Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ BR IX

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Johnny,
    Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Hilston is talking about those who believe in God versus those that don't, because neither atheists nor agnostics express a belief in God?
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by PureX
      Looks to me like a meaningless tautology, to me: "God created everything so we must believe in God to understand anything. And if you don't believe in God then you don't understand anything (you only think you do) because God created everything."

      Yet there is no objective proof that God created anything, or that God created everything, or that God even exists. It's just a meaningless tautology based on his own beliefs.
      PureX, maybe you should be reading or re-reading a different Battle Royale as a prerequisite before you post such jibberish?
      As long as there is breath there is Hope...

      Comment


      • #93
        Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Hilston is talking about those who believe in God versus those that don't, because neither atheists nor agnostics express a belief in God?
        But his argument that evolution is unscientific requires on an agnostic/atheistic worldview. This is why stratnerd asked about christian evolutionists.
        “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by bachartsayid2
          I have an article on my desk top "RANDOM REALITY" by
          Marcus Chown that quotes Godel. Looks like he uses the same quote. Have you seen th earticle I mentioned?
          Bach,

          That's an interesting read. Kind of pseudo-science, but cool.

          I'm not sure if I really got the connection between Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and chaos. And their paradigm doesn't really address ultimate origins either, but they adopted Leibniz's monad metaphysic.

          Those guys seem pretty smart. I see that the paper's dated 2000. Anything more recent from these guys?

          SS

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by truthteller86
            PureX, maybe you should be reading or re-reading a different Battle Royale as a prerequisite before you post such jibberish?
            Maybe you should be backing up such slurs with substance.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Johnny
              Here, in the crux of Hilston's arguments, I think this underlying assertion can be found:

              "Thus, the anti-theist/agnostic is without a rational grounding of a major tool in the scientific enterprise, the principle of induction. The Creationist has a rational foundation for believing in the uniformity of nature and that future events under certain conditions will be like past events under similar conditions...This is the religious nature of the Evolutionist world-view. In the case of the Creationist, faith in induction rests upon the nature and character of God. In the case of the Evolutionist, it is a mystery (i.e. axiomatic), it is magic, and a blind religious commitment to man's own imagined autonomy and the authority of his own reason. Evolution, although it employs scientific principles by borrowing them from the Creationist toolbox, is blindly religious, and therefore does not qualify as science."
              But there is no difference between the two except the word "God" and the personal injection of superstition and anthropomorphication. To the non-theists the fact that existence follows some rules is a mystery that he has learned to trust, because it has proven itself consistent. The same applies to the theist, except that the theist has given this mystery a name, and a mythical story, so that he can "interact" with it as if it were a personage. Both, however, have come to trust in this mystery because it has proven itself consistent, and neither can explain it.

              So the differences here are basically irrelevant, except that they tend to cause human beings to view the universe through somewhat different paradigms. The added idea that viewing the universe through a theist's paradigm is inherently accurate while viewing it through a non-theist's paradigm is inherently inaccurate, is not borne out. If anything, it would be more logical to surmise the converse, simply because the more we label and anthropomorphize the mystery, the more other possible views of this mystery we are rejecting out of hand. And this would reasonably be considered an impediment to unraveling the real mystery.

              Comment


              • #97
                saith bobb: Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Hilston is talking about those who believe in God versus those that don't, because neither atheists nor agnostics express a belief in God?
                Originally posted by Johnny
                But his argument that evolution is unscientific requires on an agnostic/atheistic worldview. This is why stratnerd asked about christian evolutionists.
                Exactly.

