Re: So much for "teach the controversy", an antidote for "Expelled"



Garamond Lethe wrote:
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 11:44:44 -0800, snex wrote:

On Feb 8, 1:18 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:46:11 -0800, snex wrote:
On Feb 8, 12:51 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:33:05 -0800, snex wrote:
On Feb 7, 7:29 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<snip>

i already know what theists think. they think that gods "exist" in
exactly the same way your chair "exists."

Nope. That your caricature of theists. Ask a theist if a chair can be
measured and God can be measured. Then ask if the chair did not exist at
one point and will eventually no longer exist, and is the same true for
God? Then ask them if God exists in the same way a chair exists.

that is not my caricature of theists. that is what theists are saying.
they think god is responsible for creating the universe. in order for
that to be true, he (and why does he even have a gender according to
theists?) must exist in objective reality, the same way a chair does.

maybe this claim is so foolish that you dont think an otherwise
intelligent theist could *possibly* believe it, but that doesnt change
the fact that they do believe it.


Would you consider taking a philosophy class? You're making some really
basic errors here.

i have taken more college-level philosophy courses than you have.


<snip>

which mathematicians claim that geometry created the universe

That would be the topologists, but usually only after a couple of
beers.

why are you a lying douchebag? mathematicians claim no such thing.


Well, it took a bit longer than usual for you to resort to name-calling.
I suppose that's progress.

you are the one that started with the personal insults, when you
insulted every mathematician on earth by lying about what they
believe.


Do you know any topologists? Have you ever been out drinking with them?


and sent
its son to die on a cross for us, but then made him rise from the
dead?

That belief is held by a minority of people that believe in gods, and
not even all Christians. I'm unclear why you think refuting this point
would be useful.

and the belief in god itself is just as absurd as the belief that his
son rose from the dead. both have the exact same amount of evidence -
NONE.

How do you manage to be wrong in nearly every paragraph? The Gospels are
evidence of the resurrection. They may not be good evidence, they may
not be convincing evidence, but the amount of evidence is certainly not
"none". You really do need to work on being more precise in your
language.

sentence amended: both have the exact same amount of *good* evidence -
NONE. your nitpick doesnt negate my point in any way. belief in god is
exactly as absurd as belief in resurrections of the dead.




So, the question I asked is: Why are you only complaining about people
who have faith in God? Why aren't you correcting the topologists, too?

topologists dont use faith to arrive at conclusions. why are you lying
about mathematicians? im sure they dont appreciate it.

Based on the ones I know, I think they'd be pretty amused at this
exchange. I might show it to them later.

i imagine theyd be amused at your inability to distinguish claims
about objective reality like whether or not gods exist with claims
about your subjective responses to stimuli. i also imagine they would
take offense at you painting their entire field of study as faith-
based.


There's an interesting conversation to be had on the part that faith
plays in the choosing of mathematical axioms, but you're not the person
to have it with.

no, there isnt an interesting conversation there, because
mathematicians dont use faith.


<snip>

if the argument from ignorance doesnt work for ID advocates, what makes
you think it is any less absurd when "liberal" theists use it?

If I'm getting an advanced degree in conducting, I need to be able to
understand music at an emotional level. The fact that music is a wholly
naturalistic phenomenon that might someday be completely explained by
science is very nice, but it doesn't tell me what tempo to use. So I
instead use a model that has words like "spiritual" and "transcendental"
in it, because it allows me to think about the job I need to do. In
short, a non-naturalistic model still has a great deal of utility.

"spiritual" and "transcendental" says exactly NOTHING on how to
conduct music. it is much more likely to confuse a music student than
to enlighten him.


A conductor, or a liberal theologian, does not say that research should
be stopped or certain things cannot be know. Thus, no argument from
ignorance is advanced. (Indeed, acoustics are well on their way in their
transition from art to science.) Better models are used when they become
available. Until then, we make do with what we have.

if we have *nothing* then we need to be honest and admit so. theists
refuse to do this. they will cling to the idea that an intelligent
universe creator exists no matter what the evidence shows.


