Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Hilston]

Average
Retards
Creationists

I LOVE that!

Thanks for sharing.

Severe tire damage,
Jim

 

[sentientsynth]

FSM sounds foolish? then how are we supposed to react when someone tries to sell us a religion that has...

m_d,

We react understandingly, as we too had these same questions once.

God, as Creator, must be separate from His creation. This conclusion is necessary from observation. Aren't there evidences that the universe will eventually die of a "heat death "? The Living God must be beyond the universe as similarly the Sun is beyond the earth, adding energy and performing work upon it per His want.

If the universe is slowly emptying, what does that say of it? That it was once full! It is apparent to my mind that the natural realm cannot adequately explain its own existence. On this basis a supernatural realm may be posited. Even further, we have already agreed that eternality is a fundamental component of the idea of God. Implicit in God's eternality is His supernaturality. He must be this way. Else He wouldn't be God. Thus another a priori is dispelled.

Revelation 19:6 And I heard ... the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

m_d, I think you are very honest, though. Listing such a thing as "That men deserved to die for collecting sticks on the abbath" represents a widening of the basis for your rejection of God from a purely intellectual foundation to a moral one as well. But, assuredly, if were are to judge by the moral law, we must accept the very Giver of the moral law.

Is there arbitrariness within the moral law of the Bible? Absolutely not. A primae fasce case may be made against the symbolic law of Moses. Upon further inquiry, however, the accusation is easily dismissed.

Her Noodly Goodness doesn't sound so bad anymore..

It was that "Her Noodly Goodness" was bad even. She was simply, absolutely amoral and unloving . By your own words, "She" is experientially irrelevant and emperically unverifiable. "She" obviously does not possess [else you would not raise issue with the Living God's supernaturality] the supernaturality required to qualify as an eternal being and thereby validate your claim of the FSM. "She" is internally incoherent.

Again, your FSM is falsified.

Think about this. The Bible is the best selling book of all time. In a few short years, it will be the first universally translated text ever. The true Living YHWH of the universe has made a clear mark upon the collective consciousness of man since the dawn of history. Your fallacious FSM has been strangled within a blog.

Only the Bible completely portrays God fulfilling all of the characteristics that are demanded by the nature of what is universally apparent. Greatest of all of these characteristics is His love, which He demonstrated upon the cross. These things may be difficult to understand, but that's no indication of falsehood. On the contrary, doesn't the nature of God demand that the depths of His ways be wrapped within a riddle?


With Love,

the Sentient Synthesizer

 

[sentientsynth]

thous fools, pull yourselves together. One's own existence must be true. Only that which exists can inquire at all. By the very process of doubting one's existence, one verified it!

Isn't philosophy fun!?!

SS

 

[Mr Jack]

thous fools, pull yourselves together. One's own existence must be true. Only that which exists can inquire at all. By the very process of doubting one's existence, one verified it!

Descarte's Cogito, in other words? The trouble with Descarte's work is that he lacks the courage of his convictions. Both Hume and Kant deal with this at length, the whole Cogito argument makes assumptions you can't have from first principles (that the I you believe in is real and not illusionary; that logic works).

 

[Jukia]

Population formula = http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

Almost, but not quite as funny as Walt Brown's hydroplate theory.
Again, you need to learn some science. Get yourself a real science background and stop taking the nonsense AiG and the other creationist site put out as gospel.

 

[aharvey]

Example : Sediment level on the entire Earth's surface due to the flood,there is not once square inch on the planet not covered in hundreds of feet, and in places kilometers of sediment

Curiously, other creationists make the exact opposite claim – that the entire Earth's surface is NOT covered by at least hundreds of feet of sediment, as they claim would be expected if the Earth were billions of years old, – as evidence for a global flood!

Furthermore, there are in fact lots of places on Earth where non-sedimentary rock is exposed (that is, not covered by so much as an inch of sediment, much less hundreds of feet).

...the fossils found here show they were instantly smothered by the flood

Hmm, I wasn't aware that cause of death was so readily apparent in fossils. How does one distinguish a flood-smothered trilobite fossil from a mud-smothered trilobite fossil from a disease-extinguished trilobite fossil?

