Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[cheeezywheeezy]

Zakath,

You say:

"Considering the source that supplied the quote (cheezywheezy), ..."

What's that supposed to mean? Are you insulting me? Are you upset that I called you out on misrepresenting Bob's position on the immutability of God?

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Scrimshaw,

I can tell you are not actually comprehending what I say by this,

I say : Science can NEVER state a gap cannot be filled. That is a ludicrous statement.

The you say

Of course it can and does!! To say that science does not close gaps is the same thing as saying it never falsifies anything!! Is that really what you believe?

I say science cannot state a Gap cannot be filled and you say it does fill gaps.. that is like me asking what colour is that car and you answering “two”.

Science CAN fill gaps.

It cannot say Gaps CANNOT be filled.

Yours and Bob’s childlike assertion that science has already confirmed things “will never be answered” is just stupid.

Your example of life arising on Earth is a classic. I have NEVER read of any respected scientist or science organisation stating that life could not have arisen on Earth naturally. To state this is a gap in knowledge that science has said cannot be filled is tantamount to lying !

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by cheeezywheeezy
Zakath,

You say:

"Considering the source that supplied the quote (cheezywheezy), ..."

What's that supposed to mean? Are you insulting me?

If the shoe fits...

Are you upset that I called you out on misrepresenting Bob's position on the immutability of God?

You did? It must have slipped my mind in the hundreds of posts on the BR-related threads...

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by cthoma11
Actually this entire response is begging the question. Your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from your premise and in fact your premises assume the conlcusion.

Let me restate more succinctly:

P1) Humans are natural beings.
P2) Humans have created life from non life.
C1) Natural causes can create life from non life.

There is no petitio principii here. "Begging the question" would be this:

P1) Only supernatural causes can create life from non-life.
C1) Life cannot come from non-life by natural causes.
C2) God must exist.

See the difference? [Note: the "petitio principii" comes in C1.]

The argument here is that natural causes CAN create life from non-life. You later introduced "intelligence" into the argument, but this is irrelevant to the original question. Along those lines: although it is more likely that a royal flush can be made when a person chooses the exact cards from a deck, it is still possible that a royal flush can be dealt from a random selection of cards.

--ZK

 

[ZroKewl]

Re: Contradiction

Re: Contradiction

Originally posted by heusdens
For those people who are still trying to perceive of reality without a contradiction, we have bad news. Reality itself is nothing but a contradiction, and all attempts to remove the contradictions, will result in the appearence of even more and profounder contradictions.

Perhaps reality is not contradictory. Perhaps, it is only our conceptions of reality that introduce paradox and contradiction.

--ZK

 

[cheeezywheeezy]

Zakath,

You say:

"You did? It must have slipped my mind in the hundreds of posts on the BR-related threads... "

Are you aure it slipped your mind...or did you ignore it like you do most of Bobs questions? If you want to read the post it is #1842 on page 123 of this thread. I was offering you a chance to collect a million dollars!!!

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by cheeezywheeezy
Zakath,

You say:

"You did? It must have slipped my mind in the hundreds of posts on the BR-related threads... "

Are you aure it slipped your mind...or did you ignore it like you do most of Bobs questions? If you want to read the post it is #1842 on page 123 of this thread. I was offering you a chance to collect a million dollars!!!

Well, jeez. It's only six pages and ninety some odd posts ago. How could I have overlooked it! :doh:

That said, I don't take sucker bets.

If my comment perturbed St. Bob the Broadcaster sufficiently, he would have mentioned it, I'm sure.

 

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by ZroKewl
Let me restate more succinctly:

P1) Humans are natural beings.
P2) Humans have created life from non life.
C1) Natural causes can create life from non life.

There is no petitio principii here. "Begging the question" would be this:

P1) Only supernatural causes can create life from non-life.
C1) Life cannot come from non-life by natural causes.
C2) God must exist.

See the difference? [Note: the "petitio principii" comes in C1.]

The argument here is that natural causes CAN create life from non-life. You later introduced "intelligence" into the argument, but this is irrelevant to the original question. Along those lines: although it is more likely that a royal flush can be made when a person chooses the exact cards from a deck, it is still possible that a royal flush can be dealt from a random selection of cards.

--ZK

Sorry, I do not see it.