<snip>

And liberal Christians? And Unitarians? And Quakers?

the above groups might not agree with the tinkering 2000 years ago, but
they certainly believe that god is a conscious and intelligent entity
that is some way responsible for creating the universe.

Whoops, wrong again. (And I say this having long-term relationships with
two Quakers and having been married to a Unitarian. Not all at the same
time, of course.)

Any interest in reading what Unitarians actually believe?

perhaps you need to brush up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism#Principles_of_faith_of_Unitarian_Christians

note closely this one: "the belief that human nature in its present
condition is neither inherently corrupt nor depraved, but capable of
both good and evil, as God intended."

how could god have intended anything unless he existed before humans
and caused their creation? if god is not an intelligent being that
exists apart from humans, how can "he" intend anything at all?


<snip>

I was hoping you'd try thinking for yourself, rather than me spoon-
feeding you the argument. It didn't work. See the answer above.

its your claim, you back it up.

I did.

not my job to do your homework for you.

I think we're both really, really happy about that.

<snip>

yet thats exactly what they do. ask them why they believe in
god. "because of faith" is the answer!

And based on this faith, do they try make any measurements that
have some component of accuracy?

if they dont, then they should drop the belief, because its clear
that faith doesnt give accurate answers.

Does beer? Does cuddling by the fireplace? Does Mozart? What a
horribly barren place life would be if it were only populated with
things that gave accurate answers.

nobody uses beer, cuddling by fireplaces, or mozart to draw
conclusions about how the universe was created.

Thank you Captain Obvious! Now that we've established that Mozart
cannot be used to either give accurate measurements or explain how the
universe was created, can you think of a reason for keeping his music
around?

for the same reason we keep greek mythology around, it is enjoyable to
experience, whether by reading the stories, listening to the music,
viewing the art, whatever. but anybody who *believes* in zeus is still a
nutbag.

And there, wrapped up nicely, is your error. Zeus exists at a literary
character. Zeus exists as a mythological character. Zeus exists as an
archetype. Zeus exists as metaphor. Zeus even exists as a word.

and thats not what theists claim about their god(s). they claim that
their god(s) exist IN REALITY.


On the other hand, if someone were to believe that Zeus existed in such a
manner that involved material consequences, and those consequences were
obviously absent, you're probably dealing with someone who has some
mental illness.

you mean like 1 billion catholics? perhaps the biologist ken miller?
the biologist francis collins? guys like that?


But if some freshman wants to contemplate Zeus each morning at dawn,
reads the Greek myths critically for their life lessons, and concludes
that the myths are true in the sense that they show us what fully
realized human being can be, well, we have the seed of a religion. Add
to this a community of like-minded people, with the high levels of
emotion that can be brought on by a combination of youth, friendship, and
scholarship, and it might begin to take hold. The idea of Zeus is very
real and has a high degree of utility.

if the above were what religion is actually about, then there wouldnt
be any "fundamentalists."


You're very good at shouting to the mentally ill person that Zeus isn't
real. This doesn't make you persuasive. Shouting at the freshman will,
at best, get you a very puzzled look.


note that ive never advocated burning the bible.

Ok.

all im saying
is that people need to stop making assertions that they cannot back up,
like "one or more gods exists."

All you've been doing in this thread is making assertions you can't back
up. "Theists believe..." or "Mathematicians don't believe...", etc. As
you know, it's annoying. Please stop.

lol! just go track down the posts of the admitted theists in this
group like dana tweedy. he believes that god is responsible for
creating the universe, and sending his son to die for our sins 2000
years ago, after which he rose from the dead 3 days later.



why do you keep bringing up these
strawmen?

When you strengthen your argument to the point where you can handle
these counterexamples, I will withdraw them.

strawmen are strawmen. go ahead and continue using them if youd like, it
only makes you look foolish.

Cool. Thanks.

