If Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Veritas veritate is less well informed than he thinks he is. He even believes water boils by sheer willpower. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well.

I don't think he's trying to be obnoxious. I hope he sticks around.

 

[Veritas veritate]

Citation please

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

No problem. Here is the link, so you can count them for yourself if you like, but I think The Barbarian has already provided it.

This is clearly not evolutionary, but it reflects a remarkable increase in intelligence worldwide. The score needed to make 100 has increased markedly over the last few decades. (IQ scores are set so that 100 is the average in the population)

I'm not trying to be misleading, trying to misinform anyone, or be deceptive in any way. And in the spirit of logic and reasoning, I feel compelled to say that though the trend seems to be going down for more countries than going up, it is not a true reflection of the over all trend of the IQ going up.

First, as The Barbarian pointed out, tests are modified constantly to keep the average IQ at 100.

Second, the numbers only reflect the average. Mathematically you can have more people with higher IQs and still have a downward trend if the group has people who scored extremely low.

Third, IQ scores do not truly reflect intellect as a person can score differently (higher or lower) at each test progression.

Fourth, Some countries have a bigger population than others, so places like China which has a national IQ average of 105 right now would weigh heavier if an actual world average was taken.

Fifth, only a group of people in each country was tested, the group does not necessarily reflect the entire populous accurately; furthermore, the new group chosen for the next test could have more people with a higher or lower IQ than the last group. Besides that, one can train their brain and significantly raise their IQ. I have personally helped a friend increase his IQ by 10 points in a year, simply by forcing him to read more books instead of playing pointless video games (Note: that I am not calling video games pointless, just the ones that he was always playing)

Sixth, it has been observed that there is a correlation between the economic status of a country and its citizen's IQs. They have found that rapid economic growth will cause IQs to rise. Poor countries tend to have poor IQs. It doesn't mean that poor people are stupid, it just means that they cannot engaged their brains in a way that that stimulates IQ growth.

I grew up dirt poor (no running water or electricity in our home most of my life) but to this day my grandfather was one of the smartest people I have ever known, and it was he who encouraged me to be skeptical about everything, and use logic and reason to formulate my own convictions rather than stand on what he, the pastor, or anyone else believes.

I just thought that it was comical that The Barbarian said that anyone with a 3 digit IQ could do it when the actual numbers given right now seems to disqualify at least 80% of the world's population.

 

[Veritas veritate]

Veritas veritate is less well informed than he thinks he is. He even believes water boils by sheer willpower. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well.

To say that I believe water boils by sheer willpower is a complete perversion of what I said and a testament to your character. It makes me not want to dignify your last post of our discussion with a response, but there are those who could learn from it so I will anyway.

 

[Veritas veritate]

I'm still working though it. Obviously, he's been trained as a philosopher. The title is a play on Dennett's book, of course.

I haven't read enough to decide what I think, but this guy knows things about the intellectual basis of a theism that accepts physical reality as God-given. I'll post more about this as I go on. If you have a chance to read the book, I'd encourage you to do it. Right or wrong, Cunningham seems to have found a way around the impasse so many scientists and Christians have become tangled into.

I would love to read it, but even the e-book is $28 (I hate e-books, I'm old fashioned and like to have a book in my hand that cannot turn off when the battery runs out) Like I said, that is my take on it based only on that single excerpt that you shared. I'm sure he explains everything as he goes on.

Given the insight you have provided, and inferring from what I read, he is basically going to explain how ultra-Darwinism is nothing but a religious belief that must be rejected by orthodox Christianity as a heresy. That makes complete sense.

 

[Veritas veritate]

Not true and if you had ACTUALLY READ the definition and the link provided instead of inserting your own strawman you wouldn't be in need of being reminded how you continue to be misinformed.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to post my citation, which comes from an actual credible source, not just the first link on Google that provides you with what you are looking for.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/#3.1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

If you will read the links provided, you will get the correct definition as well as the actual history behind the "god of the gaps" fallacy, which shows that it not used to discredit theism, but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.

"God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to EXPLAIN some natural phenomena that science cannot..."

It doesn't make your chosen personal idea of deity true, ("evidence for the existence of God"), it simply inserts a placeholder... just in case.

See also: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
And now you know, or should know, your straw man here is not true.

And if you care to read the link above (and there is a lot of information there) you might have a better understanding why you do not chose the first link that seems to prove your point as a credible source. It would be completely correct if it was just to say that the divine fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to EXPLAIN some natural phenomena that science cannot. Goddidit is certainly a divine fallacy, but you cannot equivocate "god of the gaps" with Goddidit.

This means that I owe you an apology because I was the first one to equivocate you using Goddidit with "god of the gaps."

Equivocate much?

Not much, but when I do I am the first one to admit it; see above.

You are confusing "want" with "why/how". Thermodynamics is the reason water boils not the desire for it to happen.

