Walton vs. axiom-tech discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

FrankWalton

BANNED
Banned
Thanks, Knight. I appreciate you hosting this debate. I can't wait to do it. Axiom-tech is a likable guy. He's among the few atheists I know of who's a cool cat. Don't worry about me. I'll be civil :madmad:
 

axiom-tech

New member
Thanks, Knight. I appreciate you hosting this debate. I can't wait to do it. Axiom-tech is a likable guy. He's among the few atheists I know of who's a cool cat. Don't worry about me. I'll be civil :madmad:

Oh brother Frank. Don't make me bust out the myspace PMs of you calling me the biggest moron you've ever met like 3 times

:madmad:
 

Nomad

New member
So...can we provide our own refutations of their arguments? Is there something our comments should be limited to?

Knight, you sound like Hugo from Lost.
 

FrankWalton

BANNED
Banned
Oh brother Frank. Don't make me bust out the myspace PMs of you calling me the biggest moron you've ever met like 3 times

:madmad:

Well, I said you were one of the biggest morons I knew, didn't I? :p

By the way, I was actually going to post our emails about that episode in my blog. It was quite funny in retrospect. I asked you to do something but you never seemed to get it :nono:
 

macguy

New member
Just a brief comment if I may by what you mean with this statement.

1) Every explanation that has been confirmed and met the test of time has been naturalistic

The explanation that a designer created this world has also stood the test of time and has been confirmed. This is mostly because God created a self-containing system of which is ultimately still caused by Him. Even creationists agree that we should work via the scientific method as a way of understanding HIS creation.

2) Super naturalistic 'explanations' have always been replaced with naturalistic ones, never vice versa.

As far as I'm aware, this hasn't been so with the origin of life, anthropic principle, consciousness, irreducible complexity (they'll kill me for this), and consciousness...The excuse has been, "Well science will eventually solve this problem". I am in no way implying that it cannot be solved but that working with the data that we have, the origin of life is pretty much impossible.

The rational conclusion is that all future explanations will be naturalistic, and a logical extension of this would be that all of existence is natural.

If we are working with empirical science then this would be rather obvious but not so with historical science. Naturalistic explanations are here for us to understand the Biotic message and realize that God is God. I don't think this has much say whether the natural causes doesn't have an ultimate cause that is above this world. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, I would believe confirms the existence of a being who is not effected by this law... Well I know I'm doing a awful job mostly because i am in a hurry to go to bed. My thanks for making some interesting points.
 

PKevman

New member
Yes, I too was curious as to their backgrounds and what brings them to TOL. I always enjoy evolution vs. creation debates because it shows the utter futility of man's wisdom vs. God's wisdom.
 

macguy

New member
My previous argument was rather incomplete but I posted it on another thread...I hope no one will mind that i repost the argument here. If mods find it unnecessary, then by all means please delete this post. I thought this would be a more appropriate to discuss since the debate is on or else I wouldn't have posted it here. So if you don't mind axiom-tech, perhaps this would be more appropriate for us to discuss this here for now. If not, then please don't feel obligated to respond here. Thank you!


Historically all confirmed explanations have been naturalistic explanations.
Therefore: It is reasonable to conclude that all explanations will be natural

To explain empirical phenomena, this may be true but it would be a rather obvious truth. However, when dealing with origins science, it has always been the Designer explanation which prevails even to this day. For example, the origin of life has not been explained by naturalistic means and has always been reasonably attributed to a higher being. A naturalistic explanation doesn't automatically entail the BEST explanation. Facts are facts and they only become interesting if one tries to explain it. For example, the observational statement that I saw a flash of light at 12 pm is a factual statement. However, there is no significance in this fact unless we attempt to explain it. The flash of light that I saw at 12 pm could've been the headlights from a car, lightning, an explosion, a plane wreck etc. As you can see, facts only become interesting when we try to explain it. MNaturalism, is simply that, a philosophy which attempts to argue that everything that can be said to exist is nature. Since you'd rather use arguments like these, then you should logically be able to accept my arguments...