Humans are natural beings is your conclusion. You have stated it as a premise, but it is still your conclusion. That life/humans came from natural process.

Clever disguise of a conclusion as a premise, does not change it from being a conclusion. Let me restate your first premise. Also, life can be equated directly to human in this argument because that is the key point that is being made. That humans are alive and from natural causes. In other words:

P1 ) Humans (who are alive) are from natural causes
C1) Therefore life comes from natural causes.

Since the key fact is humans are alive, we can substitute life for humans and your argument is:

P1) That which is alive (Humans) comes from natural causes
C1) therefore life comes from natural causes.

Not much of an argument and yes, your premise P1 is in fact equal to your conclusion C1 and therefore begging the question.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by heusdens
Still this is NOT a valid argument, for the reason that the universe is not a physical event. The universe is the collection of ALL PHYSICAL events.

Strictly speaking, you're correct, of course. However, if we make a very minor tweak to the argument, and change the line in question to read "the creation of the universe is a physical event" (or if you prefer, "the beginning of the universe is a physical event"), then the argument is clearly valid. It still relies on the first assumption being true, of course ("physical events have causes"), but at least it's now of a valid form. I think we're both in agreement, though, that it's still making an irrelevant point.

Stating that the universe had a cause is as ridiculous as stating that causality had a cause.

Perhaps, but then I'm not necessarily making that statement. I have merely commented on the form of the arguments presented, not on the validity of their assumptions - at least, not recently. I have, you'll note, pointed out that the premise "all physical events have a cause" is NOT necessarily true.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by heusdens
The argument is INCORRECT as we can not say that the universe is a THING. It is merely the collection of all THINGS and all EVENTS.

The set of all sets is still itself a set. Frankly, I really don't see why you're getting so worked up over this minor point.

Now a collection of all things, doesn't have necessarily the properties of each individual thing of which the collection is made.
I showed that in my argument from the football team and it's members.

And unfortunately, that argument DID have the flaws that were pointed out earlier. I'm sorry about that, but I can't very well complain about logical errors on the part of those from one side of this discussion, and ignore those from the other.

If the universe is a closed system, that would have to be the case for both the FIRST and the SECOND law. According to the FIRST law this means that it always contained the same amount of matter and energy, which also means that the universe did not "come into existence".
The application of the universe then tells you, that the universe must run down on useuable energy.
In combination that means, the amount of useuable energy must have already run down since there is no begin to the universe.

I'm sorry, but here you are making a error that is unfortunately quite common to students of thermodynamics and the notion of "entropy". Actually, a couple of errors.

The first law of thermodynamics is not simply the law of conservation of matter and energy; the first law instead states that the difference between two energy states of a given system is equal to the sum of the work performed on the system and the heat added to it by whatever process changed the system from the initial state to the subsequent state. This is somewhat more complex than merely saying that the total energy and matter within the system remains unchanged, as it has to do more with changes to the usable energy within that system. This then gets us to the second law, which simply put says that it's not possible to decrease entropy (which may be viewed as the measure of "disorder" in the system, but that's not a very satisfying definition unless we were to take the time to get into just what "order" means) in a closed system. A more useful statement of the second law in the present context was made by Lord Kelvin, who said:

"It is impossible to have a process whose only effect is the absorption of heat from a heat reservoir at a single temperature throughout and the conversion of this heat completely into mechanical work."

The upshot of all this is that the amount of energy (or matter, since they're equivalent) contained within a system in absolute terms is meaningless, from the standpoint of the ability to do work within that system. Work is ALWAYS performed through taking advantage of energy differences, for example the difference between a hot volume of gas and a cooler one. What's meant by the "heat death" of the universe is not that the universe would no longer contain energy or matter, but that what it contains would no longer be in usable form - it would no longer be able to drive "work". Imagine, if you will, a universe in which ALL the matter is perfectly uniformly distributed, and at the same temperature throughout. It does not matter what that temperature IS - it is no longer possible to perform work within that universe, as there are no longer differences in energy levels between any two points.

The only possible way out is to state that the concepts of closed, open or isolated systems are only meaningfull in the context of FINITE systems, and not for the universe (an INFINITE system( itself.

