Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
where is the circularity? since you have no reliable method to present other than science, you have no argument to bring.
um, no. words dont have meaning based on the philosophical views of the listener. words have meanings because we can define them. go ahead and offer a coherent definition of "supernatural." you cant do it. nobody can.
Using science to substantiate science, that is inherently circular.
You REALLY need to read this essay, worldviews change drastically change the way that people interpret words. For a naturalist, nature is the set of all that exists, whereas in other worldviews, nature has far more limited connotations, for example, "that which is is temporally linear".
except i never did that, so why would you lie and pretend i did? my words are posted right there in public.
the lack of a coherent definition of "supernatural" in your post is telling.
Default on "misunderstood", you're less likely to cause nasty arguments that way.
*bolding added
If that's what you got from it, you totally missed my point.
except that it isnt. yossarian stated: "I can reject naturalism as a whole and still utilize science." in other words, he accepts science and claims it is possible to still not accept naturalism. this is not the case because SCIENCE POINTS TO NATURALISM. there is no circularity. you just dont understand the way a logical implication works.
"temprally linear" and "temporally non-linear" are meaningless terms. like i said, you still havent presented a COHERENT definition of "supernatural."
Sorry, I have a hard time keeping track of all the people I'm trying to respond to and I've also been too busy to give any thought to a response, so I'll just give you this quick blurb in the mean time.
I figured that's what you meant, that science implies naturalism... but that's not what you said. You said, "the reason to accept both is science itself", not "the reason to accept naturalism is science".
Two major errors there...
I'll try, instead:
your definition implies that we have knowledge of the natural laws. we do not. we have close approximations that operate under certain conditions and fail under others. even if we managed to attain a state of knowledge where no observation ever contradicted the laws we had derived, the fact remains that we derived those laws inductively using science. so, how do you tell the difference between something thats supernatural and something thats natural but we have the laws wrong? if this cant be done, then the definition of "supernatural" offered is insufficient.quicksand said:
coherent does not simply mean "lacking contradictions." it means "able to be understood." lacking contradictions is only one part of that.adumbroksgkgakg said:
in other words, supernatural objects lack time. so black holes are supernatural objects then?adumbtityufydyudyu said:
how can such a thing exist? what definition of "existence" are you using? if something cannot interact with physical objects, then it doesnt exist at all. existence is nothing more than the ability to interact with other existing objects.sudsy said:
Just so we get that out of the way. Nothingness both lacks contradictions and is logically ordered, it is intelligible. Therefore it is coherent.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coherent said:
No, they don't. They bend time.
"nothingness" is intelligible, but what you said is not. the sentence "what does yellow taste like?" is grammatically correct, but it is unintelligible. it is making a category error by assigning a quality to something that, by definition, cannot be assigned to it.
in the frame of reference to a person outside of a black hole, an object falling into it will never actually be observed to fall in. it will just get closer and closer to the event horizon.
because the point of rigorous definitions is to include all cases that in common parlance apply, and to exclude all cases that in common parlance dont apply. if "supernatural" objects include black holes and apple pies, then the word is superfluous. when the word "supernatural" is used, it is generally meant to apply to gods. any use of the term that excludes gods, or that includes things we think of as "natural" is a misuse.
when i quote multiple people, i write the quote tags myself. your name is long and impossible to write from memory.
But nothing was assigned the quality, I merely mentioned the quality itself, therefore no category error.
That's not non-linear, it's bent, specifically to the point that it approaches asymptotically.
But we're talking about common parlance within a group. Depending on the philosophical group, in common parlance, Black Holes or Apple Pie might be considered supernatural.
but you did assign the quality. you assigned it to hypothetical objects that we should label "supernatural."
it is non-linear for the exact reason you mention - an asymptote stretched to infinity ceases to go anywhere.
superfluous = wrong. if your definition doesnt actually define anything, then its not even worth discussing. youre just trying to pull a cheap rhetorical trick here. i ask for a coherent definition of "supernatural" and youre giving me a coherent definition of "bread" and asserting its the same. i didnt ask for definitions of bread. i asked for definitions of supernatural. therefore, you are constrained to include only things that are commonly thought of as supernatural (gods, etc) and to exclude things that are not (apple pies, etc). have you ever noticed that these stupid games are only played when dealing with theists? you never catch a scientist trying to sneak away with redefining terms mid-argument just so those terms have meaning. why is that?
Not necessarily objects, anything.
No, it's always moving closing to the asymptote, just by smaller and smaller amounts. It doesn't cease to go anywhere.
In standard time, cause precedes effect.