1) Historically, all observations point to Life coming from life (law of biogenesis)
2) Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that all life will continue to come from life.

From this you cannot infer a naturalistic explanation because all observations point to life always existing. The christian, on the other hand, is justified in saying that life always existed (God) and therefore this existence can bring others into existence. Without existence, then existence shouldn't be inferred. Logic, couldn't even be used...at least in your world-view. One could argue that these observations have nothing to do with origins but that's exactly my point! Merely because we continually explain things through naturalistic explanations doesn't entail that the past is the same and so God cannot be excluded. If you do, then my above argument is valid and naturalism is defeated either way. :)

Metaphysical Naturalism, the view that all that can be said to exist is nature is the only conclusion one can make. If you conclude anything else, you are stupid and wrong.

You're already concluding something before one has even got a chance to attack your argument? This is rather a bold claim in your part and name-calling is of no relevance to your argument. I would suggest that you next time refrain from this, to promote as you would call "intellectually honest" discussions. My argument always has the possibility of flaws, and if you can demonstrate this than I should not say that you're stupid and wrong. You should do the same...
 

axiom-tech

New member
The explanation that a designer created this world has also stood the test of time and has been confirmed. This is mostly because God created a self-containing system of which is ultimately still caused by Him. Even creationists agree that we should work via the scientific method as a way of understanding HIS creation.

Yes, this is true of objects that show signs of design. However, self-replicators (animals etc) are explained by a Darwinian process. If the pheromone to be explained is complexity, invoking designers only takes you a little bit, since you a designer will exhibit the signs of design, so a bottom-up, reductionist, Darwinian-type explanation is needed.

1) Historically, all observations point to Life coming from life (law of biogenesis)
2) Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that all life will continue to come from life.

Clever. Yes, this is the correct conclusion in a vacuum, excluding other considerations. When you take into account the origin of the universe, life could not have existed when the big bang happened.

It is true that you can come to false conclusions using inductive reasoning, given there are other considerations that show such conclusion could not be true.

Consider this:

p1) Historically mammals has a mammal for a mother
c) Therefore there every mammal has a mammal for a mother
c2) Therefore there are an infinite number of mamals

This works, if you ignore other considerations which show that although we have only observe mammals birthing mammals, we understand that the distance ancestors of the mammals were something of a pro to-mammal, and eventually non-mammal.

I am unaware of any considerations that make MNaturalsim difficult.

You're already concluding something before one has even got a chance to attack your argument?

Thats a quote from another post, I did not say that in my opening.
 

macguy

New member
Yes, this is true of objects that show signs of design. However, self-replicators (animals etc) are explained by a Darwinian process. If the pheromone to be explained is complexity, invoking designers only takes you a little bit, since you a designer will exhibit the signs of design, so a bottom-up, reductionist, Darwinian-type explanation is needed.

You're last sentence didn't make much sense, care to clarify? Then you cannot exclude that it does at least LOOK like design correct? Whether it is explained, still leaves the origin of life unexplained. If explaining something is evidence that Darwinian processes occurred, then the unexplained origin of life should be evidence that it didn't originate...

Clever. Yes, this is the correct conclusion in a vacuum, excluding other considerations. When you take into account the origin of the universe, life could not have existed when the big bang happened.

Thank you :D. I had a feeling that this would be one of the objections posed against my argument which is reasonable. The anthropic principle explains that this universe is finely tuned for life so we are taken a step backwards since the Big Bang argues for a beginning... If no life existed before the big bang, then it would be reasonable from someone's perspective, that life cannot exist at that time of course.

1) Historically, there hasn't been life in this universe.
2) Therefore, it would have been reasonable to conclude that there will continue to be no life.

Now you are stuck with another dilemma I believe... You cannot infer a naturalistic explanation for the evolution of non-life to life because all observations pointed to life not existing at that time. The christian, on the other hand, is again justified in saying that life always existed (God) and therefore this existence can bring others into existence. Once again, you could argue that these observations doesn't entail what the future will hold but that is exactly my point! Merely because we continually explain things through naturalistic means doesn't imply that the past and/or future will be the same and so God cannot be excluded.


