U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-15-2012, 09:17 PM
 
41,404 posts, read 27,698,959 times
Reputation: 6224

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
We have been through this countless times before and I am not going to do it again. Your insistence that natural/material is not logical/based on sound evidence is becoming as wearisome as the ever - repeated creationist claims that there are no transitional forms.

If you want to try to attack the materialist default, intervene in the discussion between Capo and Tigetmax.
Our disagreement doesn't even reach to the materialist/naturalism default, Arequipa. It concerns your repeated misuse of the term logical. There is no way logic establishes or even helps your preference for naturalism. In fact, it is the least logical position. I realize you want to use logical as if it has to do with some uninformed common sense acceptance of evidence . . . but it doesn't. Have you ever taken a logic course to know what it can and cannot do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2012, 10:40 PM
 
3,426 posts, read 2,806,818 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Our disagreement doesn't even reach to the materialist/naturalism default, Arequipa. It concerns your repeated misuse of the term logical. There is no way logic establishes or even helps your preference for naturalism. In fact, it is the least logical position. I realize you want to use logical as if it has to do with some uninformed common sense acceptance of evidence . . . but it doesn't. Have you ever taken a logic course to know what it can and cannot do?
In what alternative universe is materialism or naturalism not logical? And why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2012, 11:47 PM
 
41,404 posts, read 27,698,959 times
Reputation: 6224
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
In what alternative universe is materialism or naturalism not logical? And why?
Because there is no Logic syllogism that can use the major premises of the naturalism view to produce a predicate of what does exist: life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness and intelligence from non-intelligence. Feel free to produce any one of the syllogisms that logically proceeds from a basic premise of the non-existence of X to a predicate of the existence of X. Logic is NOT designed to do that. So stop using the term . . . it just reveals ignorance of what logic can and cannot do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2012, 12:06 AM
 
Location: Ostend,Belgium....
8,820 posts, read 6,468,782 times
Reputation: 4890
it's possible that bacteria and single cell organisms live(d) on many planets but never evolved. Earth just was one of the exceptions but there could be others out there. Lifeforms does not mean humans so we should not assume that we're alone. But we should also not think that "lifeform" means "humanlike". Plants exchange information with eachother, they do it with chemicals...we need to think outside the box to find the answers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2012, 05:22 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
42,525 posts, read 12,108,998 times
Reputation: 5367
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Because there is no Logic syllogism that can use the major premises of the naturalism view to produce a predicate of what does exist: life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness and intelligence from non-intelligence. Feel free to produce any one of the syllogisms that logically proceeds from a basic premise of the non-existence of X to a predicate of the existence of X. Logic is NOT designed to do that. So stop using the term . . . it just reveals ignorance of what logic can and cannot do.
I'm afraid that the ignorance is on your side. You try to use logic - you try to use philosophy -as a tool to find out facts. You totally sideline the scientific evidence for materialistic naturalism using the argument (so very like the way that creationists try to discredit evolution theory by harping on what science can't explain and ignoring what it can) that it can't explain what it all 'is' at the very bottom, just as you use our scientific ignorance of what consciousness 'is' at the very bottom to make all sorts of philosophically -based claims about what it is and does.

In the very real sense of the metaphor, you throw out a nurseryfull of babies along with some residual bathwater and then pretend that there are no babies.

This is where your thinking is wrong and why the discussion cannot progress and that is why (not because I don't like you or disrespect your erudition and education, much less that I have got the 'worst of it' - though I don't believe that you have ever claimed that) I refuse to re-engage with that same debate yet again, because your faith has skewed your thinking and we simply cannot discuss the matter logically, because your logic is all based on an illogical presupposition of the existence of God.

Now you may post what you like but I really do have other priorities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2012, 07:42 AM
 
5,460 posts, read 6,036,044 times
Reputation: 1805
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Thought I would answer Arequipa in this thread because it would be off topic where he originally posted it. Absolutely not true, Arequipa. There is NO logical way to account for your naturalist atheist views.
Proof of this claim?

Quote:
I have asked for the syllogisms numerous times now and they can NOT be shown
Shifting the burden of proof, I see.

Quote:
The major evidence of life, consciousness, intelligence, the cosmos, and the unimaginable scope and power of it all can more than adequately qualify as evidence of God.
Nope, no matter how much you jump up and down and wave your arms when you say it, this isn't true in the least.