This is only considered a cheap rhetorical trick by you because you don't know how to beat it logically.
Wait, what? How so? What's wrong with black holes? They're cool and all, but perfectly "natural" for sure.
any given thing is always an object.
and this is supposed to mean what? what does it mean for an object to have this quality?
no, its a cheap rhetorical trick because it evades my challenge while still trying to maintain the appearance of having met it. my challenge was for a coherent definition of "supernatural" to be offered. you offered a coherent definition of "bread" and simply asserted that the two were equivalent.
"all that exists" is the only sensible definition of "natural" - which is why a coherent definition of "supernatural" is not possible. how can something exist and yet not be natural?
my challenge also didnt bother to include the criteria of you using intelligible words, yet you assumed to do so. strange then that you didnt also assume that your response to the challenge didnt assume that it had to actually be relevant to the challenge.
Linearity is a well defined mathematical concept. There is nothing about a "standard cause-effect relationship". This is more rhetorical garbage aimed to confuse the issue.
Which brings us back to the meaning of supernatural, whose definition sounds alarmingly like that of the applications of religious theories in terms of science. Unfalsifiable and non-scientific.
ask your chem teacher why no matter how hard he prays, acid mixed with alkaline still makes water. if god exists, he can make them stay separate.
True, but the bible also says not to test the Lord, and chemicals are still God's creation.
yes, so why do you say you KNOW it is wrong? you have no proof. I have seen things personally that prove Gods existence. But those are mine, and if I convince you God exist, then you would be religous, you wouldn't have an encounter with God. So I can't really argue my side as well.
i never said that. and what have you seen that proves god's existence? but you are right, you can't argue your side well. no theist can.
That is very Bias, I have seen blind healed is an example, but as I said, I can't force you into something, and take a look around at this plannet, and tell me there is not an artist? we over look so much, and hard core scientist know how balanced it and perfect it is.
how do you know the person was even blind, and if he was, how do you know he was healed?
where's the evidence for any of this?
if we arent to test the lord, then what did your blind person do? did he not pray for healing? how is that not testing the lord?
contact james randi and you can win one million dollars if you prove that this blind man was healed. just think of how many starving children you could feed with that money.
how come the jews who wrote the book of isaiah say that jesus did not fulfill those prophecies? they would know better than anybody, since its their book. have you ever bothered READING the entire book, end to end? many of the so-called "prophecies" are not even messianic, many can be interpreted to apply to almost any popular historical person, and many could have easily been fudged upon by the gospel writers. when matthew writes that jesus did something in accordance with a prophecy, how do you know matthew wasnt just writing that to make it look like the prophecy came true? i await your evidence.
The world is FAR from perfect and balanced--I have no idea where you got this from.
It's not a false dichotomy because I allow for all other explanations when I leave open any definitions that would like to enter when I say "or there isn't". Either teleology exists in biological organisms, or it doesn't. If there is a third possibility, I'd like to know it.
I'm not using it pejoratively. I hear atheists and theists alike (even Richard Dawkins) refer to it as scientific naturalism. I'll refrain from using it if it really makes you that uncomfortable.
As I said, ID would be unfalsifiable if we were to not place boundaries upon it (just as scientific naturalism would be unfalsifiable if one kept making the claim through ignorance of evolutionary pathways). While you could still place anthropic arguments against it, ID would be falsified in biology when irreducible complexity becomes falsified because the only positive way we have of measuring teleology is through complexity since complexity through causation is something we as humans exhibit and are able to scrutinize because of our familiarity with it.
No, the Bible does not say that. The very basis of the Bible is that living things are in a state of disarray due to Adamic sin, therefore things like AIDS and mosquitoes are not current in their intended order. Things that may seem inherent to suffering are not necessarily evil, just not under the correct control.RDK said:
Could you precisely define Teleology for me? More specifically, how we could concretely determine whether an object possesses it or not? I I give you an object and say "Does this possess Teleology?" How would you go about answering the question? What criteria would you use?
but thats not your argument. your argument is: "if evolution cant explain it, then ID is correct."
ID indeed does have no boundaries on it. an unspecified intelligent agent with unspecified powers can do pretty much anything it wants.
Can you prove to me that all "hard core" scientist are athiest?
The jews I do not understand these days, ask them. But I know many jewish people where converted to christians, it is how it christianity started. But they do point to Jesus, you would be a fool to say otherwise. Isaiah points to Isreal, How he was born of a virgin, how he dies, and differant areas of his life. To argue it, I don't understand, it is clear.
This trolling does not deserve a single post in the debate hall nor any rebuttal that makes sense.