Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Edgarcito

Logic Discussion

Recommended Posts

So here is what I see please:

 

Understanding physical/chemical mechanisms (proof) -> natural/physical -> behaviors -> proof of cultural norms.

 

We know that if we understand the physical/chemical mechanisms, then we should be able to prove everything thereafter.

 

So where is the breakdown....too many variables, complexity?

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

So here is what I see please:

 

Understanding physical/chemical mechanisms (proof) -> natural/physical -> behaviors -> proof of cultural norms.

 

We know that if we understand the physical/chemical mechanisms, then we should be able to prove everything thereafter.

 

So where is the breakdown....too many variables, complexity?

 

Edgarcito,

 

When you were End3, other members (especially BAA) were at pains to point out to you that there are no proofs in the empirical sciences of physics or chemistry.

 

The only branch of science that deals in proofs is mathematics.

 

If you want to talk physics and chemistry, then you must do so in the form of evidence.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

So here is what I see please:

 

Understanding physical/chemical mechanisms (proof) -> natural/physical -> behaviors -> proof of cultural norms.

...

 

 

Modified to:

 

Understanding physical/chemical mechanisms (theories/explanations/predictions, all subject to falsifiability) -> natural/physical (is this redundant?) -> behaviors -> explanations and predictions of and concerning cultural consensus.

 

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

...

We know that if we understand the physical/chemical mechanisms, then we should be able to prove everything thereafter.

...

 

 

I don't "know" this, and neither do you.  That being said, the evidentiary history strongly suggests many things can be explained and predicted, with a fairly high degree of probability (subject, of course to modification or outright falsifiability) by first understanding physical/chemical/biological mechanisms.

 

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

...

So where is the breakdown....too many variables, complexity?

 

You seem to expect the human species, collectively, should have all the answers now.  It doesn't, although many work quite hard to understand more as time passes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

 

Modified to:

 

Understanding physical/chemical mechanisms (theories/explanations/predictions, all subject to falsifiability) -> natural/physical (is this redundant?) -> behaviors -> explanations and predictions of and concerning cultural consensus.

 

 

I don't "know" this, and neither do you.  That being said, the evidentiary history strongly suggests many things can be explained and predicted, with a fairly high degree of probability (subject, of course to modification or outright falsifiability) by first understanding physical/chemical/biological mechanisms.

 

 

You seem to expect the human species, collectively, should have all the answers now.  It doesn't, although many work quite hard to understand more as time passes.

Thank you.  I would just like this group to stay with their preferred evidence of choice.  "Morality is demonstrable" is now on the table...  ahh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is all the logic I need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I would just like this group to stay with their preferred evidence of choice.

 

This group is not about you and your likes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TEG said:

 

This group is not about you and your likes.

Just trying to carry on a conversation TEG.  When I, a Christian say, morality is demonstrable, proof is demanded.  But when *I* ask for proof, morality is then magically demonstrable.  You care you explain why your group is special?  If it helps to bitch at me, I'm here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Just trying to carry on a conversation TEG.  When I, a Christian say, morality is demonstrable, proof is demanded.  But when *I* ask for proof, morality is then magically demonstrable.  You care you explain why your group is special?  If it helps to bitch at me, I'm here.

Hey, End3, say, "morality is demonstrable."  I dare you.  See what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Hey, End3, say, "morality is demonstrable."  I dare you.  See what happens.

What's your point....you shut down the evidence thread and now you appear to be ok with "we can demonstrate morality".  Why bother?  It's obviously not real if we can't start from sub-atomic particles and track it up from there.  Oh shit, I forgot....it's an emergent quality/reality..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

you appear to be ok with "we can demonstrate morality".

I'm okay with it because we can demonstrate morality.  Your very presence on this website demonstrates the morality of free speech and the free exchange of ideas.  Not exactly a biggie, like "Thou shalt not kill," or "Thou shalt not rape ten-year-old sex slaves;" but still a relevant, and public, demonstration.  

 

41 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's obviously not real if we can't start from sub-atomic particles and track it up from there. 

Plenty of things are "real" that can't be traced back to sub-atomic particles: ideas, trust, love... the wind.  I'm sure you believe jesus is, too; and that's where you miss the point.  We can demonstrate ideas, trust, love, and even the wind; you can't demonstrate jesus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Just trying to carry on a conversation TEG.  When I, a Christian say, morality is demonstrable, proof is demanded.  But when *I* ask for proof, morality is then magically demonstrable.  You care you explain why your group is special?  If it helps to bitch at me, I'm here.

 

Endgarcito3.

 

Did you, either as End3 or Edgarcito, ever write, 'Morality is demonstrable'?

 

If you did, then please cite where you did.

