kruszer Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 (Hopefully this will properly embed, if not someone please show me how this is done in the forums?) ------ I can't believe that I ever found Christian arguments like this one to be the least bit compelling. LOL <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FELO-UbBrNQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Here are classical examples of Christian Circular Reasoning: (my thoughts in italics) [/left] 1. "There needs to be a God in order to be able to discuss the possibility of God." Right. And there need to be fairies to be able to talk about fairies. And by this line of reason you've just proved the existence of Gukumatz, the Mayan god of the four elements, including air. See? You can't even debate Gukumatz without using air, therefore Gukumatz is real! [/left] 2. "The Bible, this book that wants you to believe in God, says that "the evidences for God are clearly seen" and that "the fool has said in his heart there is no God". That's nice. I have plenty of books that say that the fool is the one who *does* believe in God. I like my books, even if they lack the fake gold page edges. [/left] 3. "Something can't come from nothing. The elements for the big-bang couldn't just self-exist." But God can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kruszer Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Dammit. HTML fail. Must be proof there is a devil. Try the basic link: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 All circular reasoning seems completely invalid, but when one digs into a bit of math (e.g. hypersets, impredicativity) then a different picture emerges. Apparently some few forms of it "make sense". Though mathematicians seem to be uncertain at this time which forms are valid and which are invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godlesssheep Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 (Hopefully this will properly embed, if not someone please show me how this is done in the forums?) ------ I can't believe that I ever found Christian arguments like this one to be the least bit compelling. LOL <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FELO-UbBrNQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Here are classical examples of Christian Circular Reasoning: (my thoughts in italics) [/left] 1. "There needs to be a God in order to be able to discuss the possibility of God." Right. And there need to be fairies to be able to talk about fairies. And by this line of reason you've just proved the existence of Gukumatz, the Mayan god of the four elements, including air. See? You can't even debate Gukumatz without using air, therefore Gukumatz is real! [/left] 2. "The Bible, this book that wants you to believe in God, says that "the evidences for God are clearly seen" and that "the fool has said in his heart there is no God". That's nice. I have plenty of books that say that the fool is the one who *does* believe in God. I like my books, even if they lack the fake gold page edges. [/left] 3. "Something can't come from nothing. The elements for the big-bang couldn't just self-exist." But God can? I not 100% sure if some being with supernatural powers truly does exist somewhere out there in the infinitesimal dark regions of space. I don't believe it's possible to just believe simply because it is written down in some very old poorly written book... As a scientist I can only examine what I can see. Thus, invisible entity's from that spiritual region don't interest me in the least... I believe, it to be the cruelest act ever perpetrated on the human race, to ask people to believe without seeing or hearing the creators now forever silent voice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 As a scientist I can only examine what I can see. What type of scientist are you? May I ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConureDelSol Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Obviously the guy in this video didn't really research. Also, what the heck? "Atheists know deep down that God exists." Too bad he's never been atheist and has no authority to comment on what goes on inside our minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Obviously the guy in this video didn't really research. Also, what the heck? "Atheists know deep down that God exists." Too bad he's never been atheist and has no authority to comment on what goes on inside our minds. Oh yeah, he's a fruitcake of magnificent proportions. No doubt. But I no longer feel as much contempt as I once did for those who deny evolution. It now seems pathetic to me. I guess I pity them in a sort of condescending way. First, evolution is a fact. Second, it's not nearly the all encompassing explanation of life as some seem to propose. It's nothing to be afraid of. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kruszer Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Obviously the guy in this video didn't really research. Also, what the heck? "Atheists know deep down that God exists." Too bad he's never been atheist and has no authority to comment on what goes on inside our minds. Um, DUH! The BIBLE says that we know deep down that God exists. And um. Obviously the Bible can't be an archaic book full of mythology and historically inaccurate reports. So if the Bible says that atheists are just deluded fools, then golly-gee! It must be so! Excuse me now. I must go and repent and grovel on my face before the gold-leafed book. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Kruzser, I think you are an interesting person. And I don't mind saying so where others can hear it. If I lived in Ontario (may it never happen) and if I had your blessing then I would come over and hang out with you and try to see where in the world you're coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kruszer Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Kruzser, I think you are an interesting person. And I don't mind saying so where others can hear it. If I lived in Ontario (may it never happen) and if I had your blessing then I would come over and hang out with you and try to see where in the world you're coming from. For the record, I'm trying to get out of Ontario. If you live somewhere on the west coast, I'll come visit. Thanks for the compliment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Kruzser, I think you are an interesting person. And I don't mind saying so where others can hear it. If I lived in Ontario (may it never happen) and