Sorry - but at this point there is also no reason to believe that the universe is "infinite". Unbounded in three dimensions, yes, but that's not the same thing as "infinite". (Understanding how this can be so is a bit tricky, but the simplest model I know is the "sphere" example. A sphere quite clearly has a finite extent, but from the viewpoint of a two-dimensional creature living on its surface has no defined "boundary" or "limit". Similarly, the universe can be without bound in three dimensions, and still be of limited extent in four.

When talking about the universe and the laws of thermodynamics, we can just state that matter and energy are conserved both quantitatively (no flow of matter/energy in or out the universe) and qualitatively (the universe doesn't run down on useuable energy, no heat death occurs).

The first statement is "correct", or at least in line with current scientific thought. The second, however, is not - the "steady state" hypothesis is still not currently in favor.

Which just shows that the infinite itself can not be conceived without contradiction. It is a contradiction that the infinite is composed of finite parts only, and yet that is the case.
The removal of the contradiction is the destruction of infinity.

Sorry, but you don't get to have it both ways. Earlier, you claimed that the universe was an "infinite system", and now you wish to assert that the concept of "infinity" involves a contradiction. I think you mean to say that "infinity" is an extremely difficult concept for the human mind to grasp, and I'd have to agree with you there - but that doesn't mean that the concept isn't useful when it IS properly grasped.

 

[attention]

Originally posted by bmyers
The set of all sets is still itself a set. Frankly, I really don't see why you're getting so worked up over this minor point.

The point is that the ill logic points to wrong conclusions.

I'm sorry, but here you are making a error that is unfortunately quite common to students of thermodynamics and the notion of "entropy". Actually, a couple of errors.

The first law of thermodynamics is not simply the law of conservation of matter and energy; the first law instead states that the difference between two energy states of a given system is equal to the sum of the work performed on the system and the heat added to it by whatever process changed the system from the initial state to the subsequent state. This is somewhat more complex than merely saying that the total energy and matter within the system remains unchanged, as it has to do more with changes to the usable energy within that system. This then gets us to the second law, which simply put says that it's not possible to decrease entropy (which may be viewed as the measure of "disorder" in the system, but that's not a very satisfying definition unless we were to take the time to get into just what "order" means) in a closed system. A more useful statement of the second law in the present context was made by Lord Kelvin, who said:

"It is impossible to have a process whose only effect is the absorption of heat from a heat reservoir at a single temperature throughout and the conversion of this heat completely into mechanical work."

The upshot of all this is that the amount of energy (or matter, since they're equivalent) contained within a system in absolute terms is meaningless, from the standpoint of the ability to do work within that system. Work is ALWAYS performed through taking advantage of energy differences, for example the difference between a hot volume of gas and a cooler one. What's meant by the "heat death" of the universe is not that the universe would no longer contain energy or matter, but that what it contains would no longer be in usable form - it would no longer be able to drive "work". Imagine, if you will, a universe in which ALL the matter is perfectly uniformly distributed, and at the same temperature throughout. It does not matter what that temperature IS - it is no longer possible to perform work within that universe, as there are no longer differences in energy levels between any two points.

My notion of the conservation of matter and energy, is what is defined as a CLOSED thermodynamic system, or better stated an ISOLATED thermodynamic system.

So, I was not referring to the First law when I stated that, but to the notion of a CLOSED (ISOLATED) thermodynamic system, in which neither any matter nor energt comes in or goes out of the system.

I have reason to think that a perfect thermodynamic equilibirum ("heatdeath")will never happen. And as a matter of fact, this state was very nearly approached just shortly after the Big Bang, since it has been acknowledged that there was an almost perfect thermodynamic equilibrium in the universe, with a very homegenous distribution of matter and energy.
The only disturbance were the "rimples" or quantum fluctuations (as succesfully explained at the basis of inflation cosmology) which formed the seeds of galaxy formation.

Sorry - but at this point there is also no reason to believe that the universe is "infinite". Unbounded in three dimensions, yes, but that's not the same thing as "infinite". (Understanding how this can be so is a bit tricky, but the simplest model I know is the "sphere" example. A sphere quite clearly has a finite extent, but from the viewpoint of a two-dimensional creature living on its surface has no defined "boundary" or "limit". Similarly, the universe can be without bound in three dimensions, and still be of limited extent in four.