                Hilston's argument has nothing to do with believing in God per se; it has everything to do with believing in a complete and inerrant Bible. It may seem that the creationist beef with evolutionary theory stems from the fact that it does not explicitly require godly intervention, but don't believe that for a second. Cell theory, germ theory, the heliocentric theory, in fact all other scientific theories do not explictly invoke God any more than does evolutionary theory, and yet we don't hear a fundamentalist peep about them (with one revealing exception: anyone care to guess which one?). What's the difference? None of these other theories deal with topics discussed in that series of documents collectively referred to as the Bible. Therefore, none of them present any potential conflict with the Bible. With that one rule-proving exception, of course! And even then, the potential conflict becomes a real conflict only if you presuppose that the Bible is literal, complete, and inerrant. So it's not the presupposition of God, it's not the presupposition of the Bible's importance, it's the presupposition of Biblical literalness, completeness, and inerrancy that motivates the creationist attacks on science.

                This is all eventually going to present Hilston with a sticky problem, in this debate, at least:

                * Presupposing/assuming a logical God does not falsify a logical theory, nor does it falsify a theory that does not specifically invoke godly intervention. Thus, presupposing/assuming a logical God does not falsify evolutionary theory.

                * Presupposing/assuming a logical God neither falsifies nor corroborates the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible.

                * Presupposing/assuming the completeness and inerrancy of the Bible, on the other hand, does lead to certain conclusions about the existence, nature, and actions of God.

                * Presupposing/assuming the Biblical account is true does require presupposing/assuming the evolutionary interpretation of the history of life is false. While you're of course free to leave it at this in your personal belief system, it kinda violates first principles in a debate to claim your opponent is wrong because you assume he is wrong!

                Now perhaps Hilston is way ahead of me, and is next planning to somehow validate his assumptions. However, given his expressed distaste at the idea of bringing relevant evidence into this debate, I worry that these efforts will explictly involve pulling us all further and further away from considerations of science and evolution (you know, the supposed topic of this debate!), and deeper and deeper into the vaguest realms of theological philosophy, where style becomes increasingly interchangeable with substance.
                Check out this

                Comment


                • #98
                  "Cell theory, germ theory, the heliocentric theory, in fact all other scientific theories do not explictly invoke God any more than does evolutionary theory, and yet we don't hear a fundamentalist peep about them"

                  If you don't know the fundamental difference between these theories and "goo to you" evolution I feel sorry for you.

                  BTW, you seem to have missed Hilston's fundamental point also.
                  Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                  Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    goo to you too.
                    Everyman is a voice in the dark.

                    Comment


                    • If you don't know the fundamental difference between these theories and "goo to you" evolution I feel sorry for you.
                      It's clear you don't have a clue what's going on in this argument, Bob.
                      “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

                      Comment


                      • I have a question with I'm sure a simple answer, but it is bothering me. Why did BR IX come after BR X. (9 after 10). Was it scheduled earlier or something?
                        God . . .even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4-5 ESV


                        A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. . . . John Calvin

                        Comment


                        • Wondering if Intelligent Design people are reading this debate, I have to agree that you can only falsify a theory.How many theories have become unquestionable facts?Gravity is what we call it, but it is not still just a theory?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Metalking
                            Wondering if Intelligent Design people are reading this debate, I have to agree that you can only falsify a theory.How many theories have become unquestionable facts?Gravity is what we call it, but it is not still just a theory?
                            Yes, and like other matters of classical mechanics, it fails to work once the particles get small, so it is just a theory with a more limited range of application than previously believed.
                            God . . .even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved. Ephesians 2:4-5 ESV


                            A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. . . . John Calvin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by docrob57
                              I have a question with I'm sure a simple answer, but it is bothering me. Why did BR IX come after BR X. (9 after 10). Was it scheduled earlier or something?
                              We were set to do BR IX and then BR X (with Bob) but then the BR IX fell through at the last minute.

                              We were then compelled to leave Bob's battle as BR X.

                              Not to mention all of this adds extra intrigue. :
                              Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                              TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by docrob57
                                I have a question with I'm sure a simple answer, but it is bothering me. Why did BR IX come after BR X. (9 after 10). Was it scheduled earlier or something?
                                Cause it's Knight's site and he can do it that way if he wants.
                                He mentioned it on whichever BEL that he and Lion Guest hosted diring the battle.
                                I believe it was the start of the show featuring fool.
                                Everyman is a voice in the dark.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X