..the fact that, marine fossils are found throughout the geological column points strongly to a flood-based interpretation of the fossil formation.

Your wording is a bit unclear. Do you mean that marine fossils can be found at most geographic locations worldwide if you dig in the right horizon, or do you mean that marine fossils can be found mixed in any fossil dig (e.g., with T. rex bones, giant sloth bones, fossil pine trees, etc.)? The first case, closer to reality, does not at all provide support for a single instantaneous global flood, and the second case is just plain incorrect.

It should also be noted that many of the animals alive today are virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors arguing against million of years separating their fossils from today.

"Many"? But the vast majority are not "virtually identical to their fossilized ancestors." And you forgot to note that in most of your many cases, the nearly-identical fossils are not millions of years old, they are thousands of years old. That is, recent fossils are often extremely similar to modern taxa, but the older the fossils, the smaller the chance that they are very similar. Evolutionary theory has an explanation for this; does Creationism?

Why didn't you show how the geographic distribution of fossil and recent marsupials can only be explained by a global Flood?

And why didn't you answer my question about human population growth and the flood? Do the farcical calculations you linked us to generate a human population growth curve that in any way resembles the actual data? About the only thing they have in common is a general J-shape. But the actual data shows very little change until very recently, then it's almost a vertical line. A flat line followed by a vertical line is NOT what's predicted by the simplistic population equations cited in this article. Look at the difference in the shape of the pre-flood J-curve and the post-flood "L-curve."

My point here is simple. In case you hadn't noticed, the vast majority of plants and animals around us are not increasing at the exponential rate suggested by these equations, even though most have far greater potential for it than do humans (consider; your guy's models assume less than 3 kids per couple, and a 20-year wait until they can start; most insects can produce hundreds to thousands of kids per couple and can get started within a few weeks of age!). So why isn't the world buried under a 10-mile high pile of bugs? Indeed, why do most populations not change much from one year to the next? Is it because the earth is so young? Or is it because the model that makes such predictions is incomplete?

It's not enough to say that the models merely show that the Earth's human population COULD reach its present levels in 4000 years, especially when what you said was that the models show that the only reasonable explanation is that the Earth's human population DID reach its present levels in 4000 years! You will run into some serious problems the moment you try to incorporate what is known about ancient cultures and their development and accomplishments worldwide in the years following the Flood. How many people, for example, do you think were needed to build the pyramids of Giza?

 

[Mr Jack]

How many people, for example, do you think were needed to build the pyramids of Giza?

Or, just for fun, compare the predicted number of people alive at the time of Moses with the numbers given in Exodus and the populations given for the lands invaded by the Israelites in the following years.

 

[mighty_duck]

m_d,
God, as Creator, must be separate from His creation. This conclusion is necessary from observation. Aren't there evidences that the universe will eventually die of a "heat death "? The Living God must be beyond the universe as similarly the Sun is beyond the earth, adding energy and performing work upon it per His want.

If the universe is slowly emptying, what does that say of it? That it was once full! It is apparent to my mind that the natural realm cannot adequately explain its own existence. On this basis a supernatural realm may be posited. Even further, we have already agreed that eternality is a fundamental component of the idea of God. Implicit in God's eternality is His supernaturality. He must be this way. Else He wouldn't be God. Thus another a priori is dispelled.

Hi SS,
You skip from argument to argument, and it is difficult to keep up. The argument I was dispelling was:
"There is no ontological basis for logic"

For which I gave two possible answers. One is just as good as your God answer, the other is much better.

1. The FSM is the ontological basis for everything. She is "supernatural", eternal, and very powerful. She created everything you see. She likes to take the form of a large spaghetti monster, and hover in the night sky, but only those who truely believe can see her. She, like your god, is unfalsifiable. Claiming She is foolish (beyond the blasphemy and eternal punishment it brings) is not an argument at all. Prove She does not exist, or doesn't provide a basis for everything you need.