if I had your blessing then I would come over and hang out with you and try to see where in the world you're coming from. For the record, I'm trying to get out of Ontario. If you live somewhere on the west coast, I'll come visit. Thanks for the compliment What?! kristendvd already has some of us USA types wanting to go to Canada! I agree on the circular reasoning. Legion, a "petitio principii" is invalid, but tautologies are not, isn't that so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Legion, a "petitio principii" is invalid, but tautologies are not, isn't that so? Ah Ficino! I had to look up "petitio principii". Thank you. Another gift from Aristotle. I have a word for you noble Ficino... impredicativity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kruzser, I live on the Southeastern coast of the States. And I hope to die here. But you are welcome for the compliment. It was easy to give. My best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kruszer Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Ah.. Southeast US. Where they mosquito bomb/fog cities once a week and pretend that's a good way of solving a bug issue. ---- Back to the subject at hand, I read this guy's bio http://www.drdino.com/about-cse/eric-hovind/ He went to a school called "Jackson Hole Bible College". I nearly choked on my pasta. It's totally an ad hominem attack, but I can't help insisting: can anything good come out of a placed called "Jackson Hole"? The name alone says "backwoods hick" *snicker, snicker* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 The name rang a bell, so I looked up Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Beautiful place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Ah, the Hovinds are an interesting clan, and by that I mean they are asshats. Daddy Hovind is in jail for tax fraud (or was, not sure how long he is stuck in the slammer) relating to a religious theme park. Sonny Hovind by all evidence is following closely in Daddy's footprints. Legion- most creationists do need our pity, the Hovinds do not. They deserve to be despised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 All circular reasoning seems completely invalid, but when one digs into a bit of math (e.g. hypersets, impredicativity) then a different picture emerges. Apparently some few forms of it "make sense". Though mathematicians seem to be uncertain at this time which forms are valid and which are invalid. But wouldn't that say be like comparing a apple and a brownie. A few differences would be like a batch of brownies appearing in a world of only apples. The mathematics behind say the laws of physics would be different then say any math you could apply to evolution by natural selection, am I right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 I agree on the circular reasoning. Legion, a "petitio principii" is invalid, but tautologies are not, isn't that so?I believe tautologies are by definition true statements, but they aren't necessarily valid arguments because it does not add any information to the discussion. (At least I think so...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The mathematics behind say the laws of physics would be different then say any math you could apply to evolution by natural selection, am I right? I am fairly certain that if nature is generally complex (impredicative) then the math required to describe it will have to itself be complex. As things currently stand however, the math used to describe most natural processes is comparatively simple, especially since there has been a pressure to make simulable models. Impredicativities and computers don't mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Legion- most creationists do need our pity, the Hovinds do not. They deserve to be despised. Scitso, I have to examine which emotions I feed and dwell on and why. Any emotion which has an affect of making me feel superior, must be examined very carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 Legion- most creationists do need our pity, the Hovinds do not. They deserve to be despised. Scitso, I have to examine which emotions I feed and dwell on and why. Any emotion which has an affect of making me feel superior, must be examined very carefully. I am glad to hear that you don't take it lightly, because it shouldn't be, but if you examine the family history and what they do now (mainly knowingly lie), there is a high probability you will come to the same conclusion as I did. I recommend not wasting the brain cells on the examination. And now that I think about it, in this instance ignorance probably is bliss because knowledge of this family is totally useless but it will piss you off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I have a word for you noble Ficino... impredicativity ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I never encountered "impredicativity" before and just looked it up on Wikipedia. Don't fully understand it yet... e.g. why is the definition of the tallest person in the room impredicative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I never encountered "impredicativity" before and just looked it up on Wikipedia. Don't fully understand it yet... e.g. why is the definition of the tallest person in the room impredicative? Ficino this is likely to be a bit anticlimatic, but I can't yet claim to understand impredicativity either. It's a relatively new thing to me also. But it's a concept I need to buckle down and learn about a.s.a.p. Apparently these things are the formal analog of causal loops in nature (e.g. chicken and egg, self-fulfilling prophecies). I may spend some time this weekend on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I probably have this all wrong, but at this point it seems to me that the problem of defining the tallest person in the room is not a problem. We can define person, room, tall, and give an account of superlatives, but we simply identify the tallest person in the room, right? It seems incongruous to formulate a definition of "the tallest person in the room." Similarly for "the set of all sets that don't have themselves as members." Does one formulate a definition of that set? maybe a description or formula counts as the same thing. I have the collected papers of Frank Ramsay but never read them. This inspires me to try, but not now... have to work on a book review I promised to write! I don't think I'll ever get deeply into the philosophy of math, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts