1. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141275 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 8:22 am

It's me, Mitchell. Really? Couldn't tell? I'm sure it must be obvious now, not that we have spoken a lot. I thought for sure that my half-assed understanding of logic and philosophy would give me away, if my avatar didn't.

2. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141269 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 8:14 am

I don't know what I'm talking about MPhil. I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass.

Well, to be honest I ripped most of these arguments off of theists I've heard. So I didn't get around to actually formulating some premises and conclusions. Steve wouldn't have any of that. He rightfully stopped me at the gates. I could have gone on for quite awhile doing that.

3. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141266 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 8:11 am

I don't have any university education, I have a high school equivolency, and an online 3D graphics design degree.

I feel so second class.

4. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141264 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 8:09 am

In other galaxies Steve?

5. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141263 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 8:07 am

I'm glad you thought I was the best. It has been a awhile since I attempted playing advocatus diaboli.

I think my major problem is that my arguments make absolute no sense to me, so it is hard to formulate them with an illusion of coherence.

Can you guess who I am? I gave several hints, my avatar should be the biggest one.

6. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141254 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 8:00 am

If this supernatural entity is supposed to intervene in the physical universe - and all we have reason to assume (and we have very good reasons) is that the physical universe runs in accordance with such and such laws, then every proposed interaction will have to conform to
those laws. You would need to present independent evidence that these laws are not universal (independent from the assumption you want to prove, unless you want to beg the question), if you would want to claim that. And as it stands, we have as of yet no justification for believing that the conservation of energy and momentum (and thus the causal closure) are not universal for the entire system.

Not quite - "A priori" means "before [or without] empirical observation" and thus refers to the way something is known, while "a posteriori" means "after observation" ie "after looking at the world".

A statement is analytically true if it is true merely by the sameness of referent. "A table is a table" for example is an analytical truth, no matter what "table" means. But "The evening-star is the morning-star" is also an analytical truth, since "evening-star" and "morning-star" have the same referent. But this was only found out by observation - so this is an a posteriori known analytical truth.

7. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141242 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:47 am

Studying the effects of something isn't the same thing as studying the thing itself Steve.

I was going to use the P and ~P argument from design earlier, with "the universe is perfect, and thus proves god, and the universe is imperfect because of the fall of man, and thus also proves god," but I decided to not be a christian, since I thought it would be too easy to argue against.

8. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141240 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:41 am

Yeah, I didn't think that would get by you...

9. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141233 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:35 am

That is not a study of supernatural things though. That is the study of people. We can test claims that proport to effect the physical world, if the claim involves testable and predictable situtations. Which isn't the same thing as testing supernatural and non-physical things.

10. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141231 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:32 am

You're right Roland, I did contradict my allusion to Anslem in a previous post...damn. It's hard to keep track.

I will say to Steve, before I accept defeat from MPhil, as he/she is sure to crash me in their next reply, that we don't know how or why the physical laws obtain in the future either, we just know that they have in the past.

That objection works equal well for believing that the past gives an indication of what will happen in the future.

I am not as good a sophist as I thought. I admit defeat. I was beginning to run out of steam anyway.

11. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141228 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:28 am

MPhil well I don't know very much about philosophy or science, forgive me if I assumed a position you don't hold.

I do understand that science does perscribe to such a veiw, but I think that since science is restricted to the natural and physical world by definition, it goes without saying that it doesn't apply to non-natural, non-physical things.

Also, I understand a priori to refer to logical tautological, and conceptual knowledge and truths, while a posteriori refers to experiential, and empiricle knowledge and truths. The difference between induction and deduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_(philosophy)

Am I wrong there?

You are right though, I definitely don't have an intimate knowledge of philosophy, but was I wrong in stating that there are positions that don't accept those views that you implied with necessary or plain givens?

12. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141223 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:18 am

MPhil that is a category mistake. Believing that X obtains for Y does not necessitate that I believe X obtains for Z. My position is that the logical impossible is possible for the omnipotent, not for everything.

MPhil you are proported you specific philosophical positions as if they are the only tenable ones.

You last point is a head scratter. I'd say that it makes perfect sense to believe that a being capable of anything could influence in universe without disruption the conservation of energy and momentum.

Also "no one has wittnessed it" is not accurate, you mean "and I don't believe anyone who has claimed to have wittnessed it," not quite the same thing.

13. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141214 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:09 am

I would totally summon him her Phil, but he'll be at the beach for at least a couple more weeks.

14. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141211 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:07 am

MPhil, critical rationalism isn't the only philosophical position.

