why that was nice

[eggyhustles 10+ year member]

You're 21, it's your parent's house...doesn't count. And that house might fetch 250-300 down here.

You're right. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Doesn't mean your not black posting from stolen internet.
Dumbass.

well it sort of does.. blacks are afraid of water..

 

[Captain_Ahab 5,000+ posts]

Makes sense...

Lives there to keep burglars away.

 

[infamous_e46 5,000+ posts]

Makes sense...
Lives there to keep burglars away.

why am i not surprised to find you in this thread

 

[eggyhustles 10+ year member]

Makes sense...
Lives there to keep burglars away.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wow.gif.23d729408e9177caa2a0ed6a2ba6588e.gif

 

[Captain_Ahab 5,000+ posts]

 

[WOT]

Imagine trying to bang on that??

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

I guess you completely missed the meaning of my criticism. The false dichotomy is this:
1) God exists and rewards belief in "it"

2) God does not exist

As a counter-example, consider the Atheist's Wager (which also uses a false dichotomy, but demonstrates part of why Pascal's Wager is wrong):

1) God exists and rewards skeptical or rational reasoning

2) God does not exist.

My point is that Pascal's Wager assumes a payout for believing in god; this is an unfounded assumption, unless you presume religious dogma to be accurate (which I do not, given the great deal of internal and external contradictions).

You have assumed that not believing will result in our "destruction", as you put it.

Again the point you are missing is that those are not the only 2 possible outcomes, they are simply the best outcomes by which to base a choice. If you are playing craps you can't possibly know what the outcome will be but you know it's a better decision to choose red or black than ...Orange?

Actually it is. They all boil down to the same argument: things are so complex that they must have had a designer, and that designer must be god. I can only assume that you have not read the works of Aquinas or Paley.

aquinas yes paley no. The arguement isn't actually that things are so complex that they require a designer, but that some things cannot happen from pure chance and require conscious input, which is of course just as speculative as anything.

The point about the infinite regress is to demonstrate that the argument for gods existence is no stronger than any other argument for what began. There we agree. The difference is that the god you propose ONLY exists in that infinite regression, whereas we have evidence of "natural causes" everywhere.

Exactly, but yet while this argument is not any less supported than the argument that your chair will hold your weight, yet you believe it. My point is that in theoretical rhetoric, skepticism has a tenancy to reinforce the skeptic. A problem that has plagued man kind throughout history.

So you're aware, then, that every example Behe has given as "irreducibly complex" (including the eye, the bacteria flagellum, and the immune system) have been demonstrated as NOT irreducibly complex? Have you read any information in Kitzmiller vs Dover?

From a certain point of view, but i would go farther to say that all things are irreducibly complex. I remember distinctly in elementary science, we were being taught about atoms, and that they are made from protons, neutrons and electrons. I raised my hand and asked "what are they made of?" I got the answer "nothing they are the smallest parts you can't get any smaller." we now know this to be false, and there is no smallest level. It would seem that all things are indeed infinitely complex. and we are simply swimming upstream on an eternal river trying to discover the end that doesn't exist.

Certainly we are in a state of epistemological darkness. Nothing can be completely known. But my point is that it is stupid to make a statement with no supporting argument, then say "Prove my statement is wrong or else it is true." I presume you believe in the celestial teapot, since it has not been proven wrong?

wrong, you turned my own argument on me. My point is that everything YOU believe is based on the fact you cannot prove otherwise. how am i different? for that matter how would you be different if you believed what i do? you simply would not.

Again, you are making a bald assertion that life should not be the way it is. I look at life and I see energy coming in from the sun that, given the composition of the Earth, gives rise to continuing life. The life itself appears to give rise to more life. The evidence says the exact opposite of what you are asserting.

Can you explain to me how gravity opposes life?

Gravity is a relatively completely unknown force, if you can figure out what causes it you'll probably win a nobel prize. but if you would like an example. gravity makes movement and digestion require more energy. Therefore requiring more cellular respiration expediting the decay of the organism. You must eat more food to stay alive because of gravity. Everything fights life in one way or another, the path of least resistance is for life to die out and not come back. why does it not, evolution being a natural force would not alone counteract "nature"

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Again the point you are missing is that those are not the only 2 possible outcomes, they are simply the best outcomes by which to base a choice. If you are playing craps you can't possibly know what the outcome will be but you know it's a better decision to choose red or black than ...Orange?

First you claimed that it was not a dichotomy; now you are presenting the craps situation, which is in fact a dichotomy. Which is it?

Do you even understand Pascal's wager? Even Wikipedia gets it better than you do.

To re-iterate for the third time now:

Pascal's Wager says that it is better to believe in god because there is a reward if he exists, and no punishment if he does not. However, Pascal's Wager is false in assuming that a reward exists for belief, as this is not an established fact outside of religious dogma.