I am certainly not equivocating anything here however. You are confusing "want" with "why/how" I have said multiple times that thermodynamics is the "why/how." I have never said that "I want a cup of tea" is the "why/how" answer; on the contrary, I have stated that "I want a cup of tea" is the "why/because" answer. I then pointed out that both are valid explanations for why the water is boiling, but you will only accept the "why/how" answer while completely ignoring the "why/because" aspect of the question. To put it another way, you only accept the process by which something happens and not the reason for which something happens. That is to say that the process by which the water is boiling is thermodynamics and the reason {first link in the causal chain) the water is boiling is because I want a cup of tea. Reasons cannot be quantified as they are only descriptions of the causal history, but are still valid answers to why. Processes are descriptions of the quantifiable mechanics behind the why.

You might learn something about different kinds of answers if you read the link below.
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.101644!/file/Two-Kinds_Draft_final-1.pdf

The BBT isn't thought of by the majority of humanity as AN EXPLANATION of the origin of the universe as it presently exists? Seriously??

Actually, I pointed out that the majority of humanity does think of the BBT as an explanation of the origin of the universe, and that is why I included it with other world origin theories, but the BBT does not actually say anything about the origin of the universe at all. The BBT is actually a description of how quantum mechanics suggest that the expansion of the early universe occurred, not how it came into existence to begin with; seriously...

Of course the BBT has no "proof", no scientific theory does, however, it does explain the EVIDENCE and that is all it does.

At least you are correct here and are willing to admit that it is only a theory, and only explains the evidence. Creation does the same thing, it explains the EVIDENCE and that is all it does. The difference is I admit that the creationist explanation is a belief, where as I am willing to bet that you will not admit that the BBT is as well.

If you have a better explanation not involving "goddidit" I'm sure the Nobel committee will be extremely interested.

Actually, I have the only logical explanation (for the origin of the universe, not the BBT) not involving "goddidit," but you would reject that as well.

Which part of "your lack of critical thinking skills" and/or "brain-washed by christian fundamentalism" isn't true? So far you've shown my evaluation of both to be accurate.

All of it isn't true. I have proved that my critical thinking skills are honed much better than what you are used too, and it would seem much better than you can handle. As for the brain-washed by Christian fundamentalism goes, I am considered a heretic by most Christian fundamentalist simply because they cannot follow logic and reasoning very well.

Perhap, perhaps not. I don't care since it has no bearing on OUR discussion. (This appears to be red herring on your part in an attempt at diversion.)

Trying to divert from what: you using the goddidit fallacy as a straw-man? I may have equivocated incorrectly (as did you, though you probably wont admit it) that the god of the gaps is the same as goddidit, but the fact still remains that your false claim that I am saying goddidit is a straw-man.

... and your interpretation isn't goddidit? You're kidding, right?
Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't your position goddidit? If not, explain why not.

No, my position is not goddidit. Based on logic and reasoning my explanation for the origin of the universe is nothing other than a necessary being. There are good reasons why I believe that necessary being is the God of the Bible, but it does not have to be and it does not mean that he is. Therefore, as to the origin of the universe, my explanation is an unidentified, eternal, immutable, perfect, self-sustaining existence (being) was the original cause for this contingent universe to come into existence (being). Furthermore, that necessary being is not even required to have intelligence, but it must exist.

That you don't understand the difference is a testament to your lack of critical thinking skills. That no matter how clearly I might explain it you will never comprehend it is testament to the thoroughness of how well you have been brain-washed by christian fundamentalism.

That you do not understand that you are using your goddidit (divine fallacy) as a straw-man shows the opposite. As a matter of fact, your goddidit argument actually produces more problems for atheism than it does for theism, but you probably do not see that either because you cannot quantify the reasons if I were to explain them to you.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Anyone with a three-digit IQ would be able to get it.

This is wrong on so many levels, lol, but the main reason is that the average human being only has a 2 digit IQ. There are only 15 countries with an average of 100 or more... And the trend is that more countries are progressively getting lower that countries that are getting higher.

And so Veritas veritate sets up a straw man. What does your assertion that, "the average human being only has a 2 digit IQ have to do with, "Anyone with a three-digit IQ would be able to get it"? :idunno:

Veritas veritate attempts to defend his straw man:

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

No problem. Here is the link, so you can count them for yourself if you like, but I think The Barbarian has already provided it.

I'm not trying to be misleading, trying to misinform anyone, or be deceptive in any way. And in the spirit of logic and reasoning, I feel compelled to say that though the trend seems to be going down for more countries than going up, it is not a true reflection of the over all trend of the IQ going up.

First, as The Barbarian pointed out, tests are modified constantly to keep the average IQ at 100.

Second, the numbers only reflect the average. Mathematically you can have more people with higher IQs and still have a downward trend if the group has people who scored extremely low.

Third, IQ scores do not truly reflect intellect as a person can score differently (higher or lower) at each test progression.

Fourth, Some countries have a bigger population than others, so places like China which has a national IQ average of 105 right now would weigh heavier if an actual world average was taken.