Past
Future
<------------------------------------------ GAP -------------------------------------------->

The past says that life did not exist, but the future of the big bang says that life does exist. Therefore, inference cannot work even in this situation with 2 considerations unless you can come up with a further argument.

It is true that you can come to false conclusions using inductive reasoning, given there are other considerations that show such conclusion could not be true.

Yes and excluding the consideration that God could've created it would therefore give you FALSE reasoning! For example, as you said the scientific method is consisted by drawing inferences on observed data but many times this conclusion is reached by a colored rejection of certain kinds of facts. The field of observation is then limited by the criterion of the scientist is then narrowed and the conclusion may be incorrect. By rejecting data that one dislikes, they can arrive at the wrong principle. Attempts to explain the origin of life point to a intelligent designer but if a biologists is a Mnaturalist, he rules out such data as impossible and limits his findings to his own group. Yet you insist that "historically all confirmed explanations have been naturalistic explanations". The reason for something being explained by naturalistic processes is because what we observe is in itself part of the natural world! As I said, origins science cannot be observed. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be able to observe since everything would be unpredictable. Fact is, we never observed the Big Bang ever occurring! Thus you cannot exclude God and naturalism is not justified. I personally believe that christianity provides a more coherent explanation than naturalism. As C.S Lewis said:

‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’

And:

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.


I am unaware of any considerations that make MNaturalsim difficult.

One could also be unaware of the existence of Mars, so this doesn't necessarily say anything. Frank Walton, as I have read his blog for a 6 months now, has presented a lot faster refutation of the argument so much that I feel like I made some unnecessary evaluations. After all, I am only 15 years old and am still very aware of the fact that many of you folks are at least 2x more clever than I am. As with most of my discussions, what I value is improving my logic in hopes that I may become a legitimate person to argue with. My thanks for spending time on answering my arguments.

Thats a quote from another post, I did not say that in my opening.

My apologies as I noticed that right when I posted that but I couldn't edit! It was carelessness on my part since I forgot that people cannot edit their posts here.
 

seer

New member
axiom-tech said:

The truth is that having reliable cog-faculties, is adaptive. A creature with cognitive faculties that produce true conclusions will be more likely to find food, or avoid danger. Adaptive may be the goal, but reliable cognitive faculties is the means which contributes to the goal.

I would say that this is generally true, but false beliefs may also be adaptive. A man may have an irrational fear of the color orange, he thinks if "orange" touches him, he will turn orange. He therefore runs everytime he sees a tiger - and lives.

Another point, the vast majority of human beings, for the majority of history have believed in god or gods. That there was something "out there" that man was accountable to. Now Axiom contends that this universal belief is false, but it must have an adaptive function or it would not be so ingrained in humanity.

So Axiom has two choices:

1. There really is something "out there" that man is accountable to,

or

2. He has to admit that a universal false belief is adaptive. Which now makes all our beliefs and conclusions suspect.
 

macguy

New member
Atheism is not a worldview

Then what should we consider atheism if it is not a worldview? By definition this means:

1) The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.

So how is atheism, which sees nature as all there is be not an interpretation of how he/she sees this world?

You can be an atheist and believe that our faculties are controlled by souls and whatnat.

A theist can also believe that ghosts exist but that is a bit off their world-view since if one acknowledges the existence of souls, they would have to deal with the theistic arguments for the soul. Very few atheists, accept such a belief but hey, it's always possible. I am not sure if he'd truly be an atheist however...since God cannot exist, nature is basically all that exists correct? They would have to explain everything naturally in order to confidently say that God does not exist. Therefore most true atheists have a naturalistic view.

This is fallacious reasoning, it does not follow that since something was not designed, it should not make choices.

I don't recall Walton saying that we should not make choices. Rather, he asked why one would intentionally argue against purpose if it is conceded that man has no purpose anyways? What justification do you have for arguing? He also answered your further question which I think you missed.