<snip>

But not the liberal ones. Again, if you want to restrict your argument
to members of a particular religion who are making particular claims,
you might be able to salvage something.

which liberal ones? give me their names and the exact things they
believe, and how they arrived at those beliefs. be sure to keep ken
miller the biologist off that list, as he clearly believes in the jesus
miracles.

First, I certainly wouldn't introduce you to any friend of mine until you
show that you can hold a respectful, adult conversation. Second, they
aren't there to be your tutor. You're perfectly capable of learning
about liberal Christianity, Unitarian Universalism, and Quakerism on your
own. When you've done your homework, send me a polite request to have a
conversation and I'll forward it on.

in other words, you are just making *** up. thanks for confirming my
suspicion.


<snip>

axioms are usually chosen based on what is readily observed

No, only the axioms you're familiar with.

present some others.

Lexicographic set theory is one I'm playing with now. Also
Zermelo- Fraenkel set theory, specifically "all individuals in
the universe of discourse are sets".

and which of the ZFC axioms are not based on some common
experience with everyday objects that we like to call "sets" in
common parlance?

I'm unaware of "individuals" being identified as "sets" in "common
parlance", but I'm happy to admit my error if you can provide a
citation.

you forgot to answer my question. which of the ZFC axioms is not
based on some common experience with everyday objects that we call
"sets" in normal conversation?

The axiom is: All individuals in the universe of discourse are sets.

and how is this not based on common experience exactly? which objects in
the physical universe cannot be represented as a mathematical set?


take a set of paperclips, for example. which of the ZFC axioms are
not based on operations you can perform on a set of paperclips?

In common discourse, a single paperclip is not consider a set. QED.

if its not a set, then how do you know its a paperclip? "paperclip" is
merely a set of physical properties.

And somehow it's never referred to that way "based on common experience
exactly".

If a paperclip has a physical property of mass, then mass is a set.
Hmmm... that's looking a bit difficult, isn't it. What would be in the
set of "mass"? Let's start again.

If a paperclip has a physical property of weighing one gram, then
"weighing one gram" is a set. Well, that looks more promising -- it's
the set of all things that weigh one gram. Ooops, that would mean that
the paperclip would have as a physical property "the set of all things
that weighed one gram", and that's nonsensical. It might belong to that
set, but that's different than having that set as a member.

I'm going to have to conclude that you've never had a logic class.

im going to have to conclude that youve never had a set theory class.
set theory includes the natural numbers, yet we dont commonly think of
the natural numbers as sets. and when you get right down to it,
physical properties are entirely representable by numbers.






, not fairy
tales written by our ancestors.

Like Euclid?

what fairy tales did euclid write?

Parallel postulate. Lots of stuff about infinitesimal points and
infinite planes. Nobody can prove a bit of it.

doesnt sound like a fairy tale to me. sounds more like
mathematics. it must suck to not be able to tell the difference.

It's the difference between Platonism and Constructivism (but the
two may look identical from your point of view). May I recommend
_The Mathematical Experience_ by Davis and Hersh? I have the 1981
edition, and it's wonderful. The 1999 edition is probably just as
good.

irrelevant. math isnt a fairy tale.

Due to the lack of evidence, I'm going to assume this is an article of
faith for you.

<snip>

It's *one* of the ways we come to know things. There's also
inductive and deductive reasoning, intuition, reading (which you
need to do more of), etc.

which "way of knowing" can help us to know god, and if it can, why
cant people seem to agree on facts about god?

For the same reason that people can't agree whether or not Mozart or
Bach is better. Since the domain is profound, personal, subjective
emotions, you are (once again) asking the wrong question.

except that the existence of gods is not a subjective matter.

Because?

because subjective things cant create the universe 13 billion years
before humans capable of having subjective emotions exist.


The *naturalistic* existence of gods is not a subjective matter, but as
I've shown at tedious length, there are many useful things that exist
that are non-naturalistic, subjective, or both.

how many of them are credited with creating the universe? oh right,
none.


they
either exist or they dont exist.

Just like parallel lines. Oh, wait, you haven't figured that one out yet.

why is this such a problem for you to
understand?

