How to argue?

[Spock]

Regarding this thread, in particular, I was appreciative of Spock’s premise of addressing opponents (I think that is the right term for a participant in a debate…) on their own terms. I have seen few more frustrating things on here than arguments between people who appear to live on differnt planets. These often fall into the “apples vs oranges” catagory. This is closely followed by the lack of defined terms. In any case, I feel that the movement toward definition and propriety is advanced by this thread.

What else can I say: I appreciate your agreement. Thank you. I will not quote your whole post, since I also agree with most of what you say.

First and foremost, I strongly recommend spell check and and at least a perfunctory editing. I wish that our education system had this so inculcated in us that even if we hadn’t slept off any recreational chemical residue, we would yet do this. Of course, I myserf neber make mistrakes…

This reminded me of a great little poem, and I would like to share it with you all. I laughed so hard when I first saw it:

SPELL CHECKER

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased to no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

–Sauce unknown
Have a wonderful day!

\//

 

[warpspeedpetey]

1. How are you going to substantiate that nothing physical can cause itself? It is merely an assumption, plausible, but not necessarily true.

it would need to pre-exist itself. an impossibility.

1. Suppose, it is true what you said. It does not follow that there must be a non-physical cause. It can also be that the phenomenon is uncaused.

thats the ‘always existing matter’ argument.

it violates the second law of thermodynamics. just for starters

1. Since the act of the supposed creation involves physical entities (the created “stuff”), even by your standard it is reasonable to ask for empirical evidence.

the physical ‘stuff’ is the effect, not the cause. the non-physical cause has empirical evidence, the universe.

im refering to people asking for empirical evidence of a non-physical first cause beyond that.

1. Finally, we know of many non-physical entities, namely concepts and ideas. Non of these entities are “active”, they cannot “cause” anything. Therefore, the question arises: “what does it mean that a non-physical entity causes (creates) something physical?”. I am asking about a hypothetical method.

thoughts, concepts and ideas are physical in the sense that they are electrochemical interactions, not existent in and of themselves.

as to the method of creation? we have no experience from which to judge it. so its no suprise that the method is unknown

we can only see it in the big bang.

as to religious belief though, we believe it is an act of G-ds will

 

[Spock]

I would still suggest to scrutinize the first cause argument in a thread of its own. I am amenable to it. Still, since you chose to pursue it here, I think it is polite to answer your points in a very brief manner.

it would need to pre-exist itself. an impossibility.

Temporally pre-existent and causally pre-existent are not the same.

thats the ‘always existing matter’ argument.

it violates the second law of thermodynamics. just for starters

No, it is not. Contrary to the Newtonian absolute time and absolute space Einstien has proven that time does not exist outside the space-time-energy-matter (STEM) environment. And the second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law, not a deterministic one. Time, as we know it, started at the bing bang.

the physical ‘stuff’ is the effect, not the cause. the non-physical cause has empirical evidence, the universe.

im refering to people asking for empirical evidence of a non-physical first cause beyond that.

Nevertheless, physical “stuff” is present. Therefore it is rational to ask for empirical evidence.

thoughts, concepts and ideas are physical in the sense that they are electrochemical interactions, not existent in and of themselves.

It is true that concepts and ideas are manifested in electrochemical interactions. Yet, what they refer to: “besides”, “next to”, “before”, “after”, “good”, “evil”, “one”, “two”, “many”, “beauty”, “justice” etc… are not physical, ontological objects, they are certain attributes of the physical, ontological objects. None of these non-physical entities are “active”, none of them can exert an influence on physical reality.

Some people, who believe in mental powers, extra-sensory perception, telekinesis, etc. have been trying to to influence physical reality by mental powers alone. None of their efforts could withstand rational scrutiny. Obviously, this is not a proof that it is impossible to do so, it just makes it very unlikely. After all, the current physics discovered only 4 forces (gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong nucleonic forces) and all of these are transmitted via subatomic particles (though gravitons are still undiscovered experimentally).

as to the method of creation? we have no experience from which to judge it. so its no suprise that the method is unknown

Indeed. However, when there is an interaction between two entities, there is an interface, which partially belongs to both entities. And since part of that interface is on the physical side, it is a legitimate question to ask of how does it happen.

we can only see it in the big bang.

The big bang is not the “beginning” of the universe, it is merely the beginning of the current state of the universe. Our current physics cannot “pry” into the singularity. All we do is admit, we don’t know.

as to religious belief though, we believe it is an act of G-ds will

Certainly. But that does not answer the “how” it happened, therefore it cannot be counted as an explanation. What you say is translated into: “an unknowable being using unimaginable means made it somehow happen”. That does not qualify as an explanation. Effectively you substitued one unknown with another, where the substitution is declared a “mystery” forever.

Have a nice day.

\//

 

[rookieonedge]

Um, this “garden variety Catholic” is in a pickle. It appears that I’m a cucumber being squashed, so I’ll bid this thread adieu.

Signed,
Garden Variety Catholic from another planet where apples are oranges and everybody is plum crazy around here.

“Ground control to Major Tom. . .”

“Beam me up, Scottie!”

“There’s a disturbance in the Force.”