Because we see something in our lives, there is no need to posit that it is also a part of the creator's character. The FSM could have created morality as a fun little experiment. Saying that is foolish is not proof or evidence that it is false.

Remember, denying her gifts of pasta given to humanity freely, will lead to an afterlife in rice hell, and eternal constipation.

2. As much as I love the FSM, I'm not a big believer. My real claim is that not having an account for logic is fine, because it is axiomatic. In the same way, you don't have an account for God. He is axiomatic. Our next course of action is to decide which axioms are "better". Would you like to try to define some standards?

 

[SUTG]

NEWSFLASH!This just in:

One percent of Americans are absolutely certain that God does not exist. (source) Clete, among others, is absolutely certain that God does exist.

Another illustration that claiming absolute certainty does not entail absolute certainty.

 

[sentientsynth]

Descarte's Cogito, in other words? The trouble with Descarte's work is that he lacks the courage of his convictions. Both Hume and Kant deal with this at length, the whole Cogito argument makes assumptions you can't have from first principles (that the I you believe in is real and not illusionary; that logic works).

Mr. Jack,

I'm not referring to "Cogito ergo sum" at all, but the fact that one's inexistence is unverifiable. One must exist because of the impossibility of the contrary.

SS

 

[sentientsynth]

1. The FSM is the ontological basis for everything. She is "supernatural", eternal, and very powerful. She created everything you see.

Your definition of FSM is moving closer and closer to that of the true God. Eventually, if I decide to keep entertaining your silliness, "She" will possess all of the traits logically necessary, all of the traits possessed by the true Living God of the Bible.

She, like your god, is unfalsifiable.

You're misinformed. The God of the Bible is absolutely falsifiable. This is the distinguishing mark of Christianity: that God has manifested himself throughout history, and that this history is recorded in the Bible. Prove that Jesus of Nazareth did not rise on the third day. Then you will have falsified "my" God.

Falsifiability is very important in a world-view. Falsifiability is indeed a test for truth. If a person trusts in a position that is unfalsifiable, then they're guilty of intellectual dishonesty. From N. Geisler,

Likewise, a God who does not make a verifiable or falsifiable difference is no God at all. Unless the believer can indicate how the world would be different if there were no God at all, he cannot use conditions in the world as evidence that there is a God. In short, unless the theist can answer the challenge head-on, then it would appear that he must have ...an unfalsifiable belief in God despite all facts or states of affairs. Christian Apologetics

Unless there is a basis on which to test a truth, its claim to truth is meaningless. So here we have yet another aspect in which the FSM is insupportable. But, like you said, you're not a "big believer."

Because we see something in our lives, there is no need to posit that it is also a part of the creator's character.

Those apects of existence which supersede matter demand an immaterial ontological basis, else they cannot be said to trutly exist, but are illusory.

The FSM could have created morality as a fun little experiment.

Then she is morally relativistic. She cannot provide the ontological basis for moral absolutes, and therefore provides neither emperical adequacy nor experiential relevance to the observable creation. Thus she is falsified.

Our next course of action is to decide which axioms are "better". Would you like to try to define some standards?

1. Logical consistency
2. Emperical adequacy
3. Experiential relevance

SS

 

[mighty_duck]

Hilston, we have a problem

Hilston, we have a problem

Notes for Hilston's 3rd post:

While Stratnerd seems to pick up steam with every round, Jim's arguments get increasingly worse. This last one was again filled with more assertions, attempts to redefine what Evolution entails, and redefine what science is.
Science assumes Methodological Naturalism (MN), and Uniformity of Nature (UoN). If you want to claim that these are unwarranted, go ahead, but do it in a different debate.
Evolution uses the tools of science, and its basic assumptions. Just like every other field of science. Case closed.
Jim continually tries to obfuscate this, and claims that science should look for absolute truth, or justify its assumptions (axiom). This is not important in this debate.

Its like a debate on whether Basketball is a ball game, where one opponent claims that we can't really understand ball games without god. Immaterial! We can still see that Basketball is in fact a ball game. We can also throw away things like "stoning is the only real ball game, since its in the bible"

Regularities exist, not because God created them (as if to reify "regularities" as "things"), but because He determined to create a universe that reflected His own nature and character.