Fifth, only a group of people in each country was tested, the group does not necessarily reflect the entire populous accurately; furthermore, the new group chosen for the next test could have more people with a higher or lower IQ than the last group. Besides that, one can train their brain and significantly raise their IQ. I have personally helped a friend increase his IQ by 10 points in a year, simply by forcing him to read more books instead of playing pointless video games (Note: that I am not calling video games pointless, just the ones that he was always playing)

Sixth, it has been observed that there is a correlation between the economic status of a country and its citizen's IQs. They have found that rapid economic growth will cause IQs to rise. Poor countries tend to have poor IQs. It doesn't mean that poor people are stupid, it just means that they cannot engaged their brains in a way that that stimulates IQ growth.

I grew up dirt poor (no running water or electricity in our home most of my life) but to this day my grandfather was one of the smartest people I have ever known, and it was he who encouraged me to be skeptical about everything, and use logic and reason to formulate my own convictions rather than stand on what he, the pastor, or anyone else believes.

I just thought that it was comical that The Barbarian said that anyone with a 3 digit IQ could do it when the actual numbers given right now seems to disqualify at least 80% of the world's population.

Yeah, so what? I suspect Barbarian meant, "Anyone with an average IQ would be able to get it", but, even then, your assertion doesn't refute that either, does it?

It's a good thing your grandfather encouraged you to use logic and reason, it's too bad you never actually developed those skills enough to engage Michael Cadry.

 

[Veritas veritate]

If Evolution

Yeah, so what? I suspect Barbarian meant, "Anyone with an average IQ would be able to get it", but, even then, your assertion doesn't refute that either, does it?

As a matter of fact it doesn’t, it was never meant too. I wasn’t even trying to defend my position, I was making it clear that what I posted isn’t the truth and that it was said in humor and nothing more. I’m sure that The Barbarian meant anyone with an average IQ could do it, I just thought the way he worded it was hilarious given the numbers actually posted. It was intended to be a straw-man for the comical factor, not as an actual argument against what he actually meant; but it seems that humor isn’t quantifiable so you reject that too.

It's a good thing your grandfather encouraged you to use logic and reason, it's too bad you never actually developed those skills enough to engage Michael Cadry.

I’m familiar with him. In what subject or on what doctrine? You name it and I will reach out to him.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Silent Hunter]

Veritas veritate is less well informed than he thinks he is. He even believes water boils by sheer willpower. Dunning-Kruger is alive and well.

To say that I believe water boils by sheer willpower is a complete perversion of what I said and a testament to your character. It makes me not want to dignify your last post of our discussion with a response, but there are those who could learn from it so I will anyway.

My "character" is fine, that you can't tolerate a little fun poke in the ribs says volumes about your character.

Well, I agree with you "there are those who could learn from it (our discussion)" and I suspect they will indeed learn quite a bit from you; that being how NOT to apply logic and reason.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Not true and if you had ACTUALLY READ the definition and the link provided instead of inserting your own strawman you wouldn't be in need of being reminded how you continue to be misinformed.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to post my citation, which comes from an actual credible source, not just the first link on Google that provides you with what you are looking for.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/t...arguments/#3.1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

If you will read the links provided, you will get the correct definition as well as the actual history behind the "god of the gaps" fallacy, which shows that it not used to discredit theism, but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.

And the straw men just keep coming... or is it just simply you don’t (can’t?) understand how the terms are used... :idunno:

From Wikipedia; god-of-the-gaps (your link):

General usage: The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena. Dorothy Dinnerstein includes psychological explanations for a person believing in a deity, particularly a male deity. R. Laird Harris writes of the physical science aspect of this: The expression, "God of the Gaps," contains a real truth. It is erroneous if it is taken to mean that God is not immanent in natural law but is only to be observed in mysteries unexplained by law. No significant Christian group has believed this view. It is true, however, if it be taken to emphasize that God is not only immanent in natural law but also is active in the numerous phenomena associated with the supernatural and the spiritual. There are gaps in a physical-chemical explanation of this world, and there always will be. Because science has learned many marvelous secrets of nature, it cannot be concluded that it can explain all phenomena. Meaning, soul, spirits, and life are subjects incapable of physical-chemical explanation or formation. Usage in referring to a type of argument: The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form: There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore the cause must be supernatural. One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument. God-of-the-gaps arguments have been discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases.

It would assist your understanding if you could manage to read the article instead of just the first paragraph that provides you with what you are looking for.

Wikipedia confirms the definition I used:

"God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to EXPLAIN some natural phenomena that science cannot..."

QED

"God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to EXPLAIN some natural phenomena that science cannot..."

It doesn't make your chosen personal idea of deity true, ("evidence for the existence of God"), it simply inserts a placeholder... just in case.

See also: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy
And now you know, or should know, your straw man here is not true.

And if you care to read the link above (and there is a lot of information there) you might have a better understanding why you do not chose the first link that seems to prove your point as a credible source. It would be completely correct if it was just to say that the divine fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to EXPLAIN some natural phenomena that science cannot. Goddidit is certainly a divine fallacy, but you cannot equivocate "god of the gaps" with Goddidit.

