|
|
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Evolution theory cont.I believe science CAN prove most parts of religion incorrect as literally true. Science does not allow resurrection from death. Science doesn’t allow for alchemy. Nor flying horses. Not being able to disprove god is different |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-21, 05:43 |
Zorro So it is really exactly the same as being unable to disprove the presence of a God. |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-21, 05:44 |
Zorro |
|||||||||||||
|
Stal Science has ‘no comment’ about god. |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-21, 05:54 |
Zorro That's it! 'Unfortunately' this is what science is basically about anyway: proofs that aren't absolute but 'near certainty'! <Science has ‘no comment’ about god. > How could she? As God cannot be thoroughly defined in a way that can be tested. |
|||||||||||||
|
Stal |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-21, 07:47 |
to Coram <<<Modern science does not exclude that what was initiating creation was living itself.>> <Are you suggesting that modern science does not rule out God?< I am indeed, and I have been saying this for years - also in the various GK fora! |
|||||||||||||
|
Stal www.mediacollege.com |
|||||||||||||
|
I saw a person having a very difficult time understanding that "not proved" did not mean "disproved." she had just never thought about these two concepts such that she could understand what a former co-worker of mine was saying. he explained that a certain genealogical connection had never been proved. she REALLY wanted to "HEAR" this as meaning the connection had been "DISPROVED." Took my coworker several attempts to get her to understand that there was no disproof, but also that there was no proof. Research to find out the truth was ongoing. she'd say "why are you saying this line is disproved?" my coworker, who was not known for mincing words, had smoke coming out of his ears, as he regrouped and tried again. "STOP SAYING IT'S DISPROVED! I didn't say that. What I said was it has never been proved. It MAY be correct. But no proof that it IS correct has been found." |
|||||||||||||
|
Yes What it isn’t is a description of anything other than a primitive attempt at understanding and explaining what they didn’t understand. Use it to determine right from wrong if you must use that crutch. But don’t try to pretend it’s real, cause it’s no more real than Athena leaping fully grown from Zeus’s cleft head. |
|||||||||||||
|
zorroloco 24-Oct-21, 10:52 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 24-Oct-21, 10:52.
|
|||||||||||||
|
zorroloco 24-Oct-21, 10:53 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 24-Oct-21, 10:54.
|
|||||||||||||
|
Stupid typos Science is better at proving than disproving for obvious reasons. Prove an intelligent space slug with 12 heads who lives at the center of the sun isn’t controlling us all. See. Impossible. Science can’t disprove that god made everything look exactly like the big bang and evolution. Science can’t disprove god created anything in anyway. Science simply looks at the evidence and attempts to find theories that best describe what they see. The entire problem is there’s a mismatch of expectations. Coram wants a TRUTH to explain everything. His blithe talk of ‘proof’ and what he believes constitutes ‘proof’ is all the evidence we need. The rest of us look for rational explanations, knowing that many will need revision, and some are likely wrong. We are ok with that, constantly looking to punch holes in our theories to find the flaws and improve. Coram’s beliefs allow no flaws and no room for improvement. For this reason, argument is futile. We’re looking for different things. One looks for truth knowing they’ll probably never find it. One thinks he’s found Truth and just wants to shout it from his |
|||||||||||||
|
just suggesting that the folks having the discussion watch out for this sort of easily unrecognized misunderstanding. |
|||||||||||||
|
Differing expectations Science deals in 'causes' as mechanisms in a physical cause-effect chain. For example, Child "Daddy, why are we here?" Father "Because we got on that train and the train carried us here to this station." Religion deals with 'causes' more in the sense of ultimate purpose, i.e., teleology, which Science strictly forbids. For example, Child "Daddy, why are we here?" Father "It's Grandma's birthday. She said she would meet us here." It is a sad situation when mature adults can't tell the difference. Or refuse to recognise the difference because they have an agenda. |
|||||||||||||
|
Zorro 8:22 <What it isn’t is a description of anything other than a primitive attempt at understanding and explaining what they didn’t understand.> I refer you to my response to Coram in Fiat Lux Evolution Theory 23 October 23:11 (Sorry, I'm not sure how to provide a direct link) This is only the briefest analysis of what is really a very sophisticated piece of literature. I could go into it in greater depth in several places to show how it holds Babylonian religious concepts up to derision, how it has layers of implications when read in the context of other scriptures, etc. It only appears 'primitive' if it is read without context and as a literalist narrative. And it ISN'T 'explaining what they didn't understand'. It is explaining the purpose of Creation in terms that they DID understand, if you read it as an educated sixth-century-B.C. Babylonian Jew rather than a twentieth-century American tradesman. This is what the historical-critical method can do if used in proper exegesis, instead of relying on fundamentalist credulity. I can understand why you might think that Christianity is a pile of infantile children's stories, because that is too often the face that is presented; just as too many fundamentalists think that Science is a Godless conspiracy aimed at perverting their children. But if you want to know what Christianity, or Islam, or anything else REALLY is, then don't rely on descriptions by their enemies or the propaganda of their extremists. Go to their mainstream advocates. |