So really, the game we're playing has far, far more options than just red and black to choose from, any of which may be correct. The mistake Pascal's Wager makes is assuming that only red and black are possibilities.

aquinas yes paley no. The arguement isn't actually that things are so complex that they require a designer, but that some things cannot happen from pure chance and require conscious input, which is of course just as speculative as anything.

Have you read Behe's argument?

Step 1: Things in life are irreducibly complex.

Step 2: Complex systems require a designer.

Step 3: The complex things in life require a designer.

The designer is the conscious input that you're talking about. You're saying the same thing I am but you think you're saying something different.

Exactly, but yet while this argument is not any less supported than the argument that your chair will hold your weight, yet you believe it. My point is that in theoretical rhetoric, skepticism has a tenancy to reinforce the skeptic. A problem that has plagued man kind throughout history.

You are just full of nonsense today, aren't you?

I have experienced chairs before. I know my weight. I can form a belief with respect to the chair holding my weight strictly on empirical evidence.

I think you're having a hard time understanding the difference between "equipossible" and "equiprobable".

From a certain point of view, but i would go farther to say that all things are irreducibly complex. I remember distinctly in elementary science, we were being taught about atoms, and that they are made from protons, neutrons and electrons. I raised my hand and asked "what are they made of?" I got the answer "nothing they are the smallest parts you can't get any smaller." we now know this to be false, and there is no smallest level. It would seem that all things are indeed infinitely complex. and we are simply swimming upstream on an eternal river trying to discover the end that doesn't exist.

What you have actually argued is that all things are a function of increasingly smaller parts. This is nothing at all like irreducible complexity; irreducible complexity argues that if one part is missing, everything left has no function. That is not even remotely similar to the question of scale that you're posing.

wrong, you turned my own argument on me. My point is that everything YOU believe is based on the fact you cannot prove otherwise. how am i different? for that matter how would you be different if you believed what i do? you simply would not.

You are, once again, missing the point. Negative evidence alone is insufficient, because it opens you to believing in everything, especially the most ludicrous claims; my beliefs are based on positive evidence. Certainly the positive evidence may not be exactly correct, but I can achieve operative certainty based on probability based on logical empiricism.

Gravity is a relatively completely unknown force, if you can figure out what causes it you'll probably win a nobel prize. but if you would like an example. gravity makes movement and digestion require more energy. Therefore requiring more cellular respiration expediting the decay of the organism. You must eat more food to stay alive because of gravity. Everything fights life in one way or another, the path of least resistance is for life to die out and not come back. why does it not, evolution being a natural force would not alone counteract "nature"

That's a slippery slope fallacy. To use the analogy of a circuit, the fact that there is some resistance in the circuit does not mean that there shouldn't be any current able to pass through. If the forces that give rise to life outweigh the forces that resist it, life will carry on.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

u guy r 2 mad

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

First you claimed that it was not a dichotomy; now you are presenting the craps situation, which is in fact a dichotomy. Which is it?
Do you even understand Pascal's wager? Even Wikipedia gets it better than you do.

To re-iterate for the third time now:

Pascal's Wager says that it is better to believe in god because there is a reward if he exists, and no punishment if he does not. However, Pascal's Wager is false in assuming that a reward exists for belief, as this is not an established fact outside of religious dogma.

So really, the game we're playing has far, far more options than just red and black to choose from, any of which may be correct. The mistake Pascal's Wager makes is assuming that only red and black are possibilities.

This is my point:You are misinterpreting pascal's wager. It is not representing a choice between the only possible outcomes, but between the most likely possible outcomes. The definition of the best possible outcomes are the choices which are established possibilities resultant from sources other than skeptic rhetoric. (IE: it doesn't address choices that are considered from pure skepticism.) You are arguing in a circle. The same process of thought that allows you to trust that your chair will hold your weight is the process of thought that makes pascal's wager valid.

To further illustrate, Saying: "well i shouldn't trust the chair because aliens might exist who purposely mimic chairs that aren't there as a practical joke, or it might be infested with termites." ... these are skeptic arguments rooted in nothing but the possibility they are true, just like the alternative outcomes you posited besides those pascal's wager addresses.

Have you read Behe's argument?
Step 1: Things in life are irreducibly complex.

Step 2: Complex systems require a designer.

Step 3: The complex things in life require a designer.

The designer is the conscious input that you're talking about. You're saying the same thing I am but you think you're saying something different.

I'm not. it's just hard to properly illustrate. It boils down to likelihood. Find the biggest most intricate book in your sight. could this item be created out of chance or natural circumstances? If you were to mine the entire galaxy, do you think you could find an item identical to that one which occurred naturally or more accurately (by chance.)?

You are just full of nonsense today, aren't you?
I have experienced chairs before. I know my weight. I can form a belief with respect to the chair holding my weight strictly on empirical evidence.