It’s true for something to have purpose it must have an intention and goal in mind. But why have the intention and goal of arguing about “purpose” if my opponent conceded that man was not designed, and therefore has no purpose anyway? As he said, “the universe and man has no purpose since it was not designed with any intentionality.” Then why does he have the intention of arguing about “purpose” if it wouldn’t be any good to do so to start with? Furthermore, purpose doesn’t entail something must be designed/formed/created. In fact, God who is self-sustaining has plenty of purpose: that He be glorified. Also, no dictionary I know of has defined “purpose” the way my opponent is defining it. Something can still have purpose without it being designed/formed/created. But what would be the purpose of arguing about purpose if there is no ultimate purpose in life anyway?
 

macguy

New member
Does anyone know if quotes really qualify for the word limits? I would see how it would qualify if Axiom was quoting Richard Carrier, but quoting your opponent on the other hand does seem to be different. I don't know because I got around 679 words excluding Walton's quotes but if it's included i get 1,067... Sorry about asking such a ridiculous question but I don't want the debate to end since it is interesting. If I post Walton’s article including quotes we have around 1,506 words which I guess isn’t bad. Since Axiom’s post is a rebuttal, it would be a bit necessary to quote Frank Walton unless he could’ve shortened the quotes which I think axiom could’ve done a little more.

Whenever I read debates, my concern hasn’t been with the words so I am ignorant of the restrictions. So sorry if I am being a hinderance.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Does anyone know if quotes really qualify for the word limits? I would see how it would qualify if Axiom was quoting Richard Carrier, but quoting your opponent on the other hand does seem to be different. I don't know because I got around 679 words excluding Walton's quotes but if it's included i get 1,067... Sorry about asking such a ridiculous question but I don't want the debate to end since it is interesting. If I post Walton’s article including quotes we have around 1,506 words which I guess isn’t bad. Since Axiom’s post is a rebuttal, it would be a bit necessary to quote Frank Walton unless he could’ve shortened the quotes which I think axiom could’ve done a little more.

Whenever I read debates, my concern hasn’t been with the words so I am ignorant of the restrictions. So sorry if I am being a hinderance.
This is the exact reason that we normally consider word limits as guidelines and not hard limits.

If a participant went WAY over the limit I think that might be something to be concerned about. Yet going over the limit by a sentence or two is completely normal and acceptable in my opinion. Even in a structured, moderated verbal debate all contestants get to finish their sentences even when the buzzer has already sounded.
 

FrankWalton

BANNED
Banned
Does anyone know if quotes really qualify for the word limits? I would see how it would qualify if Axiom was quoting Richard Carrier, but quoting your opponent on the other hand does seem to be different. I don't know because I got around 679 words excluding Walton's quotes but if it's included i get 1,067... Sorry about asking such a ridiculous question but I don't want the debate to end since it is interesting. If I post Walton’s article including quotes we have around 1,506 words which I guess isn’t bad. Since Axiom’s post is a rebuttal, it would be a bit necessary to quote Frank Walton unless he could’ve shortened the quotes which I think axiom could’ve done a little more.

Whenever I read debates, my concern hasn’t been with the words so I am ignorant of the restrictions. So sorry if I am being a hinderance.

My opening is actually 1497 not counting the references and their numbers. So technically, Axiom-Tech's opening is 1622 (not 1625... my bad). Personally, I count using someone else's quote as your numbered rebuttal because you're using your opponent's words to support your argument against him! Yeah, sure, at the bell we let our opponent finish their sentence. But a 122 word sentence? (and more arguing in the reference section no less?) C'mon! Does the referee let a boxer throw a last punch at his opponent when the bell rings? I want a fight. :box: But a fair one. And it doesn't seem like anybody is doing anything about it. However, I've decided to finish this debate despite what's happening because I know I can beat my opponent.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Frank, your arguments are good. Yet you are far too concerned about extremely MINOR rule infractions. You are hurting your own cause. Furthermore you have the nerve to insult me via a email.:shocked:

This is the reason we don't normally host debates between people we do not know or trust - they may turn out to be jerks.

TOL owed you ZERO, yet we agreed to host and promote your personal debate. You should be thankful and appreciative. Instead you are insulting, petty and rude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top