Quote:
Rather than that just provide the syllogisms that logically account for the existence of life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness, intelligence from non-intelligence, etc.
Looks like an argument from ignorance. Are there any positive reasons to believe in your god, or do you just believe because we don't understand some stuff about the natural world?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2012, 03:26 PM
 
41,404 posts, read 27,698,959 times
Reputation: 6224
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I'm afraid that the ignorance is on your side. You try to use logic - you try to use philosophy -as a tool to find out facts. You totally sideline the scientific evidence for materialistic naturalism using the argument (so very like the way that creationists try to discredit evolution theory by harping on what science can't explain and ignoring what it can) that it can't explain what it all 'is' at the very bottom, just as you use our scientific ignorance of what consciousness 'is' at the very bottom to make all sorts of philosophically -based claims about what it is and does.
No, Arequipa . . . I am trying to stop YOU from claiming that logic is doing what it is incapable of doing . . . supporting your materialistic naturalism as regards the EXISTENCE of Consciousness and intelligence, etc. Ask yourself which is the more logical premise . . . that the universe is conscious and therefore we have consciousness . . . or the universe is not conscious therefore we have consciousness? Logic is NOT your friend on this issue.
Quote:
This is where your thinking is wrong and why the discussion cannot progress and that is why (not because I don't like you or disrespect your erudition and education, much less that I have got the 'worst of it' - though I don't believe that you have ever claimed that) I refuse to re-engage with that same debate yet again, because your faith has skewed your thinking and we simply cannot discuss the matter logically, because your logic is all based on an illogical presupposition of the existence of God.
The logical presupposition is the the universe is conscious (i.e. God) therefore we have consciousness . . . NOT your illogical one that the universe is NOT conscious therefore we have consciousness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2012, 04:05 PM
 
3,426 posts, read 2,806,818 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Because there is no Logic syllogism that can use the major premises of the naturalism view to produce a predicate of what does exist: life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness and intelligence from non-intelligence. Feel free to produce any one of the syllogisms that logically proceeds from a basic premise of the non-existence of X to a predicate of the existence of X. Logic is NOT designed to do that. So stop using the term . . . it just reveals ignorance of what logic can and cannot do.
And yet there is a ton of evidence to suggest that life did indeed, come from non-life (organic molecules), and a lot of research currently being done in this field. You seem to think that if it isn't logical, it doesn't exist or else cannot be representative of reality. Logic is a human construct. Is it logical for all life on earth to survive largely by eating one another? Whether or not it is logical, it is a fact of life. Science studies the facts. The facts are not always logical or what we would expect based on logic.

What is life? That's the question, isn't it? Science defines it as:

the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

What natural process(es) prevent(s)s organic molucules (of which all life is composed) from chemically arranging in such a form as to become life? What logic prevents it from occurring in nature?

Ultimately, we are all made of star stuff, the stuff made out of supernovae explosions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2012, 04:14 PM
 
3,426 posts, read 2,806,818 times
Reputation: 3318
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
No, Arequipa . . . I am trying to stop YOU from claiming that logic is doing what it is incapable of doing . . . supporting your materialistic naturalism as regards the EXISTENCE of Consciousness and intelligence, etc. Ask yourself which is the more logical premise . . . that the universe is conscious and therefore we have consciousness . . . or the universe is not conscious therefore we have consciousness? Logic is NOT your friend on this issue.
The fact that we can administer chemicals (i.e, anesthetics) that significantly alter consciousness and intelligence strongly suggests that consciousness and intelligence have a natural/physical/chemical origin. The fact that both can be permanently altered in a foetus by genetic mutations suggests that consciousness and intelligence is a natural product of the brain that is affected by both genetics and our environment. The fact that the bulk of the universe consists of hard radiation and inert gas and dust in no way indicates that the universe is intelligent, unless you are suggesting that somehow hydrogen and olivine dust, neutrinos and quarks possess intelligence (I'd love to see the IQ test for those).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2012, 05:08 PM
 
41,404 posts, read 27,698,959 times
Reputation: 6224
Default Stop claiming it is logical!

Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
And yet there is a ton of evidence to suggest that life did indeed, come from non-life (organic molecules), and a lot of research currently being done in this field. You seem to think that if it isn't logical, it doesn't exist or else cannot be representative of reality. Logic is a human construct. Is it logical for all life on earth to survive largely by eating one another? Whether or not it is logical, it is a fact of life. Science studies the facts. The facts are not always logical or what we would expect based on logic.

What is life? That's the question, isn't it? Science defines it as:

the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

What natural process(es) prevent(s)s organic molucules (of which all life is composed) from chemically arranging in such a form as to become life? What logic prevents it from occurring in nature?

Ultimately, we are all made of star stuff, the stuff made out of supernovae explosions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
The fact that we can administer chemicals (i.e, anesthetics) that significantly alter consciousness and intelligence strongly suggests that consciousness and intelligence have a natural/physical/chemical origin. The fact that both can be permanently altered in a foetus by genetic mutations suggests that consciousness and intelligence is a natural product of the brain that is affected by both genetics and our environment. The fact that the bulk of the universe consists of hard radiation and inert gas and dust in no way indicates that the universe is intelligent, unless you are suggesting that somehow hydrogen and olivine dust, neutrinos and quarks possess intelligence (I'd love to see the IQ test for those).
We can debate the evidence separately . . . but stop pretending that your view is the logical one when it clearly is NOT!. Live with it. You prefer your illogical premise because of your distaste for God and the religions surrounding beliefs about God, period. Logic has nothing to do with your position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top