Give ‘em the Silent Treatment
- Thread starter ThePhy
- Start date
- Status
taoist
New member
This thread was so entertaining I just had to look at it again from the beginning, if only to see where Bob first put his foot in his mouth.Pastor Bob said:
And it turns out it was the moment he entered the thread. Or, considering that's only the thread "as I know it" perhaps I should consider the idea that in the thread "as I don't know it" Bob has eternally had his foot in his mouth.
The analogy is left to the reader, while the droolingly witless irony remains entirely with Bob.
:darwinsm:
taoist
New member
You know, Zak, considering Bob's stumbling habits in the thread "as I don't know it" we might even want to consider the possibility he will forever have his foot in his mouth ... as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.
HEY BOB, read this!
And while he's linking up all four of his brain cells putting them to work at those four word sentences in his own absolute world of absolute time that doesn't exist, the rest of us can go on examining the universe we know, and expanding it with the universe we can discover, undistracted by belief in "anything spiritual, such as" spirit beings. With any luck, he might even work himself into exiting airtime itself, and stop distracting his audience with deliberately misrepresented science that only serves to keep him from having to work for a living.
As ever, Zak, in peace.
Bob seems to have a fetish of some kind for looking closely at just four words at a time. Well, that's good to know.
HEY BOB, read this!
There is a universe.
There is no heaven.
There is no hell.
There is no god.
There is no heaven.
There is no hell.
There is no god.
And while he's linking up all four of his brain cells putting them to work at those four word sentences in his own absolute world of absolute time that doesn't exist, the rest of us can go on examining the universe we know, and expanding it with the universe we can discover, undistracted by belief in "anything spiritual, such as" spirit beings. With any luck, he might even work himself into exiting airtime itself, and stop distracting his audience with deliberately misrepresented science that only serves to keep him from having to work for a living.
As ever, Zak, in peace.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
taoist said:
This is the statement by Bob that ThePhy objected to:
Bob Enyart said:
This is ThePhy's objection to that statement:
So, like I said, Bob may have been incomplete in not including in his statement the possibility of natural options for creation from nothing. But I think ThePhy's objection is also wrong in that apparently, the Big Bang really has nothing to say on the matter, so Bob's statement had nothing to do with it.ThePhy said:
When ThePhy says that 95% of scientists reject that the universe "as we know it" has existed eternally, I think he is mistakenly thinking that Bob was referring to the Steady State Model. The words "as we know it" lead me to believe this. Or does ThePhy really mean that 95% of scientists have a natural explanation for creation from nothing? I doubt it, but I'd love to see a theory about that.
So to sum up, when ThyPhy read Bob's statement that "Either the universe was always here," I think he mistakenly thought Bob was referring to the Steady State Model, and was ignoring the possibility of the Big Bang. And if he thought this way, all his posts make sense. But I think Bob actually meant that 'matter' has always existed, or it was created. He left out a possibility of a natural option for creation from nothing. Which in my mind is laughable and should be left out, but from someone else's perspective I suppose I see the point.
EDIT: Also, keep in mind that Bob's statement was made in the first 30 seconds of a 6 hour series where he did address the Big Bang. That further leads me to believe that ThePhy misunderstood Bob's statement as only considering the Steady State Model, but Bob clearly did not intend that.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
I'm with you in these questions. And I'm finding it just as difficult the see a "strait" answer from "ThePhy" as from Bob Enyart.GuySmiley said:
I don't think either are trying to deceive anyone, but they're talking so far past each other that I'm having trouble connecting their conversation at all. I think Bob left out the BB because he honestly does not see it as important. According to Bob, scientists are saying that the material universe was very squeezed before the BB, but that it still existed, and then exploded outward in the BB. So in Bob's mind, these scientists are saying that the universe is "eternal" even though it has changed it's configuration dramatically from before the BB to after.
ThePhy is objecting to Bob's ignoring the BB because (I think) science never makes any claim whatever about longevity of the universe "before" the BB. So it is not true that scientists claim that matter is eternal. And this is a legitimate objection to Bob's assertions.
Yet the two arguments don't even relate to each other. Science says nothing about the state of the universe before the BB, and Bob's whole "theological" attack on science is based on such speculations. So the 'twain shall never meet'. Bob wants to argue with science about conclusions that science has never actually made (the perpetual straw man of the resentful theologian, it seems) and science can't defend itself on a theological level because it just doesn't deal in those kinds of speculations.
And to intensify the chasm, scientists are trained to eliminate bias, and so tend to avoid any sort of absolute statements, while Bob is a religious zealot (I don't mean that as an insult) who's whole life and being intends to support and defend an absolutist theology. So even though the two write in English, they really use two very different languages, and they approach a given proposition with very different methods and intentions. Bob actively seeks to destroy any and all propositions that he believes do not support his own absolutist theology, while ThePhy seeks to place all propositions within their proper context, first, and then assess the relative accuracy of each within those contexts.