You refer to the notion of SPATIAL infinity.
I however refer to the universe as a material reaility, in which matter itself is INFINITE, and that notion is arrived on three different grounds:
1. There are an infinite amount of material existence forms
2. Matter is in motion/change constantly, and there is no begin or end to the motion/change of matter
3. There are an infinite amount of spatiotemporal relations for an infinite amount of material processes, which is denoted as the infinity of spacetime.

The first statement is "correct", or at least in line with current scientific thought. The second, however, is not - the "steady state" hypothesis is still not currently in favor.

The "Steady State" theory, was about something quite different (continuous creation of matter).

My reasoning is that a "heat death" will not occur, since for the reasons why it is assumed, the universe would have already ended up in that unchangeable state, unless one wants to adapt to a "begin of time" concept.

Since the universe is neither a closed nor an open system, the second law is not applicable to the universe, and there is no overall increase in entropy in the universe as a whole.

Sorry, but you don't get to have it both ways. Earlier, you claimed that the universe was an "infinite system", and now you wish to assert that the concept of "infinity" involves a contradiction. I think you mean to say that "infinity" is an extremely difficult concept for the human mind to grasp, and I'd have to agree with you there - but that doesn't mean that the concept isn't useful when it IS properly grasped.

Correct.

-- Heusdens --

 

[LightSon]

Re: Contradiction

Re: Contradiction

Originally posted by heusdens
Contradiction

For those people who are still trying to perceive of reality without a contradiction, we have bad news. Reality itself is nothing but a contradiction, and all attempts to remove the contradictions, will result in the appearence of even more and profounder contradictions.

....

Whatever we choose for our starting point in the perception of reality, this contradiction can not in any way be removed and reasoned out, but will invade into any concept we have about reality.

Which leaves us no alternative but to DEAL with this contradiction from the start on.

Thank you Rob,
You said that very well.
I am not a scientist, while I appreciate science. Many of you are well over my head in this area. But as I consider the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics (in my novice manner) and as I consider the extremely small physical tolerances which must exist in order to support life, all I see are contradictions. If all there is, is what we see, then we are a contradiction; we should not even be here.

In any other scenario, where the facts don't add up, is it reasonable to conclude we either don't have enough facts or that some unidenfitifed agency has acted beyond the scope of scrutiny?

What bothers me is that you CONCLUDE that God cannot exist. I have asserted that you cannot conclude this. Only within your myopic and arbitrary paradigm can you conclude this. To me, God's existence resolves the contradictions you have so eloquently put forth. God need not be logically jettisoned if I am correct that He exists in a realm beyond our science, beyond our ability to squeeze Him into a testtube. Theologians call this God's transcendence over His creation.

 

[attention]

Re: Re: Contradiction

Re: Re: Contradiction

Originally posted by LightSon
Thank you Rob,
You said that very well.
I am not a scientist, while I appreciate science. Many of you are well over my head in this area. But as I consider the 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics (in my novice manner) and as I consider the extremely small physical tolerances which must exist in order to support life, all I see are contradictions. If all there is, is what we see, then we are a contradiction; we should not even be here.

In any other scenario, where the facts don't add up, is it reasonable to conclude we either don't have enough facts or that some unidenfitifed agency has acted beyond the scope of scrutiny?

What bothers me is that you CONCLUDE that God cannot exist. I have asserted that you cannot conclude this. Only within your myopic and arbitrary paradigm can you conclude this. To me, God's existence resolves the contradictions you have so eloquently put forth. God need not be logically jettisoned if I am correct that He exists in a realm beyond our science, beyond our ability to squeeze Him into a testtube. Theologians call this God's transcendence over His creation.

I would not say that thinking that a personal agent 'caused' this is not someway a human way of approaching this.
I might be a way for some people to explain the unexplainable.
For whatever reason however, it does not has an appeal to me, to approach this issue in that manner.
Like you stated, there are not enough available facts to conclude things. Then why do you conclude things?
The issue is that when we don't know certain things, we don't know. Inventing a cause does not alter the fact that we don't know, isn't it?

 

[Flake]

Its difficult to comprehend just how strong belief is, it has to be, its one of the windows we look through at reality. Maybe its the only window.
Atheists do hold beliefs and these are as much a conviction for them as god is for theists (there is a seperate argument here but we can omit it for clarity). Only when it isnt a conviction are people able to change their belief, evidence notwithstanding.