As shown above it appears it is you who doesn’t care to read links.

This means that I owe you an apology because I was the first one to equivocate you using Goddidit with "god of the gaps."

They mean essentially the same thing. Get over it already.

Equivocate much?

Not much, but when I do I am the first one to admit it; see above.

You’re not finished yet. See below.

You are confusing "want" with "why/how". Thermodynamics is the reason water boils not the desire for it to happen.

I am certainly not equivocating anything here however. You are confusing "want" with "why/how" I have said multiple times that thermodynamics is the "why/how." I have never said that "I want a cup of tea" is the "why/how" answer; on the contrary, I have stated that "I want a cup of tea" is the "why/because" answer. I then pointed out that both are valid explanations for why the water is boiling, but you will only accept the "why/how" answer while completely ignoring the "why/because" aspect of the question. To put it another way, you only accept the process by which something happens and not the reason for which something happens. That is to say that the process by which the water is boiling is thermodynamics and the reason {first link in the causal chain) the water is boiling is because I want a cup of tea. Reasons cannot be quantified as they are only descriptions of the causal history, but are still valid answers to why. Processes are descriptions of the quantifiable mechanics behind the why.

You might learn something about different kinds of answers if you read the link below.
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly...ft_final-1.pdf

Nice try. There can be all kinds of “causal chains” but the reason water boils is thermodynamics. Try Googling, “Why does water boil?”. Let me know if, “I want a cup of tea.”, comes up as a “hit”.

The BBT isn't thought of by the majority of humanity as AN EXPLANATION of the origin of the universe as it presently exists? Seriously??

Actually, I pointed out that the majority of humanity does (do) think of the BBT as an explanation of the origin of the universe, and that is why I included it with other world origin theories, but the BBT does not actually say anything about the origin of the universe at all. The BBT is actually a description of how quantum mechanics suggest that the expansion of the early universe occurred, not how it came into existence to begin with; seriously...

I agree and never have said I thought the case was otherwise.

Of course the BBT has no "proof", no scientific theory does, however, it does explain the EVIDENCE and that is all it does.

At least you are correct here and are willing to admit that it is only a theory, and only explains the evidence.

And the hits just keep coming...

The BBT is not “just a theory”. :nono:

You can further your understanding here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#.22Just.22_a_theory

Try reading ALL OF IT this time.

Creation does the same thing, it explains the EVIDENCE and that is all it does. The difference is I admit that the creationist explanation is a belief, where as I am willing to bet that you will not admit that the BBT is as well.

See above. Try reading ALL OF IT this time.

If you have a better explanation not involving "goddidit" I'm sure the Nobel committee will be extremely interested.

Actually, I have the only logical explanation (for the origin of the universe, not the BBT) not involving "goddidit," but you would reject that as well.

And that “logical explanation”… not involving "goddidit”’ would be (I read ahead):

“… nothing other than a necessary being. There are good reasons why I believe that necessary being is the God of the Bible, but it does not have to be and it does not mean that he is. Therefore, as to the origin of the universe, my explanation is an unidentified, eternal, immutable, perfect, self-sustaining existence (being) was the original cause for this contingent universe to come into existence (being). Furthermore, that necessary being is not even required to have intelligence, but it must exist.”

Please explain how this “explanation” differs substantially from, GODDIDIT!!, in any meaningful way. I’m all ears.

What confuses me is you believe "that necessary being" is the God of the Bible (but not necessarily, but A god none-the-less). So you essentially say goddidn'tdoit... but goddidit. :liberals:

Which part of "your lack of critical thinking skills" and/or "brain-washed by christian fundamentalism" isn't true? So far you've shown my evaluation of both to be accurate.

All of it isn't true. I have proved that my critical thinking skills are honed much better than what you are used too, and it would seem much better than you can handle. As for the brain-washed by Christian fundamentalism goes, I am considered a heretic by most Christian fundamentalist simply because they cannot follow logic and reasoning very well.

I’m laughing at the superior intellect.

Perhap, perhaps not. I don't care since it has no bearing on OUR discussion. (This appears to be red herring on your part in an attempt at diversion.)

Trying to divert from what: you using the goddidit fallacy as a straw-man? I may have equivocated incorrectly (as did you, though you probably won’t admit it) that the god of the gaps is the same as goddidit, but the fact still remains that your false claim that I am saying goddidit is a straw-man.

I can’t (and won’t) admit to being wrong about something I’m not wrong about. As shown above (and in prior posts) god-of-the-gaps/goddidit are arguments from ignorance fallacies, not straw men arguments. Read the above box again if you are still unsure. Then explain how...

“… nothing other than a necessary being. There are good reasons why I believe that necessary being is the God of the Bible, but it does not have to be and it does not mean that he is. Therefore, as to the origin of the universe, my explanation is an unidentified, eternal, immutable, perfect, self-sustaining existence (being) was the original cause for this contingent universe to come into existence (being). Furthermore, that necessary being is not even required to have intelligence, but it must exist.”