I think you're having a hard time understanding the difference between "equipossible" and "equiprobable".

And thus thousands of years of historically backed religious text, millions of followers, martyrs, and crusaders. does not present even remotely equivocal evidence to merit the possibility of a god likely? when all you had to do to believe the chair was strong was plop ur *** down 1 time? It strains a matter of personal choice in my opinion. You have as much evidence of god as you do everything else you believe.

What you have actually argued is that all things are a function of increasingly smaller parts. This is nothing at all like irreducible complexity; irreducible complexity argues that if one part is missing, everything left has no function. That is not even remotely similar to the question of scale that you're posing.

I wasn't trying to connect the arguments but add to it by saying that things are never what we accept them to be in order to feign understanding. So saying that an item is not irreducibly complex is neither here nor there. While a real world example of irreducible complexity might not be discovered, the logic and possibility behind the argument remains.

You are, once again, missing the point. Negative evidence alone is insufficient, because it opens you to believing in everything, especially the most ludicrous claims; my beliefs are based on positive evidence. Certainly the positive evidence may not be exactly correct, but I can achieve operative certainty based on probability based on logical empiricism.

Like i said above you have no true positive evidence. basic math and science proofs function by attempting to prove a problem wrong. because its the only way to truly prove something right

That's a slippery slope fallacy. To use the analogy of a circuit, the fact that there is some resistance in the circuit does not mean that there shouldn't be any current able to pass through. If the forces that give rise to life outweigh the forces that resist it, life will carry on.

Exactly, follow me here! So we agree that:

forces contributing to the continuing of life > the forces opposing life.

right?

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

The PhD program explores interdisciplinary analysis of the United States as a multiethnic, multiracial, multigendered, and multicultural society, shaped by transnational forces.

The program provides students the opportunity to choose an emphasis in ethnic studies, feminist studies, history, literature or another discipline, and an interdisciplinary specialization that crosses the borders of these fields.

We have particularly strong ties to the Department of Comparative Ethnic Studies (Chicano/a Latino/a, Native American Indian, Asian/Pacific American, African American), English, and Women's Studies.

We also have excellent, committed faculty in Anthropology, Communication, Digital Technology and Culture, History, Philosophy, Political Science, Sociology, and Teaching and Learning.

In addition to taking our own American Studies courses, students are free to take graduate courses in these other departments, and to synthesize them into individualized programs of study.

We feature a portfolio of publishable papers, rather than an exam structure, and students have the option of electronic, creative, or traditional theses.

Among the innovative options in the program are theses or dissertatations done in multimedia electronic format. The electronic thesis can be used as a portfolio by students seeking to bridge the digital divide by working with grassroots community organizations, or by bringing new perspectives to mainstream multimedia publishing, or to show teaching competence in new technologies.

While most of our graduate students enter careers in university and college teaching, an American Studies advanced degree can also be utilized as a useful preparation for community activism, museum and archive work, traditional and electronic publishing, and government service, among other careers.

Our program has particular strengths in the critical analysis of popluar culture, comparative ethnic studies, feminist studies, environmental justice cultural studies, social movement analysis, and the cultural study of digital technologies.

 

[AVSTANG02]

oh ya?

 

[Twistid 5,000+ posts]

cool story, bro

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

The PhD program explores interdisciplinary analysis of the United States as a multiethnic, multiracial, multigendered, and multicultural society, shaped by transnational forces.
The program provides students the opportunity to choose an emphasis in ethnic studies, feminist studies, history, literature or another discipline, and an interdisciplinary specialization that crosses the borders of these fields.

We have particularly strong ties to the Department of Comparative Ethnic Studies (Chicano/a Latino/a, Native American Indian, Asian/Pacific American, African American), English, and Women's Studies.

We also have excellent, committed faculty in Anthropology, Communication, Digital Technology and Culture, History, Philosophy, Political Science, Sociology, and Teaching and Learning.

In addition to taking our own American Studies courses, students are free to take graduate courses in these other departments, and to synthesize them into individualized programs of study.

We feature a portfolio of publishable papers, rather than an exam structure, and students have the option of electronic, creative, or traditional theses.

Among the innovative options in the program are theses or dissertatations done in multimedia electronic format. The electronic thesis can be used as a portfolio by students seeking to bridge the digital divide by working with grassroots community organizations, or by bringing new perspectives to mainstream multimedia publishing, or to show teaching competence in new technologies.

While most of our graduate students enter careers in university and college teaching, an American Studies advanced degree can also be utilized as a useful preparation for community activism, museum and archive work, traditional and electronic publishing, and government service, among other careers.

Our program has particular strengths in the critical analysis of popluar culture, comparative ethnic studies, feminist studies, environmental justice cultural studies, social movement analysis, and the cultural study of digital technologies.

Thanks for the info. I may change my education plan now.