|||||||||||||
|
Bob Nonetheless, they are primitive in that the authors lacked our science based understanding of the world. |
|||||||||||||
|
Zorro Coram and fundamentalists are proof enough that reading a sacred text does not mean that the reader will understand those texts. Every reader will bring his own assumptions, including expectations that often subconsciously filter what the reader sees. Often a modern reader will completely miss the point because he is looking for something the original writer wouldn't have been able to imagine, while having no inkling of what an ancient reader would have seen instantly. Of course those texts use concepts and imagery taken from 'primitive' societies! They were written so they could be understood by readers in those societies! That's why I said "Go to their mainstream advocates" rather than "read the texts yourself". That way an educated advocate will be able to unwrap the modern relevance and application of an ancient text. As I have told many naïve students, don't confuse the meaning of the text with the illustration or example used to convey that meaning. Did you check out my short exposition of Genesis 1 I referred to as an example? |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-21, 20:18 |
Zorro Great that you noticed!! We can dispute this for a long time, but I think it should then be done with personal contact over good food and a lot of beer (or Margaritas!). Of course this is the difference between being a purist and a 'practicalist'. The purist says that if you lend a word from 'my language' (Latin), then you should use that word according to the rules of that language. The 'practicalist' doesn't care. We take your word and we use it in the way we find best to suit our purposes. (Zorro: did I overdo the drama here? ). Forum is a relatively rarely used word here compared to 'phenomenon', for example. May I just refer to the almost consistent failure of using the proper plural - 'phenomena' - in these threads? |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-21, 20:42 |
discussion with Coram continues.... Stal <<I am indeed, and I have been saying this for years - also in the various GK fora!>< Coram <I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that modern science did not rule God as being the source or catalyst of the Big Bang, but did rule out God being the source of life. Unless one wants to take the kind of absurd position that God created life, but only the first single-celled organism. Then after creating the first single-celled organism, God kicked back and let the theory of evolution take over.> It is not easy to understand this passage. All I can say for sure is that modern science has no tools to rule out God in any part of creation of this world or evolution on this planet. Coram: <But that runs into the problem of God saying in the creation account in Genesis: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)> OK, right. In my understanding that is qute consistent with what I have said before. Coram: <So we should clarify.> Stal: <I’m aware (and have been for quite some time) that modern science does not rule out God as being responsible for the Big Bang.> Coram: <But are you saying that modern science does not rule out the source of God being the source of life? It appears you are since I believe, in an earlier post, you stated (paraphrasing) that modern science did not rule out life coming from life. So that leaves modern science’s position (again, correct me if I’m wrong) that God may be responsible for the Big Bang and may be responsible for life, but if He’s responsible for life, it’s only the first single-celled organism.> Yes, I AM saying that modern science has no way or method to rule out 'the source of God being the source of life'. <if He’s responsible for life, it’s only the first single-celled organism.> I am afraid I need to make a hypothesis here (since I don't KNOW). If God exists and He made the first unicellular organisms, then it is no big problem to hypothesise that he also predicted their evolution forward...> <Which runs into the problem of how to reconcile that view with Genesis 1:26-27 (quoted above.) So I still think the creation account in Genesis is incompatible with the theory of evolution, no matter how much symbolism is read into the former.> I see no problem. If you see problems, please let us know specifically. |
|||||||||||||
|
Plurals Important words (i.e., those used in religious settings) are reasonably stable. 'Stigma' is still pluralised to 'stigmata', etc. But I often see 'phenomena' and 'criteria' used as if singular, even though they are both plurals in Greek (phenomenon and criterion). I have seen 'octopi' as a plural for 'octopus', as though it is Latin; but the real plural is Greek 'octopodes'. Thankfully an English plural 'octopuses' is becoming more common. We still have 'cherub' being pluralised to 'cherubim' (Hebrew) in some circumstances, but Anglicised as 'cherubs' in others. The terminal 'f' is also becoming more recalcitrant, refusing to become a 'v' unless beaten into submission first. Sadly, what should be 'rooves' are now 'roofs', 'hooves' are now 'hoofs', and 'wolves' are in the process of becoming 'wolfs'; but we still have 'ourselves' rather than ourselfs', and 'leaves' rather than 'leafs'. Our Germanic roots are becoming Francomorphed, but reluctantly. |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-21, 21:24 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