Interpretation of a belief cannot be fully understood by the opposition but the very nature of belief itself can be questioned as it is this that is common ground, and in discourse of this nature, Ockham's Razor would cut it all away. What would it leave?

 

[LightSon]

Re: Re: Re: Contradiction

Re: Re: Re: Contradiction

Originally posted by attention
I would not say that thinking that a personal agent 'caused' this is not someway a human way of approaching this.
I might be a way for some people to explain the unexplainable.
For whatever reason however, it does not has an appeal to me, to approach this issue in that manner.
Like you stated, there are not enough available facts to conclude things. Then why do you conclude things?

We all must make a run at life. We have little choice.

One response I might give, (but won't) is the one my drill instructor gave in USMC boot camp. He said he didn't know if God existed or not, but just to err on the safe side, he wanted us to go to church.

Originally posted by attention
The issue is that when we don't know certain things, we don't know. Inventing a cause does not alter the fact that we don't know, isn't it?

If it were a matter of me going off and sitting on a hill and conjuring up a god of my own liking, then I would agree that this is foolish.

But I've not done that. We can postulate a creator all day, but that won't make it so. As I behold nature, it is easy for me to postulate a creator. And I am ill-equipped to explain why others (atheists and agnostics) cannot say to themselves, "gee, I wonder if there is a god out there".

As I consider the Bible, it is just as if God is standing across the metaphysical room, waiving His arms and saying, "Hello LightSon, I'm over here. Come and see".

There are facts about the Bible that are just not reasonble if it were solely of human origin. Without an overarching intelligence orchestrating the Bible, these facts pose contradictions similar to the physical ones you've observed. Because God has approached me, through nature and through His Word revealed in the Bible and by His Spirit, somehow He has moved me to take the leap of faith to embrace Him. Science can neither see God, nor embrace Him; only faith can. Faith is the means God has setup for us to realize any experiential knowledge of Himself. Those are His rules; I can't change that for you, even though I might try.

While I cannot resolve all contradictions now, I am confident that someday, in eternity, all mysteries will become crystal clear.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by attention


You refer to the notion of SPATIAL infinity.
I however refer to the universe as a material reaility, in which matter itself is INFINITE, and that notion is arrived on three different grounds:
1. There are an infinite amount of material existence forms
2. Matter is in motion/change constantly, and there is no begin or end to the motion/change of matter
3. There are an infinite amount of spatiotemporal relations for an infinite amount of material processes, which is denoted as the infinity of spacetime.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't grasp what you're trying to get at here - what is meant by the phrase "material existence forms", and why should we assume that there is an infinite number of these (as opposed to just a very large number of them)?

My reasoning is that a "heat death" will not occur, since for the reasons why it is assumed, the universe would have already ended up in that unchangeable state, unless one wants to adapt to a "begin of time" concept.

Since the universe is neither a closed nor an open system, the second law is not applicable to the universe, and there is no overall increase in entropy in the universe as a whole.

Here again - what does it mean to say that the universe is "neither a closed nor an open system"? You appear to be using a definition of "closed" which is "neither taking matter or energy in from outside the system, nor releasing these TO the outside." I don't see how, given that definition, the universe could be NEITHER closed nor open.

Further, you seem here to be saying that there was no "beginning of time" - or in other words, that time stretches back into history infinitely far (and can be expected to continue on infinitely into the future). Yet at the same time, you referred to, and apparently accept the existence of, the "Big Bang" event. How do you reconcile these two positions?

 

[JanowJ]

Originally posted by Zakath
Nope, just up to his usual intellectual standards... when he cannot build a convincing argument, insult the opponent...

FYI: Zakath, that wasn't about you. A "Proctologist" is another name for a "Crapologist." Why are you so sensitive?

 

[attention]

Originally posted by bmyers
I'm sorry, but I simply don't grasp what you're trying to get at here - what is meant by the phrase "material existence forms", and why should we assume that there is an infinite number of these (as opposed to just a very large number of them)?

Matter is a philosophical category denoting that what exists outside the mind, and is independend and apart from it.
As such, we can not observe matter, but only specific material existence forms. An electron, a proton, a photon, a star, a a galaxy, all denote material existence forms.
The infinity of the number of material existence forms, denote the fact that you never run out of possibilities to assemble new material existence forms. There is no upper limit to that.