... differs substantially from, GODDIDIT!!, in any meaningful way. I’m all ears.

What confuses me is you believe "that necessary being" is the God of the Bible (but not necessarily, but A god none-the-less). So you essentially say goddidn'tdoit... but goddidit. :liberals:

... and your interpretation isn't goddidit? You're kidding, right?
Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't your position goddidit? If not, explain why not.

No, my position is not goddidit.

It isn’t? Seriously? Then why did you write:

Based on logic and reasoning my explanation for the origin of the universe is nothing other than a necessary being. There are good reasons why I believe that necessary being is the God of the Bible, but it does not have to be and it does not mean that he is. Therefore, as to the origin of the universe, my explanation is an unidentified, eternal, immutable, perfect, self-sustaining existence (being) was the original cause for this contingent universe to come into existence (being). Furthermore, that necessary being is not even required to have intelligence, but it must exist.

Please explain how this “explanation” differs substantially from, GODDIDIT!!, in any meaningful way. I’m all ears.

What confuses me is you believe "that necessary being" is the God of the Bible (but not necessarily, but A god none-the-less). So you essentially say goddidn'tdoit... but goddidit. :liberals:

That you don't understand the difference is a testament to your lack of critical thinking skills. That no matter how clearly I might explain it you will never comprehend it is testament to the thoroughness of how well you have been brain-washed by christian fundamentalism.

That you do not understand that you are using your goddidit (divine fallacy) as a straw-man shows the opposite. As a matter of fact, your goddidit argument actually produces more problems for atheism than it does for theism, but you probably do not see that either because you cannot quantify the reasons if I were to explain them to you.

:rotfl:

You can say that again if it makes you feel better…

but…

It won’t magically make it true.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Yeah, so what? I suspect Barbarian meant, "Anyone with an average IQ would be able to get it", but, even then, your assertion doesn't refute that either, does it?

As a matter of fact it doesn’t, it was never meant too. I wasn’t even trying to defend my position, I was making it clear that what I posted isn’t the truth and that it was said in humor and nothing more. I’m sure that The Barbarian meant anyone with an average IQ could do it, I just thought the way he worded it was hilarious given the numbers actually posted. It was intended to be a straw-man for the comical factor, not as an actual argument against what he actually meant; but it seems that humor isn’t quantifiable so you reject that too.

I’m not the only one who didn’t get the “joke”, neither did Barbarian or jonahdog apparently. A later post doesn’t support your “humor” contention either. Perhaps you didn’t really mean it when you said, “I'm not trying to be misleading, trying to misinform anyone, or be deceptive in any way.”

Andy Kaufman was a great comedian. You’re no Andy Kaufman.

It's a good thing your grandfather encouraged you to use logic and reason, it's too bad you never actually developed those skills enough to engage Michael Cadry.

I’m familiar with him. In what subject or on what doctrine? You name it and I will reach out to him.

Don’t bother. You’re not up to his level yet. Someday... maybe... someday.

 

[Stripe]

I will reach out to him.

Warning! Warning!

Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Silent Hunter]

... engage Michael Cadry.

I will reach out to him.

Warning! Warning!

Now, Vv, THAT'S funny!

 

[Veritas veritate]

I’m not the only one who didn’t get the “joke”, neither did Barbarian or jonahdog apparently. A later post doesn’t support your “humor” contention either. Perhaps you didn’t really mean it when you said, “I'm not trying to be misleading, trying to misinform anyone, or be deceptive in any way.”

I see that... that is one of the things that I do not like about forums, it is impossible to convey tone in writing... for that I apologize.

Andy Kaufman was a great comedian. You’re no Andy Kaufman.

No objection here...

Don’t bother. You’re not up to his level yet. Someday... maybe... someday.

You really think I could be up to his level someday? Do you really mean it? Maybe when I’m old and senile?

Remember, you are the one who made the observation that I am no Andy Kaufman...



Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Silent Hunter]

I’m not the only one who didn’t get the “joke”, neither did Barbarian or jonahdog apparently. A later post doesn’t support your “humor” contention either. Perhaps you didn’t really mean it when you said, “I'm not trying to be misleading, trying to misinform anyone, or be deceptive in any way.”

I see that... that is one of the things that I do not like about forums, it is impossible to convey tone in writing... for that I apologize.

No apology is necessary. Humor isn't the only nuance unrecognizable in many posts. I, for one, think I'm hilarious but, like Kaufman, I'm the only one who usually gets the joke... usually.

Andy Kaufman was a great comedian. You’re no Andy Kaufman.

No objection here...

:thumb:

Don’t bother. You’re not up to his level yet. Someday... maybe... someday.

You really think I could be up to his level someday? Do you really mean it? Maybe when I’m old and senile?

Engaging Cadry will atrophy your brain even more, so, I don't recommend it. An angel told me to tell you that for your protection. (If you knew Cadry, you'd know there's a tremendous amount of humor in that statement, not that I think angels exist.)

