fact that it says nothing about the subjects science has chosen to
study.

you cant say this until you describe the method itself.

I just did. There's no such thing as "The Method" which can be
"Descibed". The Method that can be described, after all, is not the
real method. Sending you to some teacher who thinks he can is of no use
either, since anyone who thinks he can, did not understand.

This one you'd have to figure out on your own. Just sit.

just above you say that there is such a method, and now you say that
there isnt. contradict yourself much?

I've pointed you to _a_ method several times. If you're too lazy or too
stoopid to look it up, that's your problem. These methods aren't
exactly classified. Besides, contradiction is one of the central tenets
of my religious convictions, but that's probably over your head.

if contradictions are central to your religion, then your religion is
wrong. no further discussion necessary.

Then why do you answer the post? You're blind and you don't want to
see. Your choice.

Now if you're interested, the paragraph i wrote above is paraphrased
from the Tao Te King. Pick up a copy and see what i meant. There are a
few good translations online, by the way.

the christian god
appears to exist because the great spirit wants you to think it appears
to exist. whatever you think is, is because the great spirit wants it
that way, and thus objective truth is irrelevant.


It is certainly not irrelevant. You merely assert that.

it is irrelevant. if non-natural entities are considered, then all bets
are off as to any notions of truth.

Which implies you have knowledge of "truth". It has been a subject i'm
very much interested in. Tell me more. How do you _scientifically_
determine what the "truth" is, especially when it comes to non-natural
entities?

In case you hadn't noticed the sting in it, ask Mr. Wilkins. He's the
resident professional on those matters. Popper had something to say on
that, it think, but as i've heard even he's not above criticism...

the very word "non-natural" implies falsity. nature is all that is.
something outside nature is outside of existence.

That's what you say. Do you have any evidence to back that statement?

it is true by definition.

So you claim. If it is "true by definition", then define "existence".
However, your "true by definition" is no more than your own prejudice.
Mind you, claiming "true by definition" is not the same as applying
Occams Razor.

No answer... How quaint...

So tell me... Is "E=MC^2" natural? "F=m*a"?

Is calculus "natural"? "Der Zauberberg"? Beethovens ninth symphony? Van
Gogh's "Sunflowers" or "Potato Eaters"? The "David" or "Pieta" of
Michelangelo?

If so, why, if not, why not?

do these things exist in the natural world,

Nope. At least calculus and Einsteins and Newtons formulae don't.
They're figments of our imagination. Usefull figments, but still...

produced by natural causes,

Nope. Van Gogh would be very depressed on hearing such claims and
Beethoven would probably call you something very nasty in German and
Michelangelo would throw his hammer at you i think.

and bound by natural rules?

None that i know of. If you think they do, then tell me where
Beethovens Ninth is if it's played simultaneously by two separate
Symphonic Orchestras in New York and Osaka respectively. Does it exist
when no-one is playing it? Now how does something like that obey any
physical laws?

if not, what is non-natural about them and how can you tell?

Well... For one they do not occur naturally, there's no "David and
Pieta mine" in Italy and Van Gogh did not go fishing for any paintings.
The process of making them is not reproducable, since if they were, the
world would be filled with _real_ Pieta's and Davids, rather than more
or less cheap copies in plaster. Neither "E=MC^2" nor "F=m*a" or
calculus obeys any physical laws, they heve no porperties that can be
measured, no mass, no color, no size, no charge...

Why _would_ i assume they are "natural"? I can find natural things in
nature. None of the things i mentioned can and none of them can be
reproduced by only using "natural causes". You need years of practice
and a lot of talent to do it.

Now how is "talent" a "natural cause" and if it is, why can't i play
the "Mondschein Sonate" as well as a _really_ talented pianist?

if any conscious universe creators exist, then they are natural beings subject to
natural laws. not necessarily the laws of our universe, but laws
nonetheless.

You have a very narrowminded view if these matters and quite
inconsistent at that. First you state that "non-natural" implies
non-existence, then you claim you know that those non-existent entities
_must_ obey "natural-laws" as if you've got insider information.

Again, what evidence do you have for any "natural-laws" governing
non-natural entities or the requirement that there must be such laws?
Since you take the ratioalist side, you should at least stick to
rationalist rules...