---------------------- "Like most people, I often find myself tempted to use “begs the question” in this sense, probably because it sounds much more academic than “raises the question”. But it’s wrong—at least according to the original meaning of the phrase. “Begging the question” is actually a logical fallacy, a loose translation of the Latin term petitio principii. A person begs the question when he assumes what’s supposed to be his conclusion in his premise. It’s also commonly known as “circular reasoning”. Now, there are some who will argue that language is constantly evolving, and that the changed meaning of “begs the question” is an example of a harmless evolution. But I’m not so sure how harmless it has been. I worry that widespread ignorance of the original meaning is but another symptom of the decline of logic education in schools. I also worry that it reduces people’s awareness of the real examples of question-begging that we see every day in the news and politics. ---------------------- www.intellectualtakeout.org "Begging the Question: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning." www.logicallyfallacious.com |
|||||||||||||
|
Fish |
|||||||||||||
|
well, less rare than a snipe. I took a logic class. but I do think it was viewed as an obscure course. |
|||||||||||||
|
I took three Intro to Formal Logic in the Philosophy Dept Mathematical Logic in the Math Dept All very interesting and different. |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
I BEG to differ... When I use the phrase 'begs the question', I mean that the given answer assumes a favourable answer to a prior question. In other words, the prior question needs to be resolved first. Example:- "I don't need bread in the morning, because I eat toast." That statement 'begs the question' of "Where does your toast come from?" Not quite the same as a circular argument, but rather pushing it back one step. |
|||||||||||||
|
Bob Here's a good explanation: Begging the Question Fallacy Examples in Real Life, in Commercials & in Politics Begging the Question is a logical fallacy that occurs when… (1) You assume the truth of a claim that is yet to be proven and (2) instead of providing evidence for that claim, you merely rephrase it. EXAMPLE: “UFOs exist because I’ve had experiences with what can only be described as Unidentified Flying Objects.” Explanation: This argument commits the fallacy of begging the question because (1) it begins with the assumption that UFOs exist and (2) instead of providing evidence, the arguer merely rephrases that assumption. In other words, saying ‘UFO’s exist’ has the same meaning as saying ‘I’ve had experiences with them.’ That is not evidence. In this instance, the main topic remains unanswered, which begs the question: do UFOs exist? The logical structure of arguments which beg the question is as follows: X, Therefore, X. Another name for this fallacy is ‘Petitio Principii,’ which in Latin means ‘to assume the initial point.’ An argument which begs the question isn’t an argument at all, but rather – it is an assertion that is disguised to look like an argument that uses circular logic. It is a type of circular reasoning. Begging the Question Fallacy Examples in Real Life “Parkour is dangerous because it is unsafe.” Explanation: Something being dangerous is by definition it being unsafe. This begs the question, is Parkour dangerous? “The earth is round because it’s spherical in shape.” “The attainment of happiness should be an individual’s highest priority because all other values are inferior to it.” "The Bible is the word of God because God inspired men to write it." “The article was not published in the journal because it was deemed not worthy of publication.” The following is a commercial for the cigarette brand ‘Lucky Strike’ which aired on TV during the 1950s. The woman in the advertisement says: “Lucky tastes better. They’re cleaner, fresher smoother and it’s because they’re made better to taste better.” Explanation: Something which is ‘made better to taste better’ has the same meaning as saying it ‘tastes better.’ This begs the question: Do Lucky Cigarettes taste better? Begging the Question Fallacy Examples in Politics “Capital punishment is justified for cases which involve murder; because it is only appropriate that an individual is sentenced to death for committing such a heinous act.” |
|||||||||||||
|
when I googled it earlier, to provide those passages and links, I saw that there are a lot of pages on the subject. It appeared that most or all take this same position, that it's a frequently misused phrase (though I didn't look super closely). Even if some of them say "eh, no big deal" and that it can be used in other ways, "raises the question" works well enough that I have no need or desire to use a phrase that some group will believe is used incorrectly. the wikipedia page on the subject accepts that "Some contemporary English speakers" do use it to mean "raises the question," etc. It then points out that "Prescriptivist grammarians and people versed in philosophy, logic, and law object to such usage as incorrect or, at best, unclear. This is because the classical sense of Aristotelian logic is the original and, they hold, the correct one." Still fairly unsatisfying. I'd be interested in what a range of language experts have to say. Or maybe we are to assume that they'd have been mentioned if they had strong objections. ah. footnote #28 points to a usage and style guide. the link takes you right to the applicable pages. the phrase has been problematic, with disagreement among members of the usage panel being standard. the guide concludes by saying "no matter how you use this expression, its ambiguity will likely turn off a sizeable percentage of your audience. It is probably better to avoid the phrase entirely." en.wikipedia.org |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