Oh, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on the concept.

i think youre a moron. you are denying the very meaning of the word
"god" when people discuss it. even your unitarians believe that god is
responsible for creating the universe, and exists as an intelligent
entity separate from humans. youre just playing the humpty dumpty
game.



(There's also a dynamic that gods are defined in opposition to other
gods -- the same way that teenagers will generally not like the same
music their parents like, if only because of the fact that their
parents liked it.)

and this tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not those gods
actually *exist.*

Nope, you're still asking the wrong question.

if you got no evidence, then you dont "know" god.

If I have no evidence, then I have no evidence. I have several
other avenues to knowledge. You don't appear to.

which avenues would those be? how have you gaged their accuracy?

There was a really beautiful sunrise this morning. I believe we can
classify that as knowledge. Asking how accurate "beautiful" is rather
misses the point, I think.

if you think that classifies as knowledge, then you have no idea what
knowledge is or how to attain it. no wonder you are so confused about
gods. if you rephrased your statement as "the sunrise this morning was
aesthetically pleasing *to me*" then youd be on to something.

Now, how do you go about judging the accuracy of your rephrasing? Oooops.

add neurology to the list of things over your head. fMRI can judge
exactly that.


unfortunately, no such rephrasing is possible for claims about gods.

Nice assertion. Unitarians are a counterexample. Looks like you're
wrong. Again.

then present the rephrasing. ill bet $100 you cant.


<snip>

And if you're restricting your argument to Catholics who recite the
Nicene creed, then you might have something.

im restricting my argument to anybody that uses faith as a way of
knowing.

And your argument has failed.

except that it hasnt, because you havent demonstrated how faith can
lead to any knowledge.


catholics do it to "know" the nicene creed. "liberal"
christians use it to "know" god exists. if you agree that catholics are
wrong, then they are either using faith incorrectly, or faith simply
doesnt work. and if it doesnt work, it doesnt work for "liberal"
christians either.

Substituting "reading" for "faith" in the above will reveal yet another
logical fallacy.

actually, it wont. because a lot of people *do* read incorrectly. ever
heard of a dyslexic? and its also a fact that reading *doesnt* work
for gaining knowledge. reading presents information to you, and
whether you *know* that information is dependent on far more than
simply reading it. if reading worked for gaining knowledge, then why
do scientists do science at all? they can just write down random
gibberish and then read it, and viola, theyd know the answer! clearly,
that doesnt work, now does it?



<snip>

Now, if I were to call you intellectually lazy and obviously ignorant
in theology, math, science, and art, how would you go about
counteracting this claim?

are you really this stupid? since i was addressing your *hypothetical*
argument,

By calling me names. This was trivially handled. I'm curious as to how
you would handle it if I applied it to you.

those names would apply to you in your example were true.


<snip>


I think the trouble might be that you don't understand the word
"random". No, the FSM is definitely not random.

then what is it based on?

Satire. No, satire is not random.

what formula was applied to arrive at a flying
spaghetti monster, as opposed to a flying linguine monster?

Spaghetti is a more familiar term to Americans. Most can bring to mind
an image of spaghetti. Several (myself included) can't bring to mind an
image of linguine.

and what does that have to do with it creating the universe? the
property of being familiar to americans has nothing whatsoever to do
with what it is claimed that the FSM does. so you still havent
addressed how one arrives at an FSM as opposed to an FLM.


and while
youre at it, tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin,

Infinite, of course. That was the purpose of the thought experiment,
back in the day -- how does one think about infinity. From what Wilkins
has said, I gather the monks has a pretty sophisticated approach.

you didnt show your calculations, so you fail.


and
why your answer is preferred over any other.

It's historically accurate.

oh it is? where are these infinity angels that historically danced on
a pin? lets hear their testimony, and see if we can get them to do it
again.


<snip>

You have some reading to do.

You still have some reading to do. Any interest in starting?

Well, one last time: Do you have any interest in learning about any of
what you've been talking about?

.

Loading