Remember, you are the one who made the observation that I am no Andy Kaufman...

I can’t (and won’t) admit to being wrong about something I’m not wrong about, but, I have to admit, this time, I might be... maybe... could possibly... with a high degree of probability, be...

...NOT wrong. :chuckle:

 

[Veritas veritate]

Now, Vv, THAT'S funny!

Really? And that is the one I thought you wouldn't get! lol

As I said, I am familiar with him, his prophecies, the promotion of his book from the 90's, the whole nine yards. He was actually one of the reasons why I had stopped posting for so long. It was too tedious trying to reason with someone who has been directly contacted by God to be a prophet.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Really? And that is the one I thought you wouldn't get! lol

Actually, I thought you were serious. It was Stripe's comment I found had a tinge of humor.

As I said, I am familiar with him, his prophecies, the promotion of his book from the 90's, the whole nine yards. He was actually one of the reasons why I had stopped posting for so long. It was too tedious trying to reason with someone who has been directly contacted by God to be a prophet.

Cadry's funnier than Kaufman... :nono:

That was fun.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Can we get back to this:

No, my position is not goddidit.

Here you are on one side of the fence...

Based on logic and reasoning my explanation for the origin of the universe is nothing other than a necessary being.

Really? Based on "logic and reason" you concluded that the only possible answer (give or take an omnipotent being here or there) to life, the universe, and everything is not, in fact, 42 but... (wait for it)...

There are good reasons why I believe that necessary being is the God of the Bible, but it does not have to be and it does not mean that he is.

... wait for it...

Therefore, as to the origin of the universe, my explanation is an unidentified, eternal, immutable, perfect, self-sustaining existence (being) was the original cause for this contingent universe to come into existence (being).

GODDIDIT!!

Then here you are on the other side of the fence.

You must be trying to be funny by being dead-pan serious there is no contradiction.

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

- There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
- Therefore the cause must be supernatural.

Are you going to continue stomp your feet and scream, "Straw man!!", or are you ready to embrace your error?

When asked questions like, "Where did the Universe come from?" and, "How did life begin?" I'm not ashamed to say, "I don't know?"

In my opinion it is disingenuous to insert an unknown (goddidit) to answer another unknown (where did the universe come from or how did life begin).

At least, "I don't know." is honest.

Furthermore, that necessary being is not even required to have intelligence, but it must exist.

Why can't the universe necessarily exist?

 

[Veritas veritate]

I publically admit that I stand corrected by Silent Hunter regarding that the "god of the gaps" can be an argument from ignorance..... After all, somebody has to start cleaning up all the hay around here. :sigh:

I must point out however that when you invoke the "goddidit" fallacy whenever someone opposes your position it creates more problems for atheists than it does for theists...

Nice try. There can be all kinds of “causal chains” but the reason water boils is thermodynamics. Try Googling, “Why does water boil?”. Let me know if, “I want a cup of tea.”, comes up as a “hit”.

First, I need to point out that the question was never "why does water boil?"; rather, it was "why is the water boiling?". There is a major difference there.

Second, Thermodynamics is not the only "reason" why water is boiling. Let me try some different answers that might help get the point across.

Question: Why is the water boiling?

Answer: It is boiling to purify it for drinking.
Answer: It is boiling to make a cup of tea.
Answer: It is boiling to sterilize grandma's dentures.
Answer: It is boiling to confuse people about why it is boiling.
Answer: thermodynamics

All of them are valid answers, but only one of them is based on empirical data...

I agree and never have said I thought the case was otherwise.

Glad we are on the same page here. Many people confuse the BBT to be an origin theory, just like 6days confuses evolution to be a life origin theory.

The BBT is not “just a theory”. :nono:

You can further your understanding here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#.22Just.22_a_theory

Try reading ALL OF IT this time.

See above. Try reading ALL OF IT this time.

Now you are just grasping at straws. Of course it is not "just a theory" did you not see that I said that it is rooted in quantum mechanics? I know that it is a probable scientific explanation of the expansion of the early universe and creation is not scientific. The point is, as a theory, it has to be believed nonetheless.

And that “logical explanation”… not involving "goddidit”’ would be (I read ahead):

“… nothing other than a necessary being. There are good reasons why I believe that necessary being is the God of the Bible, but it does not have to be and it does not mean that he is. Therefore, as to the origin of the universe, my explanation is an unidentified, eternal, immutable, perfect, self-sustaining existence (being) was the original cause for this contingent universe to come into existence (being). Furthermore, that necessary being is not even required to have intelligence, but it must exist.”

Please explain how this “explanation” differs substantially from, GODDIDIT!!, in any meaningful way. I’m all ears.