Here again - what does it mean to say that the universe is "neither a closed nor an open system"? You appear to be using a definition of "closed" which is "neither taking matter or energy in from outside the system, nor releasing these TO the outside." I don't see how, given that definition, the universe could be NEITHER closed nor open.

Since these terms refer to systems that are finite parts of the whole. Your argument would then probably be that, since you can state that the universe is made up of all those finite parts, the universe itself must therefore be a closed system.
Well, firstly I would think you can not assume that when taking a finite part of the universe, you have a closed system, since in most cases, you have an open system.
Secondly, we know of no borders or boundaries to the universe. So, your statement would then by that when collecting a finite number of finite systems, would constitute the whole universe.
Such has not been proved, and it is assumed that the universe in fact is infinite in spatial extend.

Further, you seem here to be saying that there was no "beginning of time" - or in other words, that time stretches back into history infinitely far (and can be expected to continue on infinitely into the future). Yet at the same time, you referred to, and apparently accept the existence of, the "Big Bang" event. How do you reconcile these two positions?

As you probably know the "Big Bang" as a scientific theory does NOT state that there was no "before" the Big Bang.
The BB theory ITSELF does not state ANYTHING about that.

There are extentions to the BB theory, that try to model the universe proir and at the time of the Big bang. Like inflation theory or the ekpyrotic universe model (brane cosmology).

There is no scientific theory that states that the universe (all of matter, time and space) could have started out from "nothing".

Stephen Hawking clearly states in his book "Brief History of Time" that "physicists don't know how to make physics from nothing."
In other words, a "real" beginning of time, could not be based on any physical theory.

I think this is just the popular and widespread misunderstanding.

Perhaps read my thread on that here

 

[ZroKewl]

ZK's syllogism:
P1) Humans are natural beings.
P2) Humans have created life from non life.
C1) Natural causes can create life from non life.

Originally posted by cthoma11
Sorry, I do not see it.

I should probably give up on you, then. Maybe after you are done with your intro to logic course, you'll understand.

Humans are natural beings is your conclusion. You have stated it as a premise, but it is still your conclusion. That life/humans came from natural process.

No. My conclusion is that natural causes can create life from non life. This does NOT mean that life coming from non-life always occurs by natural causes. Just that it can.

Also, life can be equated directly to human in this argument because that is the key point that is being made. That humans are alive and from natural causes.

That's not the point I made, and not the point in question. The question is: can life come from non-life by natural causes -- or must it take supernatural causes to bring life from non-life.

Perhaps this is too complicated. I'll break it down:

Life can come from life by natural causes. We see this all the time. Birds having baby birds, etc. Neither Bob nor any sane person has ever argued differently.

Non-life can create other non-life through natural causes. We see this all the time also. Volcano's can create islands, etc. Again, no sane person argues any differently.

The argument is whether LIFE can be produced by NON-LIFE through natural causes. Bob's argument is that we have never seen this, so we assume it can't happen. He argues that life cannot come from non-life through natural causes.

[Let me stop here and say that "natural" means "occuring in nature -- according to "natural laws". In other words, no "super-natural" (outside of nature) causes were involved in the process. Humans are not super natural. They are natural. If you disagree, please say so.]

So, the question is: can life come from non-life through natural causes.

I deduce the following:

P1) Humans are natural.
P2) Things humans do are natural.
P3) When humans cause something to happen, that cause is a "natural cause".
P4) Humans have caused life to come from non-life.
C1) Life CAN come from non-life through natural causes.

Now let's examine where you went wrong:

P1 ) Humans (who are alive) are from natural causes
C1) Therefore life comes from natural causes.

Since the key fact is humans are alive, we can substitute life for humans and your argument is:

P1) That which is alive (Humans) comes from natural causes
C1) therefore life comes from natural causes.

You have two major problems here.

1) I never said that "humans are from natural causes". I said "humans are natural beings". Indeed, it is the case that every human I or you have ever seen has been from natural causes. But, I'm not assuming that the "1st man" was caused "naturally".

2) You forgot that humans have created life from non-life. That is very important for my argument.

Not much of an argument and yes, your premise P1 is in fact equal to your conclusion C1 and therefore begging the question.

