Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of Jabberwock

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jabberwock

1
I'll leave it to others to decide what the lack of evidence means or implies, but I do say there's no fossil evidence that demonstrates evolution, that in fact the evidence lacks continuity, the kind of continuity we'd empirically expect to see if evolution had taken place. There isn't a single example of granular fossil evidence linking one morphology to another, only the presumed start and end specimens, it is claimed there were intermediates, perhaps tens or thousands of them yet oddly they are never found.

Is Archaeopteryx a start specimen or an end specimen?

2
So you deny the negative effect of meaningless on the human spirit?

No, I am pointing out that religion can have equally negative effect.

3
The difference is that Christians don't murder others because they are following Jesus' words to feed the sick and hungry and forgive their enemies. But, human beings are often ill-effected by the meaningless world that is implied by atheism. As mentioned in Eric Harris's diary:

There is no difference, if religion can have equally ill effects on human psyche (and obviously it does, given the examples).

4
They threw monotheist viewers a bone when they had Kirk say: “We have no need for gods. We find the one quite adequate.”

I thought that was a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too moment.  Or, perhaps, caving in to the network.

Wasn't that a reference to Roddenberry?

5
I plan on reading it. That was just my first question. People here are very sensitive to questions.

If a theist made a thread on a positive argument for God and an atheist questioned his motivation instead of addressing the argument, Lawless would make threads about it for months.

6
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Here is evidence of how atheism impacted them:

Is this all you could come up with? Friendly Atheist has more religious murderers in a quarter:

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/?s=murder

7
He begins by saying: " I set out to develop a (somewhat) novel deductively valid argument against the existence of God."

Why is he doing that instead of a argument for God's existence? Imagine a paper that begins: "I set out to develop a (somewhat) novel deductively valid argument for why World War 3 is now in its early stages and within a decade most of civilization will be destroyed." I would like to know the reason for such a nihilistic view before presenting the argument.

This post is very amusing in view of Lawless' grumblings about gaslighting and engagement in arguments.

8
Apologetics and Theology / Re: [Debate]Apologetics and Gaslighting
« on: July 30, 2021, 07:36:40 am »
@Jabberwock
What for you is the difference between the Universe and reality? If the Universe is less than all of reality, then how does that change scientific thinking?

The point is that we do not know if it is the case. Do you agree that your argument is fallacious if applied to the whole of reality?

9
Apologetics and Theology / Re: [Debate]Apologetics and Gaslighting
« on: July 30, 2021, 03:06:54 am »
As I've said in a recent thread, we tend to "vote" for our metaphysics with our actions. You cannot in one hand fully embrace scientific thinking and in the other hand push away metaphysical theories that scientific thinking take for granted, such as an orderly Universe in which inferences to explanations can be drawn. Whatever one says about the unsoundness of cosmological arguments, if such a person has embraced scientific thinking, then in my book they have already presumed the existence of X: an initial-necessary reason-condition-cause of the Universe... they just don't want to claim they know the nature of X or be open to labeling such an X "God." I suppose this is driven by "metaphysical skepticism" -- we can't experiment on X, nor is X open to public investigation, and so the white flag of agnos

One small change shows the fallacy of that reasoning:

You cannot in one hand fully embrace scientific thinking and in the other hand push away metaphysical theories that scientific thinking take for granted, such as an orderly reality in which inferences to explanations can be drawn. Whatever one says about the unsoundness of cosmological arguments, if such a person has embraced scientific thinking, then in my book they have already presumed the existence of X: an initial-necessary reason-condition-cause of the reality.

10
Apologetics and Theology / Re: pro life vs. pro choice
« on: July 29, 2021, 03:08:12 pm »
If science is so unsure of when an individual starts their life or existence, which I would note that is not very uncertain according to textbooks and scientists, then how does it follow that it's fine to go ahead and allow the possible destruction of innocent human lives?

I was just pointing out that your claims are rather problematic. The science is not 'unsure', it just provides different models which are useful in describing the reality. Do you actually believe there is a single biological definition of 'organism' that unequivocally picks out all entities that are 'of the kind' and leaves all the others? I am afraid not, it is not possible even in principle. When does the 'human organism' die? With the last living cell? With the heart stopping? With a specific area of brain dying? Why this area and not another? Again, science does not and cannot provide a single answer.