Otherwise you're pretty inconsistent in applying rationalism.

more strawmen.

Nope. You make claims, you take the rationalist side, i merely ask you
to back your statements up with sufficient evidence.

nope. YOU claimed that i said that non-natural things could exist.

I claimed there are non-rational ways of knowing things.

if youd just read what i said, youd see that i did no such thing.

I did read what you said.

<quote>
if any conscious universe creators exist, then they are natural beings
subject to natural laws. not necessarily the laws of our universe, but
laws nonetheless.
</quote>

That's a claim. Back it up.

therefore your claim is a strawman.

You don't even know what a strawman is. You've shown that repeatedly.
How come you're still arguing?

<quote>
if contradictions are central to your religion, then your religion is
wrong. no further discussion necessary.
</quote>

You are rather inconsistent, supporting my claim that living creatures
make it up as they go along.

i said that IF there are any conscious creators of the universe, THEN they are perfectly NATURAL
and subject to NATURAL laws. non-natural things never enter the picture.

So back up that statement. It's all we ask of creationist, so i don't
see why you should be the exception to the rule. What evidence do you
have for that statement?

evidence for what? nature is what exists, by definition.

A very weird definition of nature, you have... So, for instance, the
Guggenheim Museum is nature? The Uffizi is nature? An oil refinery and
a nuclear power-plant is nature?

That'll be news to the guys from Greenpeace.

therefore, if conscious universe creators exist, then they are natural.

And thus he handwaved his way through an argument. I don't suppose you
can point to anyone else using your private little definition of
"nature", can you?

but i dont expect somebody who embraces contradictions to understand logic anyway.

As a programmer i have a quite thourough understanding of logic in both
flavours (modus ponens and modus tollens), since i depend on it for a
living.

by denying logic, you deny any grounds to have a fruitful conversation
with anybody. nothing *can* back up *any* statement, because you openly
deny the process by which things are backed up.

In case of spiritual matters, certainly. I even deny the applicability
of logic in that field. I started out with stating that knowledge isn't
rational and quite clearly pointed you to the great divide between the
two.

honestly, i dont know where you get this crap.

Same place you get your crap on strawmen and the supposed nature of any
concious creators. I do not make a caricature of your position in order
to attack it, as is required by the definition of a strawman argument,
so your shouting "strawman" all the time is no more than a cheap
rethorical trick.

You don't even know what the word means. Talk about crap arguments.

you said that i admitted that non-natural beings could exist.

So?

i did not. i did not even imply it. therefore, what you said was a strawman.

You don't know... Q.E.D. Look it up. For now, you just look silly.


<snip>

some people try to correct their inconsistencies, others wallow in it
like a pig in its own filth.

Yeah, sure...

You're not very successfull in your attempts at consistency. Welcome to
your own filth.

look whos talking, mr "i contradict myself within the same post."

I did not contadict myself within the same post, you merely claim that
since you don't understand. So far you've have made a number of claims
and every time you are challenged to provide some evidence, you weasel
out by claiming "it's true by definition" without providing any
definitions so they can be checked. Furthermore you resort to ad-homs
and false accusations of "strawman arguments" when the criteria of such
an argument are not met.

Besides its MRS. Kleuskes & Moos to you.

you did contradict yourself within the same post. first i said: "The
Theory of God is not supported at all by the scientific method or any
empirical evidence, yet people claim there is some other route to come
to believe in him." to which you replied:

"There is."

Yes...

then, later in the very same post, you said: "I just did. There's no
such thing as "The Method" which can be "Descibed". The Method that can
be described, after all, is not the real method."

So you don't understand. That's your ignorance, not a contradiction.
Did you, in fact, read the Tao Te King to find the phrase "The Name
that can be mentioned is not the real name, the road that can be
travelled is not the real road"?

Ok... Slowly...

A) There is another route to knowing "God" than the scientific method.
B) In fact, there are _many_ routes.
C) In order to "understand" them, pick one and expirience it, they
cannot be described rationally, since any attempt to describe it
rationally would result only in a cloud of words and apparant
contradictions, because of the limitations of our language and our
ratio.

If you _do_ want to understand, dump your ratio first. But you don't.

.

Loading