Bob just wants the "enemy" to stand still (make an absolute statement) so he can knock him/it out, while ThePhy is trying to eliminate bias (and error) by establishing relational contexts and by not making unfounded absolute pronouncements. To (the theological warrior) Bob this just looks like frustrating moral weakness and obfuscation in the face of his towering theological righteousness. While to (the scientist) ThePhy, Bob just looks like an ignorant theological bully who's more interested in eliminating any and all opposition than he is in seeking the truth.
It's sort of the intellectual version of the Spartans vs. the Athenians, I think. And the "straw man" (or should I say straw horse) does seem to figure prominently in the story.
*smile*
taoist
New member
To summarize then, Guy,
Bob introduces his tape with the statement, "Either the universe was always here, or a creator made it. That is the only choice. Either an eternal God or eternal matter." ThePhy objects that this is simply not the only choice. He objects because Bob is wrong. "He restricts the purely scientific options to one choice – the eternal existence of matter." Eternal matter has "been abandoned for nearly a half-century by over 95% of the tens of thousands of physicists in the world."
Were Bob to restrict himself to maunderings about the world "as we don't know it", there'd be no reason to object. Inserting "matter" into a summary introduction is a direct reference to physical theory. More, despite PureX's latest contribution, this is not merely a differing emphasis, this is Bob's attempt to draw the lines between science and religion by inserting religion into science.
This is strictly dishonest. Each of Bob's responses on this thread were illegitimate attempts to perform this operation.
Again and again, he twists and squirms in an attempt to turn objections from science into objections to religion all the while admitting duplicitously that scientific research is immune to religious belief.
But ThePhy had done his research, and prepared with the plain facts and a model of Bob's methods sent Bob scurrying for the exits with his tail between his legs. It was classic! Oh, and just for the fun of it, I'll reopen my offer for Bob to insert last words into my previously linked document.
***
In peace, Jesse
Bob introduces his tape with the statement, "Either the universe was always here, or a creator made it. That is the only choice. Either an eternal God or eternal matter." ThePhy objects that this is simply not the only choice. He objects because Bob is wrong. "He restricts the purely scientific options to one choice – the eternal existence of matter." Eternal matter has "been abandoned for nearly a half-century by over 95% of the tens of thousands of physicists in the world."
Were Bob to restrict himself to maunderings about the world "as we don't know it", there'd be no reason to object. Inserting "matter" into a summary introduction is a direct reference to physical theory. More, despite PureX's latest contribution, this is not merely a differing emphasis, this is Bob's attempt to draw the lines between science and religion by inserting religion into science.
This is strictly dishonest. Each of Bob's responses on this thread were illegitimate attempts to perform this operation.
- He insists on adding to existing scientific theory his interpretation of the world "as we don't know it" in his construction of "eternal matter."
- He inserts the spiritual beliefs of all scientists into an "at large" community neglecting both the irrelevance and diversity of these beliefs.
- He morphs a redirection onto "more correctly" describing how these spiritual beliefs effect scientific theory into a steering of the discussion into how his summary of these beliefs is "wrong."
Again and again, he twists and squirms in an attempt to turn objections from science into objections to religion all the while admitting duplicitously that scientific research is immune to religious belief.
But ThePhy had done his research, and prepared with the plain facts and a model of Bob's methods sent Bob scurrying for the exits with his tail between his legs. It was classic! Oh, and just for the fun of it, I'll reopen my offer for Bob to insert last words into my previously linked document.
More than fair, as he's said publicly it takes only eight seconds to demolish my world view. Tick, tick, Bob ... two more weeks and counting for you to find the right eight seconds.
***
It's not a question of incompleteness. Bob is contrasting physical theory with creationism by misrepresenting physical theory. It's like covering a white robe with mud and saying it's still white. Yeah, sure it is.GuySmiley said:
No mistake about it, "eternal matter" is the Steady State Model through and through. It's the rejection of "eternal matter" that provides the contrast in the Big Bang theory now acknowledged by 95 percent of living, working physicists. If you'd really love to see a physical theory about the origin of our universe, jump in with both feet. Study physics and read the current research. Develop enough mathematical maturity to at least follow the developments in string theory. If you're really interested in that side, I can point you at the proper math to put under your belt. Start out with any text calling itself "Introduction to Topology." You don't even need calculus to start. Then come ask me questions.
He thought that way because it's the only way to make sense of Bob's statement consistent with the idea he's not deliberately lying but simply misled. No one believes in "eternal matter." Saying rejection of "eternal matter" implies belief in an "eternal God" is simply not the case. I don't mind if Bob likes painting pretty pictures in the dark. I object to him hanging them across the refrigerator and blocking the door. That path leads to intellectual starvation.