What confuses me is you believe "that necessary being" is the God of the Bible (but not necessarily, but A god none-the-less). So you essentially say goddidn'tdoit... but goddidit. :liberals:

Sorry about the confusion; let me simplify it a little. When we talk about existence there is only two kinds: contingent or potential existence, and necessary or perfect existence. These two kinds of existence are analogous in that they both communicate being. We know that contingent existence cannot produce a necessary existence or the necessary existence wouldn't be necessary to begin with. Neither can it produce contingent existence, this is known because of the fact that matter can neither create nor destroy itself. We also know that necessary existence cannot produce necessary existence. Again, if it could, it would not be necessary to begin with. Furthermore, we know for a fact that nothing cannot produce something and neither can something produce nothing. Therefore contingent existence must have an origin within or caused by a necessary existence. Because we exist (we potentially and actually exist) we know that a necessary being must exist. All it does is prove that a necessary being must exist, nothing more. In order for anyone to show that their specific claim of who or what that necessary being is correct, the information must come from something other than the logical argument for the existence of a necessary being.

I’m laughing at the superior intellect.

critical thinking has nothing to do with intellect. I know some extremely intellectual people who cannot use logic or reason to save their lives, but I digress.

I can’t (and won’t) admit to being wrong about something I’m not wrong about. As shown above (and in prior posts) god-of-the-gaps/goddidit are arguments from ignorance fallacies, not straw men arguments. Read the above box again if you are still unsure. Then explain how...

What confuses me is you believe "that necessary being" is the God of the Bible (but not necessarily, but A god none-the-less). So you essentially say goddidn'tdoit... but goddidit. :liberals:

It is quite simple actually, the logical argument only proves that there must be a necessary being, it does not provide any proof whatsoever that the said necessary being is the God of the Bible. I must somehow show that he is by some other means outside of the logical argument. Therefore I admit openly that I believe that it is the God of the Bible, but I cannot claim that the argument proves that it is. Much like we have to believe the BBT simply because it cannot empirically be proven.

Why can't the universe necessarily exist?

One, it has been proven that matter cannot be created or destroyed within this universe, this tells us that everything that exists within the universe is contingent: it must potentially and actually exist.

two, every scientist in the world agrees that the universe had a beginning. Though the age continues to be controversial, it has to have had a beginning, which makes it a contingent being.

All this being said, This will be my last post on this thread about this subject because it is completely off topic of this thread.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I publically admit that I stand corrected by Silent Hunter regarding that the "god of the gaps" can be an argument from ignorance.....

Can be?

“God-of-the-gaps” IS an argument from ignorance. You should admit fully to your error instead of dancing around it.

After all, somebody has to start cleaning up all the hay around here.

… and I’m doing the best I can, tank you berry much.

I must point out however that when you invoke the "goddidit" fallacy whenever someone opposes your position it creates more problems for atheists than it does for theists...

Actually… no… it doesn’t. Bald assertions do nothing to further your argument.

Nice try. There can be all kinds of “causal chains” but the reason water boils is thermodynamics. Try Googling, “Why does water boil?”. Let me know if, “I want a cup of tea.”, comes up as a “hit”.

First, I need to point out that the question was never "why does water boil?"; rather, it was "why is the water boiling?". There is a major difference there.

There’s nothing like a distinction without a difference. Changing the verb (from “does” to “is”) and adding a definite article (the) changes nothing.

Second, Thermodynamics is not the only "reason" why water is boiling.

Actually… yes… it is.

Let me try some different answers that might help get the point across.

Question: Why is the water boiling?

Answer: It is boiling to purify it for drinking.
Answer: It is boiling to make a cup of tea.
Answer: It is boiling to sterilize grandma's dentures.
Answer: It is boiling to confuse people about why it is boiling.
Answer: thermodynamics

All of them are valid answers, but only one of them is based on empirical data...

As I said prior, you’re equivocating “want” with “why”.

Try this:

Question: Why is the water boiling?

Answer: It is boiling BECAUSE I WANT to purify it for drinking.
Answer: It is boiling BECAUSE I WANT to make a cup of tea.
Answer: It is boiling BECAUSE I WANT to sterilize grandma's dentures.
Answer: It is boiling BECAUSE I WANT to confuse people about why it is boiling.

There are many reasons someone might WANT water to boil but there is only one reason WHY water boils.

Answer: thermodynamics

At least you are correct only one of the answers is empirical.

I agree and never have said I thought the case was otherwise.

Glad we are on the same page here. Many people confuse the BBT to be an origin theory, just like 6days confuses evolution to be a life origin theory.

6days uses both as straw men because he equivocates them as “beginnings” when they aren’t.

When asked questions like, "Where did the Universe come from?" and, "How did life begin?" I'm not ashamed to say, "I don't know?"

In my opinion it is disingenuous to insert an unknown (goddidit) to answer another unknown (where did the universe come from or how did life begin).

At least, "I don't know." is honest.

The BBT is not “just a theory”. :nono:

You can further your understanding here: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#.22Just.22_a_theory

Try reading ALL OF IT this time.

See above. Try reading ALL OF IT this time.

Now you are just grasping at straws.

Nice assertion.

Of course it is not "just a theory" did you not see that I said that it is rooted in quantum mechanics? I know that it is a probable scientific explanation of the expansion of the early universe and creation is not scientific. The point is, as a theory, it has to be believed nonetheless.