 

But, if you never wrote those exact words, then your point is null and void.

 

 

Also, seeing as BAA explained to you many times that proof doesn't apply to the empirical sciences, why are you still asking for it in this thread?

 

 

This isn't bitching at you, btw.

 

We aren't special.

 

It just so happens that there are rules of logic, rules of science and rules of evidence that must be agreed upon and followed by all, if proper understanding is to prevail.

 

We are prepared to use these rules.

 

Are you?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Just trying to carry on a conversation TEG.  When I, a Christian say, morality is demonstrable, proof is demanded.  But when *I* ask for proof, morality is then magically demonstrable.  You care you explain why your group is special?  If it helps to bitch at me, I'm here.

 

 

I think a non-believer's demand is for the Christian to show us why he thinks his invisible friend is the originator of morality when obviously people have learned without God's help that it's better for society as a whole to, for the most part, not just kill anyone you want to. 

 

A non-believer's demand is for the Christian to show us why God comes up with rules and then breaks them himself ... and that's supposed to be ok...cuz it's God doing it. The takeaway being "do as I say, not as I do."

 

People dont consider morality to be a person. Morality is not an invisible friend. It is a way of thinking that restrains us from harming others, hopefully to the benefit of all. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things like morality are good. Other things like Obsessive Compulsive Jesus Christ Disorder, are not. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier Endgarcito3, we aren't special.

 

Why?  Because we follow the rules of logic, of science and of evidence.

 

If you want to do this to those rules...

 

 

 

 

tearing-rules-241209-450.gif

 

...then aren't you the one who thinks he's special?

 

Why don't the rules apply to you as they do to us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A+B=C

 

A+B+GOD=SQUIRREL

 

Simple logic.

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Endgarcito3.

 

Did you, either as End3 or Edgarcito, ever write, 'Morality is demonstrable'?

 

If you did, then please cite where you did.

 

But, if you never wrote those exact words, then your point is null and void.

 

 

Also, seeing as BAA explained to you many times that proof doesn't apply to the empirical sciences, why are you still asking for it in this thread?

 

 

This isn't bitching at you, btw.

 

We aren't special.

 

It just so happens that there are rules of logic, rules of science and rules of evidence that must be agreed upon and followed by all, if proper understanding is to prevail.

 

We are prepared to use these rules.

 

Are you?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Walter you butthead....don't you remember....before I could offer my forms of evidence....anecdotal/demonstrable....you demanded that I play by some bullshit debate rules and then made sure to cast your vote to shut down the thread. 

 

How is any form of evidence I choose now valid?

 

I'm offering to hear YOUR scientific mechanism(s) supporting morality....because it's real apparently per the Prof.... and no one is offering squat.  The complete irony here is that the lawyer is holding the high ground...

 

It's alright....all the invalid evidence supports that we can't define such.....just look at our congressional clusterfuck  at the moment.... 

 

Good day to you sir...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is yet another End3 thread going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Here is yet another End3 thread going nowhere.

No, I introduced the squirrel, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

Here is yet another End3 thread going nowhere.

The answer wasn't that difficult....you did it in one sentence.   The rest of the crap is egos and fear....

 

But you are right....it's an emotional trigger when I read moronic crap posted like fact... ..triggers me to respond.

 

I'll work in that but no promises.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to enter my evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster into the record. That evidence is "I believe in it so it's evidence." I dont expect anyone to accept other things this way, just the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And if you dont believe it I'm gonna get pissed.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Walter you butthead....don't you remember....before I could offer my forms of evidence....anecdotal/demonstrable....you demanded that I play by some bullshit debate rules and then made sure to cast your vote to shut down the thread. 

 

How is any form of evidence I choose now valid?

 

I'm offering to hear YOUR scientific mechanism(s) supporting morality....because it's real apparently per the Prof.... and no one is offering squat.  The complete irony here is that the lawyer is holding the high ground...

 

It's alright....all the invalid evidence supports that we can't define such.....just look at our congressional clusterfuck  at the moment.... 

 

Good day to you sir...

 

The rules of debate aren't bullshit, Edgarcito.

 

If you don't want to follow the rules of debate, of logic, of evidence and of science, then as sdelsolray has observed, this will be another of your threads that goes nowhere.

 

I wondered if you were going to be difficult about following the necessary rules in this thread too, so I made this for you.

 

 

venn2.png

 

This shows how Disillusioned, JoshPantera and I are abiding by nested sets of rules in the, Failed Cosmology of William Lane Craig thread.

 

We didn't have to spend any time or effort agreeing to these rules.

 

That's because we're not special and we don't demand that we have a free hand to be special.

 

Are you so special that you can't follow the rules that we all do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.