NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,15:21) | | Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,13:13) | You are assuming your conclusion.
You need to establish the truth of your grounds before they become shared grounds for discussion.
I reject them, for the evidentiary reasons presented.
You've presented no evidence or reason to accept either disembodied intelligence nor disembodied or non-material cause. |
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1642-c....-part-1
A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter. |
This again?
At the very least, your description of Spencer and his work is wildly prejudicial. It is unlikely that he would accept your description as it stands.
One problem is that it was not in his role as scientist that he declared (*not* 'discovered') that all of reality can be categorized according to his five categories.
It is also highly prejudicical to describe the categorization in terms of containment, which you do when you say "...exists in...".
This becomes even more problematic when we see, as we must, that these categories are not mutually exclusive. All matter and energy, for example, are temporal, thus 'partake' of time.
Spencer is not the last word in ontology, which is what this is. He's not even particularly known for his work in ontology.
| Quote | | Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. |
Only if you are going to treat them as equal in rank and mutually exclusive. That hasn't been 'standard practice' in ontology or metaphysics since well before Kant. And probably since well before Aristotle.
Worse, it is just silly -- what arrangement of those terms can not be described as a 'logical progression'?
| Quote | | And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse. |
Your standards for what can be said about everything exists are far too narrow.
And just for laughs, you keep saying 'everything that exists' -- where, then, shall we place god in this categorization? Or does god not exist?
| Quote | | Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence. |
You have an extraordinarily impoverished imagination if you think the situation is this clear or this limited.
| Quote | But let me tell you about chance. Chance doesn't exist, it's nothing...it's nothing. Chance is a word used to explain something else. But chance isn't anything. It's not a force. Chance doesn't make anything happen. Chance doesn't exist. It's only a way to explain something else. Chance didn't make you meet that person, you were going there when she was going there, that's why you met her. Chance didn't have anything to do with it because chance doesn't exist. It's nothing. But in modern evolution its been transformed into a force of causal power. It's been elevated from being nothing to being everything. Chance makes things happen. Chance is the myth that serves to undergird the chaos view of reality.
I mean, this is so fraught with problems from a rational or philosophical viewpoint you hardly know where to begin. |
Well, you might not.
Good thing we have better thinkers around.
But again, this is all a red herring designed to lead us to your prejudicially selected conclusions.
It is hardly worth deconstructing, so I shan't.
But more to the point, it is not responsive to any of the open issues you should be addressing. It is, instead, the opening volley of yet another extended digression designed to distract us from your failure to support anything on which you have previously been challenged.
| Quote | | How do you get the initial matter upon which chance operates? Where does that come? You would have to say, "Well, chance made it appear." |
Really?
Your ignorance is as appalling as your limited imagination.
| Quote | | You know what? This sounds so ridiculous and yet this is the undergirding philosophy behind evolution. |
Nonsense.
You are demonstrably unqualified to utter that judgement.
The undergirding philosophy behind evolution is not 'chance'. That you not only think it is, you think you can authoritatively pronounce it so, without citation nor evidence, is proof of your lack of qualification to pronounce on science, chance, or evolution.
| Quote | | It is completely incoherent and irrational. But the new evolutionary paradigm is chance. And it's the opposite of logic. |
Big talk.
Prove it, don't assert it.
Stop changing the subject, which this is, yet again.
Stand by a point and defend it or abandon it.
| Quote | | You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hum...somebody made it." What else would logic say? |
How would you know? Evidence suggest it's a miracle you can consistently spell 'logic'. You certainly make no correct use of it. Witness your prattling in this thread.
| Quote | | "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody...somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it." |
Category error.
The universe is not a thing amongst things.
The universe is the set of all things.
As Russell and Whitehead, amongst others, have shown rather conclusively, theorizing about sets is dangerous and filled with counter-intuitive results.
You appeal not to logic but intuition, simple-minded naive intuition guided by a set of prejudicial preselected cultural constructs.
| Quote | | You say, "No, no, chance made it." Listen, folks, that's rational suicide, that's not logical. |
And yet again we see that you have no clue what you are going on about.
The nicest rejoinder is simply 'citation needed'.
You are arguing, badly, against a poorly constructed strawman.
Shameful.
But exactly what we have come to expect from you.
|