1. Blank assertion. Will he back this thing up? Why couldn't God have created a universe that is different from his nature?

2. Even given the assertion, Jim fails to show that the creationist "theory" can explain all our data. Even if there are no "brute facts", he must show that all our interpretations of geology, radiology, paleontology, biology etc. all have it wrong. The fact that they conflict with one of his presuppositions is not reason enough.

3. two-phase refutation.
a. MN and Falsifiability can't be warranted. BS. They don't need to be warranted, this is what science IS. If he thinks science is not a valid method to obtain truth, then he should claim that in a different debate.
b. MN can't account for UoN. Who cares. Science assumes this as an axiom. All of science
c. MN can't account for induction, which assumes UoN which is the same as case b.

4. Hypothesis #1: The Evolutionary hypothesis. Every single claim there is a strawman! Shame on Jim.
Hypothesis #2: The Creationist hypothesis. Assumes the existence of an unseen and unfalsifiable entity, working in inconceivable ways, producing things that we haven't agreed exist (like universal morality).

There is no way you can call hypothesis #2 a scientific hypothesis! At least hypothesis #1 starts with something we know exists (matter, a living cell), gives falsifiable methods, explains the real world data etc.

5. Again multiple appeals to abiogenesis. This is not the topic of discussion.
Evolution is a theory to explain the diversity of life on this planet. Not how non-living matter came to life (abiogenesis). Not how logic, morality, or onion rings came in to existence. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!
Evolution has very specific explanations for the diversity of life on this planet, all falsifiable. goddidit doesn't. That's good enough reason to prefer it right there.

6. Evolution is not a worldview. Period. Full stop. No quacking, duck walking etc. It is a scientific theory. Metaphysical Naturalism is a worldview. Methodological naturalism is not a worldview.STICK TO THE SUBJECT!

7. Biblical literalism as a worldview. This may give a better overall explanation to the world, but IT IS NOT SCIENCE!

8. Here is the fun part: Jim has not said the axioms of MN and science are wrong (just unjustified to an atheist). In fact, he thinks they are true. So the scientific method actually produces true results according to his own worldview! The fact that they don't use ALL of Jim's axioms doesn't change that fact.
If the Bible claims were all true, then everything science finds should collaborate that, no matter what.

9. Changes happen, but only to a certain degree. Of course Jim didn't back this up, and never said to what degree. Standard Creationist drivvel.

This debate is starting to get long winded, and way off topic. It would be good if the debaters would focus on simply evaluting what science is, how evolution fits in that mold, and compare and contrast it to other forms of science.
My score so far: Stratnerd leads 2-1. YMMV

 

[sentientsynth]

m_d,

I agree that I wasn't expecting this sort of debate from Hilston. In my opinion, even if Evolutionists were to admit that their assumption of the uniformity of nature is unwarranted, that does mean that Evolution isn't true. The atheist may always revert back to the theoretical "emergent properties of matter" to explain nature's uniformity. Now this is rightly an argument from ignorance to my mind. But humans have a way of comforting themselves with the fact hope that maybe...just maybe...my ideas will hold together without God. People are capable of endless self-delusion.

SS

 

[SUTG]

Eventually, if I decide to keep entertaining your silliness, "She" will possess all of the traits logically necessary, all of the traits possessed by the true Living God of the Bible.

I must be reading this wrong. Certainly you're not saying that all of the traits of the God of the Bible are logically necessary?!?

Prove that Jesus of Nazareth did not rise on the third day.

Prove that the FSM didn't create a giant blob of linguini ex nihilo in the year 1342.

Those apects of existence which supersede matter demand an immaterial ontological basis, else they cannot be said to trutly exist, but are illusory.

Why on Earth do you demand an "immaterial ontological basis" for anything? Only so you can assert that God must fill the void? What is the immaterial ontological basis for the number 4.3?