I hope to God you see that "Humans are natural beings" and "Natural causes can create life from non life." are not the same thing. If you still fail to understand, here is an analogous syllogism for you to digest:

P1) Apples are fruits.
P2) Apples can sometimes have seeds.
C1) Fruits can sometimes have seeds.

Or even simpler:

P1) All A are B
P2) Some A are C
C1) Some B are C

Now, as you are fond of the Petitio Principii, you know that if one "begs the question", he is assuming that which he seeks to prove. Further, one can disagree with the argument, but still find the conclusion to be true. In your case, though, you are obviously disagreeing with the conclusion. Therefore, I ask you what premise are you disagreeing with? And why didn't you just say that to start with instead of pretending to disagree with me based on fallacious logic?

If you were dealing with a freshman undergrad taking his first introduction to logic course, your methods may have been sufficient to cause your opponent to back down. On the contrary, the more you speak, the more it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. Now, care to say which premise you disagree with? Granted, my original argument was simplified, as I was assuming an intelligent reader. Here is a more expounded version:

P1) Humans are natural.
P2) Things humans do are natural.
P1&2b) "Natural" means occuring within nature (within the confines of our space-time continuum) & in accordance with the natural laws.
P3) When humans cause something to happen, that cause is a "natural cause".
P4) Humans have caused life to come from non-life.

Lest the readers forget the purpose of this debate, I will remind them (& you) of your statements:

You said:

"The scientists constructed the virus using its genome sequence".
So this was not a random process (which is the evolutionary position isn't it) rather it is a deliberate and controlled creation action predicated by huge amounts of knowledge. Aren't you in fact arguing the position that life was not created?

I replied:

Life was created. By natural causes. Not supernatural. Humans are natural. If they can create life, then life can be created by natural processes. It doesn't require God, in other words.

You then replied:

Actually this entire response is begging the question. Your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from your premise and in fact your premises assume the conlcusion.

So, now you see this is not "begging the question"... and even if it were, it would be irrelevant as you have yet to tell me which premise you disagree with. So, which premise do you disagree with? If none of them, then you admit that natural causes can produce life from non-life? No more fallacy-accusing obfuscation. "We are men of action. Lies [or retarded rhetoric] do not become us."

--ZK

 

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by ZroKewl
I should probably give up on you, then. Maybe after you are done with your intro to logic course, you'll understand.

Ad Hominem. A sign of a weak argument/arguer.

.
P1) Humans are natural.

This premise can only mean that humans come from natural causes in the scope of this discussion. If by natural you mean that things we do are natural for humans (as you state below), then your argument carries no substance. It may in fact be true, but then who cares.

Now let's examine where you went wrong:

I didn't go wrong, you did. In fact your main rebuttal has been to insult my intelligence when in fact your syllogism is wrong. See below.

Indeed, it is the case that every human I or you have ever seen has been from natural causes. But, I'm not assuming that the "1st man" was caused "naturally".

This statement reinforces my assumption that you have so weakened the meaning of "natural" so as to have no meaning in the context of the origin of life. Natural in the specter of the beginning of life has a much deeper meaning than the meaning you are implying here.

2) You forgot that humans have created life from non-life. That is very important for my argument.

It wasn't the premise that has problems. It is your first premise. and your conclusion that do not agree. Second, Humans have not created life from non life. As I have stated earlier, virus' are not considered life.

I hope to God you see that "Humans are natural beings" and "Natural causes can create life from non life." are not the same thing. If you still fail to understand, here is an analogous syllogism for you to digest:

Again, evidence that natural in the scope of your discussion has no substance. And further then, your syllogism is wrong. Because you have stated:

ZK's syllogism:
P1) Humans are natural beings.
P2) Humans have created life from non life.
C1) Natural causes can create life from non life.

Your conclusion has "Natural causes". Your premise P1 has natural beings. You have now stated that natural causes are not the same as natural beings. But in order for your syllogism to be valid, you cannot introduce new terms in the conclusion that are not in the premises. The only valid conclusion in this case is Natural beings can create life from non life. But above you state that you are not claiming that the first man came about naturally.

Rest Deleted

There is no point addressing the rest of your post, because by your own words it is clear that you do not understand the basic rules of syllogisms. Perhaps it is not me who does not understand logic.