In peace, Jesse
servent101
New member
Zakath
All in all you simply as far as this thread is concerned point to Science, then say or agree with Taoist who says Science does not deal with the supernatural, then somehow miss the point that the eighty per-cent of the people are believing that Science is their way of looking at everything, and when you are finally forced to realize that Science is thus the dogma or the Opium ( Karl Marx) you say that is not your department.
So anyways, can you at least admit that as much as 80% people view Science as a way to put reality to the test - and yes I do agree that this is better than the acceptance of the dogma of the church - but is there not some responsibility on the more intelligent of those in society to point out to such people (80%) that Science is not devised for the pursuit to which they employ it.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
To me that is the general populous, who believe whatever is said if it is said enough times... so anyways it is up to "those at large" who are aware to sort of hash out this idea of what is "believable" - though anyone who does not seem to accept what is the argument that you suggest is mostly considered as someone who has something wrong with them.
All in all you simply as far as this thread is concerned point to Science, then say or agree with Taoist who says Science does not deal with the supernatural, then somehow miss the point that the eighty per-cent of the people are believing that Science is their way of looking at everything, and when you are finally forced to realize that Science is thus the dogma or the Opium ( Karl Marx) you say that is not your department.
So anyways, can you at least admit that as much as 80% people view Science as a way to put reality to the test - and yes I do agree that this is better than the acceptance of the dogma of the church - but is there not some responsibility on the more intelligent of those in society to point out to such people (80%) that Science is not devised for the pursuit to which they employ it.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
PureX
Well-known member
Hey, wait a minute! I wrote:taoist said:
I wasn't suggesting this was a "differing emphasis", either.
What I'm suggesting is that what you're not very accurately calling a "differing emphasis" is more like whole opposing paradigms that inspire different sets of rules for engaging in discussion and debate. Bob isn't interested in seeking any truths - he believes that he's already found them, and his only task now is getting others to see them as he sees them by whatever means necessary. Meanwhile, "ThePhy" is still treating the conversation as if it were a given that both participants should be rigorously seeking the elimination of bias in both thought and expression. "Fool" asked someone earlier "What did you expect Bob to say?", and I think it was an insightful question. What did we expect, indeed!
You're arguing with a religious zealot, for cryin' out loud! What DID you expect? Every aspect of the man's life indicates that he's not going "play fair" in this or any other discussion and that he's not even interested in "playing fair" because doing so has nothing to do with his goal as he's interacting with you. His goal is to get you to accept his concept of truth as your concept of truth and to reject all others, because he believes that his truth is the absolute truth and that you will (and should) suffer for not recognizing this. Given that this is his goal, why would he care if ...?
... or if he ...
He's on a divine mission. What methods are going to be out of bounds when you're on a divine mission?
I'm saying this because if you're going to continue to debate him, I think it would work better for you to keep this in mind. Just pointing out that he doesn't "play fair" doesn't mean much. Sure, you'll win the debate according to your own rules of fairness, but you won't have dented his endeavor at all, nor will you have impressed any of the people who agree with his endeavor. I see this happen time and again on TOL. The "scientists" think they have trounced ole' Bob with their mathematical logic, while Bob and the "believers" are all patting each other on the backs for having made fools of those silly logical secularists once again. And in a way, they're right, because you only won the debate in your own eyes, and by your own logic.
I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going spar with the 'Spartans', you'd better bring more to the contest than reason and logic.
Lovejoy
Active member
Part of the humor of the situation will lie in that fact that calling a man like Pastor Bob (or me, for that matter) a religious zealot will just make us smile. We may correct you, and say that we are zealots for Christ, not religion, but we certainly would not be offended.
taoist
New member
PureX,PureX said:
I do. For every TOLer who's read the document I linked, there's an entire website hosting it to over a thousand members. Nor is my sharing it as widely as possible a secret. I've informed both Bob and Knight of this privately.
It pays to think numerately. Differing emphasis, indeed.
PureX
Well-known member
I was not intending to offend. It was a matter-of-fact statement.Lovejoy said:Part of the humor of the situation will lie in that fact that calling a man like Pastor Bob (or me, for that matter) a religious zealot will just make us smile. We may correct you, and say that we are zealots for Christ, not religion, but we certainly would not be offended.
aharvey
New member
It is quite possible that this has been addressed already (I just stumbled on this thread), so excuse the potential redundancy.Turbo said:
It never hurts to remind that a scientific law is not legally binding!
Okay, how about a definition: "Scientific law: A logical, mathematical statement describing a consistency that applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena when specific conditions are met." Under different conditions the law may no longer provide an accurate description of what happens. So what you really should have said was:"It is because the laws of nature (namely, the first law of thermodynamics) logically eliminate the possibility that the matter/energy that makes up the universe came into existence under currently observable conditions.