The BBT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) is based on a MOUNTAIN of empirical evidence whereas goddidit is based on _____________.

Theists conflate religious belief with scientific belief. To “believe” a scientific theory is to accept the series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena is true, blind faith it is not.

And that “logical explanation”… not involving "goddidit”’ would be (I read ahead):

“… nothing other than a necessary being. There are good reasons why I believe that necessary being is the God of the Bible, but it does not have to be and it does not mean that he is. Therefore, as to the origin of the universe, my explanation is an unidentified, eternal, immutable, perfect, self-sustaining existence (being) was the original cause for this contingent universe to come into existence (being). Furthermore, that necessary being is not even required to have intelligence, but it must exist.”

Please explain how this “explanation” differs substantially from, GODDIDIT!!, in any meaningful way. I’m all ears.

What confuses me is you believe "that necessary being" is the God of the Bible (but not necessarily, but A god none-the-less). So you essentially say goddidn'tdoit... but goddidit. :liberals:

Sorry about the confusion; let me simplify it a little. When we talk about existence there is only two kinds: contingent or potential existence, and necessary or perfect existence. These two kinds of existence are analogous in that they both communicate being. We know that contingent existence cannot produce a necessary existence or the necessary existence wouldn't be necessary to begin with. Neither can it produce contingent existence, this is known because of the fact that matter can neither create nor destroy itself. We also know that necessary existence cannot produce necessary existence. Again, if it could, it would not be necessary to begin with. Furthermore, we know for a fact that nothing cannot produce something and neither can something produce nothing. Therefore contingent existence must have an origin within or caused by a necessary existence. Because we exist (we potentially and actually exist) we know that a necessary being must exist. All it does is prove that a necessary being must exist, nothing more. In order for anyone to show that their specific claim of who or what that necessary being is correct, the information must come from something other than the logical argument for the existence of a necessary being.

You condensed Thomas Aquinas’ “contingency” argument nicely… Well done!

It is unfortunate you don’t recognize the “argument from contingency” is “goddidit” in confusing and flowery language.

I’m laughing at the superior intellect.

critical thinking has nothing to do with intellect. I know some extremely intellectual people who cannot use logic or reason to save their lives, but I digress.

That’s true. You are living proof.

I can’t (and won’t) admit to being wrong about something I’m not wrong about. As shown above (and in prior posts) god-of-the-gaps/goddidit are arguments from ignorance fallacies, not straw men arguments. Read the above box again if you are still unsure. Then explain how...

<snip>

What confuses me is you believe "that necessary being" is the God of the Bible (but not necessarily, but A god none-the-less). So you essentially say goddidn'tdoit... but goddidit. :liberals:

It is quite simple actually, the logical argument only proves that there must be a necessary being, it does not provide any proof whatsoever that the said necessary being is the God of the Bible. I must somehow show that he is by some other means outside of the logical argument. Therefore I admit openly that I believe that it is the God of the Bible, but I cannot claim that the argument proves that it is.

It is unfortunate you cannot take the “logic” beyond that which provides you with what you are looking for.

Using “logical arguments” I can prove 1 = 2. It isn’t true but “logic” can be used to “prove” anything.

Much like we have to believe the BBT simply because it cannot empirically be proven.

Apples and oranges.

Perhaps you forgot what I said prior:

Of course the BBT has no "proof", no scientific theory does, however, it does explain the EVIDENCE (all evidence is empirical) and that is all it does. If you have a better explanation not involving "goddidit" I'm sure the Nobel committee will be extremely interested (and so would I).

Why can't the universe necessarily exist?

One, it has been proven that matter cannot be created or destroyed within this universe, ...

Well, no, it hasn’t been “proven” that matter cannot be created or destroyed but the empirical evidence suggests this is the case and I happen to agree with it.

this tells us that everything that exists within the universe is contingent: it must potentially and actually exist

Well, no. That everything that exists in the universe cannot be created or destroyed tells us a “necessary being” is unnecessary to create it. To say it again, IF everything that exists in the universe cannot be created how can a “necessary being” create it? I’m guessing the phrase “within this universe” is used to circumvent this dilemma. And, if you use the phrase “within this universe”, doesn’t that suggest justification for a multiverse? :think:

two, every scientist in the world agrees that the universe had a beginning.

This is simply and categorically not true and you know it but it does set up a convenient straw man for you to battle against. Had you said, "Almost every scientist in the world agrees that the universe as it is now had a beginning", I would agree with you.

Though the age continues to be controversial, it has to have had a beginning, which makes it a contingent being.

No... it doesn’t (on both counts). The universe as it is now is only contingent on what it was prior. Nothing more.

All this being said, This will be my last post on this thread about this subject because it is completely off topic of this thread.

Good idea. It prevents you from having to confront being wrong... again.

 

[Veritas veritate]

Good idea. It prevents you from having to confront being wrong... again.

Feel free to post in another appropriate thread and I will gladly continue our conversation. I am not dodging anything.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL