Edgarcito Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted December 10, 2019 Super Moderator Share Posted December 10, 2019 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted December 11, 2019 Author Share Posted December 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 The Flying Spaghetti Monster is all the logic I need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted December 11, 2019 Author Share Posted December 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, midniterider said: The Flying Spaghetti Monster is all the logic I need. Seems reasonable...lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEG Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted December 11, 2019 Author Share Posted December 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted December 11, 2019 Super Moderator Share Posted December 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted December 11, 2019 Author Share Posted December 11, 2019 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..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted December 11, 2019 Super Moderator Share Posted December 11, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEG Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 Some things like morality are good. Other things like Obsessive Compulsive Jesus Christ Disorder, are not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 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... ...then aren't you the one who thinks he's special? Why don't the rules apply to you as they do to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted December 12, 2019 Super Moderator Share Posted December 12, 2019 A+B=C A+B+GOD=SQUIRREL Simple logic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted December 12, 2019 Author Share Posted December 12, 2019 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted December 12, 2019 Author Share Posted December 12, 2019 18 minutes ago, florduh said: A+B=C A+B+GOD=SQUIRREL Simple logic. A+B=C A+B+hypothesis= Squirrel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 Here is yet another End3 thread going nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted December 12, 2019 Super Moderator Share Posted December 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, sdelsolray said: Here is yet another End3 thread going nowhere. No, I introduced the squirrel, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted December 12, 2019 Author Share Posted December 12, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalterP Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 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. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now