 

[SUTG]

:think: and "homeschoolers" would probably be just ahead of "Creationists"

:devil:

Here is the full list:

Average
Retards
Homeschoolers
Creationists
Homeschooled Creationists
Skeptic

 

[sentientsynth]

I must be reading this wrong. Certainly you're not saying that all of the traits of the God of the Bible are logically necessary?!?

Oh but I am.

Prove that the FSM didn't create a giant blob of linguini ex nihilo in the year 1342.

No record of such exists. Compare that to the world best seller, the Bible.

What is the immaterial ontological basis for the number 4.3?

It is the same ontological basis for logic, of which mathematics is an extension, namely, God.

SS

 

[mighty_duck]

Doh! I had a big response destroyed with one wrong button. Lets try it again:

Your definition of FSM is moving closer and closer to that of the true God.

I doubt that you will ever confuse the FSM with the biblical God. They do share a few basic traits though.

You're misinformed. The God of the Bible is absolutely falsifiable.

The Bible does make some falsifiable statements, most of which have been falsified! See
6 Day creation
Age of the earth is 6000 years
Global Flood
The sun stopping in the sky.

The only way to make sense of these, is to use Hilston's method, and presuppose the truth of all of these. But then, they cease to be flasifiable. Catch 22.

Prove that Jesus of Nazareth did not rise on the third day. Then you will have falsified "my" God.

It usually works the other way, where you have to prove your baseless assertion. But since you brought it up:
1. Please show some extra-biblical confirmation that this amazing event took place.
2. Even the Biblical account itself is self refuting. If you disagree, please solve the "Easter Challange".

Falsifiability is very important in a world-view..[The FSM is not]

I'm glad we agree on this. The problem with falsifying god, is that whenever we do have an inconsistency, we can just appeal to the unknown. For example, the well worn Problem of Evil:
P1. God is all loving
P2. God is all powerful.
P3. Thousands of innocents died in a recent tsunami.

This is of course not a falsification, because God works in mysterious ways. There is nothing that could be pointed to and said "if god exists, then this COULD not happen". If you disagree, please find a real world example.

By contrast, the FSM likes to kill people indiscriminantly from time to time, so she accounts for this much better. She also implanted the knowledge of how to make the first noodle strand, thus changing human history forever. The existence of pasta is evidence of the macaroni mama, and is accounted for much better in this worldview than a ridiculous theory that mankind invented them.

Those aspects of existence which supersede matter demand an immaterial ontological basis, else they cannot be said to truly exist, but are illusory.

Lets replace the word "matter" with the more appropriate word "nature", and we can see how you are begging the question. Nature must have a basis that is supernatural. Thanks, but no thanks.

Then she is morally relativistic. She cannot provide the ontological basis for moral absolutes, and therefore provides neither emperical adequacy nor experiential relevance to the observable creation. Thus she is falsified.

You assume too much!
1. You assume that moral absolutes exist.
2. You assume they are observable. If this were the case, then all societies and all individuals would be able to agree on them.
3. You assume that the Creator's nature must be reflected in our world.
4. You assume that you can know how She could have implanted the morals in our world.

If you disagree, make sure to explain why this statement is false as well. Lets see anyone but the FSM account for it:
Love of pasta is absolute!

1. Logical consistency
2. Emperical adequacy
3. Experiential relevance

SS

1 + 2 look good to me. 3 looks suspicious and vague, what does it mean to you?

 

[avatar382]

Great posts. I regret that I haven't had the time to participate as much in this thread as I had hoped, due to my workload

I am happy to see that our Noodly Master has made a prominent impact on this thread. Pastafarians unite!

 

[mighty_duck]

Great posts. I regret that I haven't had the time to participate as much in this thread as I had hoped, due to my workload

I am happy to see that our Noodly Master has made a prominent impact on this thread. Pastafarians unite!

The FSM has risen to great power ever since the Invisible Pink Unicorn choked on some alfredo sauce. News at eleven.

 

[koban]

Here is the full list:

Average
Retards
Homeschoolers
Creationists
Homeschooled Creationists
Skeptic

Average
Retards
Homeschoolers
Creationists
Homeschooled Creationists
Skeptic
Squeaky
Letsargue