Not every philosophical positions declares that a priori evidence isn't evidence about the world. You may think your position to be the best one (don't we all) but don't imply that it is.

I don't have to belong to any denomination to believe in a God, it is not required. I like it Ale carte.

15. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141206 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:04 am

There are two reasons I can give why words are not sufficient to define something into existence:

16. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141204 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 7:00 am

MPhil, I know of the problem of omnipotence. I go with the one not restricted by logic, I don't see why our comprehencion should limit God.

The last point is just a silly one. Did Pluto not exist before we discovered it? You can't declare something can't be so because we have yet to wittness it.

You also can't claim the burdon of proof to me on my end this time "non-physical things can't effect physical things" is your claim. Which needs to be supported by more than "I have yet to see it happen!"

I am feeling a clear double standard for evidence here.

17. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141195 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:53 am

Touche, Quetz.

I'm not a Christian, Roland. Kind of presumptuous of you.

18. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141191 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:49 am

Then words should be sufficient? What could you mean by no words, but evidence unless you mean no arguments, only physical evidence?

19. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141183 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:45 am

Then you aren't asking for an argument or a discussion at all, Steve, you are asking for empiricle evidence for something that isn't empiricle, that is a category mistake.

20. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141179 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:42 am

Quetz, I hadn't realized that I revealed the entirety of my vocabulary in a few posts. Damn I really am in trouble.

God might get around to you, but, c'mon. A flamming mirror for one hand, feathers, and a snake for the other hand? Who'd worhsip that?

21. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141178 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:40 am

Either your statement above is correct, and a person does need an artist. In which case, by the same logic, so does the beautiful and complex God.

22. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141174 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:33 am

How can I explain anything without words Steve? Shall we mindmeld?

23. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141170 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:30 am

If God does not need an artist, but He is perfect, then the Universe does not need an artist, even though it contains lovely snowflakes.

24. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141163 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:22 am

By definition, it's tautological, Steve.

The same way I know 2 plus 2 equals 4

25. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141156 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 6:12 am

Between 6-10 thousand years. Give or take a few days.

Jon's questions?

I will want at least equivolent answers to my response, don't expect more detail than you can produce.

1) God is omnipotent, meaning He has unlimited control over space time and matter. For smell, I assume he used the latter one.

2) I don't know how he made us feel emotion exactly. I would appeal to my answer for smell. How did evolution exactly? What was the exact method? Was it the same for everything? I'm not the omniscient one.

3) For one, do you not agree that if one had unlimited control over space time and matter they could fashion the same chemical and bioloigcal receptors you proport evolution to have done? If you agree that you could, then you can only object to the premise, that god did it, not that if god exists he could. The question is moot. Lastly you seem to suppose that if god did it there would be no biological or chemical factors involved. I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

4) You are asking questions that supposing god doesn't exist, you still can't answer. Last I checked, abiogenesis is still almost entirely speculation. They can't answer those questions, so why do I have to? This is also an argument by question, all because I don't have all the answers or know all the details does not make my conclusion wrong. There are plenty of gaps in our understanding of the natural world, I don't suggest all natural explanations are wrong unless they answer every single minute detail. This is a clear double standard.

5) Refer to 4

6) Where do you think the matter that makes up the universe came from? Also, how do you think the milky way gots its aesthetic appearance?

7) what do you think black holes are really for?

8) He killed them them all, because he is the best; Anselm at el.

26. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141148 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 5:43 am

Hit me epeeist, my sophist skills need sharpening.

27. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141146 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 5:40 am

Nah, I won't do weirdo, if I had another e-mail address I'd go through the trouble, maybe, but that's too much work just for this.

Oh yes. God is real, and you are all wrong. Watch me prove it.

1 if god exists and is the creator of all except himself
2 then god exists and is the creator of all except himself.

Q.E.D.

I almost forget. You guys are stupid, and wooter is cool and has logic. Go worship blindwatcmaker, and so forth.

28. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141125 by Wheeler on March 10, 2008 at 5:04 am

Hey, why you guys making fun of wooter and wipeout guys? They are cool guy, and say things that are right, with good logic. WHY DON"T YOU GUYS ALL PREY TO DARWIN AND RUSSEL!

I just come here to find out what could be truth, but instead find no logic, and stupid people. All I see is logic in wooter and wipeout.

I was going to believe in nothing, because I thought evolution had logic, now I see that you guys sware and insult, so it must not be true.

Go worship blindwatcmaker, because you fear the logic of wooter and wipeout.