Also, Bob goes on to explain that the laws of nature (namely, the second law of thermodynamics) logically eliminate the possibility that the universe has always existed under currently observable conditions.
Therefore, since scientific discoveries about the laws of nature eliminates the possibility that the universe has always existed under currently observable conditions and the possibility that it came into existence under currently observable conditions, yet the universe exists, we are only left with the possibilities that the universe originately either supernaturally or under conditions different from those currently observable.
And remember, under any conditions, a law does not explain why something happens.
aharvey
New member
Originally Posted by PureX
I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going spar with the 'Spartans', you'd better bring more to the contest than reason and logic.
Fortunately or not, depending on your perspective, science tends to emphasize argumentation over communication and persuasion. It does tend to bite us on the butt in the public arena, though, as does our tendency to talk in "bet-hedging" terms (you know, refraining from absolute pronunciations and thus apparently driving BE crazy!).
I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going spar with the 'Spartans', you'd better bring more to the contest than reason and logic.
taoist, I think PureX may be asking for even more than reason, logic, and whatever it is you're referring to here (sorry, I must not have a complete grasp of the immediate context). Debate with a capital "d" is a three-legged stool: argumentation (reason, logic, and evidence), communication, and persuasion. Many great debators prevail even when they don't have a lot of logical support for their position, because they know how to lean on the other two legs.taoist said:PureX,
I do. For every TOLer who's read the document I linked, there's an entire website hosting it to over a thousand members. Nor is my sharing it as widely as possible a secret. I've informed both Bob and Knight of this privately.
It pays to think numerately. Differing emphasis, indeed.
Fortunately or not, depending on your perspective, science tends to emphasize argumentation over communication and persuasion. It does tend to bite us on the butt in the public arena, though, as does our tendency to talk in "bet-hedging" terms (you know, refraining from absolute pronunciations and thus apparently driving BE crazy!).
taoist
New member
Me pure math dude, aharvey! Me love absolutes!
*beats chest
But my love of absolutes is grounded by sound training in the theoretical framework of formal logic, universal algebra, algebraic topology, nonclassical logics and years of head breaking tutelage under world class mathematicians determined to pounce on any ambiguity in my reasoning. You can't love cats without knowing about cat litter. Similarly, if you truly love absolutes, it's necessary to know how they are framed by arbitrary axioms, built up using elementary undefined objects, and mortared by the set theory that unifies all of modern mathematics.
***
Me communications dude, aharvey! Me love persuasion!
*hacks on gorilla hair stuck in throat
But my love of persuasion is grounded by years of editing small newspapers, media research for broadcast television, and managing millions of dollars in contracted marketing, viewership and audience measurement services. With experience in maximizing leverage for broadcast media comes a bone-deep understanding of the dynamics involved in spreading a message. For the same effort spent reaching a single religious bigot here, I can simultaneously reach hundreds elsewhere with the message that religious bigotry deserves opposition. It requires nothing more than a bit of attention to a broader readership.
***
Sure, I love driving BE crazy but I love pointing out his absurdities even more. To do so without an appreciation for the individual readers and respondents here on TOL would be needlessly hurtful. But to do so restricted to this narrow audience would be quixotic, worse, it would be innumerate.
In peace, Jesse
*beats chest
But my love of absolutes is grounded by sound training in the theoretical framework of formal logic, universal algebra, algebraic topology, nonclassical logics and years of head breaking tutelage under world class mathematicians determined to pounce on any ambiguity in my reasoning. You can't love cats without knowing about cat litter. Similarly, if you truly love absolutes, it's necessary to know how they are framed by arbitrary axioms, built up using elementary undefined objects, and mortared by the set theory that unifies all of modern mathematics.
***
Me communications dude, aharvey! Me love persuasion!
*hacks on gorilla hair stuck in throat
But my love of persuasion is grounded by years of editing small newspapers, media research for broadcast television, and managing millions of dollars in contracted marketing, viewership and audience measurement services. With experience in maximizing leverage for broadcast media comes a bone-deep understanding of the dynamics involved in spreading a message. For the same effort spent reaching a single religious bigot here, I can simultaneously reach hundreds elsewhere with the message that religious bigotry deserves opposition. It requires nothing more than a bit of attention to a broader readership.
***
Sure, I love driving BE crazy but I love pointing out his absurdities even more. To do so without an appreciation for the individual readers and respondents here on TOL would be needlessly hurtful. But to do so restricted to this narrow audience would be quixotic, worse, it would be innumerate.
In peace, Jesse
GuySmiley
Well-known member
How is the BB theory not eternal matter? Seems to me it definitely is eternal matter just squished into a tiny space. At best, for ThePhy's side of the issue, you could say the BB doesn't address origins. And I would like to see a theory about a natural origin of the universe. I took plenty of calculus so dont worry (not as much as you probably, but who has?taoist said:
)- Status