11
2) seems false. The universe is not made of events.

12
Apologetics and Theology / Re: pro life vs. pro choice
« on: July 29, 2021, 11:48:48 am »
It's seems almost a moot point, as to whether or not one parents the other (like in parthenogenesis, in which only females are produced) or if one lifeform split into two equally. Medical and surgical abortions do not take place at this stage anyways. The fetus will have started it's organs by the time these abortions are performed. You're only a zygote for like 20 hours.

We don't know what the answer currently, but quite frankly, it doesn't seem to be pertinent to the idea of abortion. The zygote has been shown to have all the hallmarks of a self-directed, internally coordinated and growing organism. It doesn't really matter if they can split into two, or parent another one.

Meanwhile, pro-lifers have the most plausible case for what a human is and when it should be protected, by far. Pro-choicers have nothing, and that doesn't justify negligent killing. Pro-choice is a position which is purely held for political purposes, and justifying the doctrines of the sexual revolution, which have failed America and especially the black community.

But yes, if such a process have a physical cause, science is, in principle, able to explain the process with purely physical causes. I mean, do you imagine it to happen without any physical process behind it? Is it a supernatural occurence?

No, the point is not moot. If science is essentially unable to determine what constitutes an individual and what demarcates its existence, which seems to be the case, then the claim that the science tells us that an individual starts at gastrulation is simply false.

13
Apologetics and Theology / Re: pro life vs. pro choice
« on: July 28, 2021, 05:23:58 pm »

By observing and testing the physical process and materials that resulted in the current physical state. I'm not saying that it is currently possible with our technology, but you did ask in principle if science could determine the question.

Even if one organism existed, and then died in the process of splitting into two, that still wouldn't show that you didn't have the one prior to the split. I don't see the objection here.

But what exactly are we supposed to observe? We already know that some of the original material goes to one organism and and some to the other. Are you saying that there is some special physical material that determines an 'individual' which the science has not yet observed and which determines which is which? That is rather doubtful, given that we have pretty good idea how a cell functions. So I would say no, science is in principle unable to determine which individual preceded the split.

14
Apologetics and Theology / Re: pro life vs. pro choice
« on: July 28, 2021, 04:56:24 pm »
Yes, I think in principle, science can determine such things. Science frequently refers to such classifications of "human being" and even "individuals", for example in embryology textbooks.

So far I'm just talking about scientific classifications. Can science tell us any objective facts? Like, for example, what is an organism, when something is dead, what is a species, what is a black hole, what is a plant, etc. I think it can.

All I'm arguing for, currently, is that separate living members of a species can be identified by science. Now, as to whether these organisms have moral significance or rights or personhood, well, that takes a bit more philosophy. But I think it shouldn't be hard for anyone, unless they have some ulterior motive, to simply say, that a human organism begins right at fertilization. It isn't a piece of tissue from the mother. It isn't another species. It isn't a non-living thing, like a mineral. There seems to be an unhealthy amount of skepticism directed at this very widely agreed upon, very established notion in science.

Many pro=choice philosophers and abortion doctors agree to this scientific fact. In fact, I can't think of any that deny this. I can post textbook definitions.

I do not think in this case it is possible. Suppose we have identical twins: Huey and Dewey. HOW can science determine which of them was the original twin (or whether it was neither of them)?

15
Apologetics and Theology / Re: pro life vs. pro choice
« on: July 26, 2021, 03:09:12 pm »
If it is impossible to tell, that means a physical continuation is not "obviously different", right?

Besides, there is no apparent difference in the first embryo, and even if there was, it wouldn't follow that there was no individual before. For example, if a human adult split into two humans and the two were completely different from the former self, does that mean there was no human being before the split? Or that the "contained two humans in one"?

As Patrick Lee points out, if you cut a flatworm in half, you will get two flatworms, as the head and body will regenerate. Does it follow there was no flatworm prior to the split? In 2012, Nottingham University scientists created a colony of 20,000 flatworms just from one worm, merely by cutting it.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20120301/Flat-worms-may-hold-key-to-immortality.aspx

If the existence of an individual is an objective fact, then science should be able to tell us which of the split individuals (if any) is the continuation of the pre-split individual. Is that possible, in principle?

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 1031