Philosophers like to reside in the rarified zone, like the stratosphere. We earthlings are the hobbits of the world.
Greetings to Gandalf & company.

Hobbits would rather talk turkey. . . and potatoes. . . and gravy. . .

See you in Rivendell!

 

[Detales]

“Best defence–not be there.” Mr. Miyagi, The Karate Kid

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I would still suggest to scrutinize the first cause argument in a thread of its own. I am amenable to it. Still, since you chose to pursue it here, I think it is polite to answer your points in a very brief manner.

if you care to start one, thats ok, ill be happy to.

Temporally pre-existent and causally pre-existent are not the same.

im not sure how you propose they differ, bu the impossibility is inthe pre-existence.

No, it is not. Contrary to the Newtonian absolute time and absolute space Einstien has proven that time does not exist outside the space-time-energy-matter (STEM) environment. And the second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law, not a deterministic one. Time, as we know it, started at the bing bang.

the violation is in the change from a static state to dynamic state. unless you have a reason that such changes can occur, but not entropic changes, i dont believe we could have had a big bang at all in the implied scheme. change can occur, the BB happened, then why not entropic change?

further the time question is not so settled, at least as far as QM is concerned.

Nevertheless, physical “stuff” is present. Therefore it is rational to ask for empirical evidence.

not so fast, why ‘nevertheless’? how can it be rational to ask for physical evidence of the non-physical? other than the universe itself as the effect of first cause.

It is true that concepts and ideas are manifested in electrochemical interactions. Yet, what they refer to: “besides”, “next to”, “before”, “after”, “good”, “evil”, “one”, “two”, “many”, “beauty”, “justice” etc… are not physical, ontological objects, they are certain attributes of the physical, ontological objects. None of these non-physical entities are “active”, none of them can exert an influence on physical reality.

Some people, who believe in mental powers, extra-sensory perception, telekinesis, etc. have been trying to to influence physical reality by mental powers alone. None of their efforts could withstand rational scrutiny. Obviously, this is not a proof that it is impossible to do so, it just makes it very unlikely. After all, the current physics discovered only 4 forces (gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong nucleonic forces) and all of these are transmitted via subatomic particles (though gravitons are still undiscovered experimentally).

i assume we are agreeing here, i think…

Indeed. However, when there is an interaction between two entities, there is an interface, which partially belongs to both entities. And since part of that interface is on the physical side, it is a legitimate question to ask of how does it happen.

i agree it is a legitimate question, just not one we should expect to have a complete answer for as only 1/2 of the interaction is based in our reality, so to speak.

The big bang is not the “beginning” of the universe, it is merely the beginning of the current state of the universe. Our current physics cannot “pry” into the singularity. All we do is admit, we don’t know.

there was never a singularity, nor is there any shred of evidence for it, at roughly 1x10(-35) we see an expansion, the singularity is an assumption of cause.

further, i dont know of any evidence that shows the BB is not the beginning of the universe, ive heard lots of mutually exclusive hypothesis based on assumption, but no actual evidence.

Certainly. But that does not answer the “how” it happened, therefore it cannot be counted as an explanation.

of course not, why do you think i prefaced it with “we believe”?

What you say is translated into: “an unknowable being using unimaginable means made it somehow happen”. That does not qualify as an explanation. Effectively you substitued one unknown with another, where the substitution is declared a “mystery” forever.

once again, i prefaced it as a religious belief. i said what it was. why the harsh rhetoric?

Have a nice day.

i aint goin’ nowhere

 

[Spock]

if you care to start one, thats ok, ill be happy to.

Would you do the honors? I have seen several varieties of the argument, with subtle differences. I don’t want to err right at the beginning. Plenty of time for that later.

once again, i prefaced it as a religious belief. i said what it was. why the harsh rhetoric?

I apologize. I had no idea that this clarification can be construed as harsh. You see, this is why I somewhat apprehensive. If there is a disagreement, what kinds of words am I allowed to use? The last thing on my mind would be to appear to be antagonistic, but sometimes we shall disagree.

\//

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Would you do the honors? I have seen several varieties of the argument, with subtle differences. I don’t want to err right at the beginning. Plenty of time for that later.

yup!

I apologize. I had no idea that this clarification can be construed as harsh. You see, this is why I somewhat apprehensive. If there is a disagreement, what kinds of words am I allowed to use? The last thing on my mind would be to appear to be antagonistic, but sometimes we shall disagree.

 

[Detales]

That “harsh” exchange brings to mind another dynamic of argumentation on here: it is text. Being text, the primary indicators we use to determine another’s state of mind in a presentation are missing. Those would be tone of voice and body language.

So we have a situation here with text that we might similarly have driving on the road, where we don’t see another driver’s body language or hear their tone of voice as we might with a pedestrian. in the latter case we might usually have the automatic “Oh, sorry!” “No problem,” in the former, we might have “Watch where you are going, you #%%&*#!!”

These missing dynamics also are occasionally revalatory of something else: basic emotional stance. To illustrate this, again an example from the automotive realm: I did a left turn into a gas station once, only to meet one of those oversized diesel pick-up trucks head on. From our relative positions I could not tell if the other driver’s intention was to exit, or to pull up to one of two avaliable pumps, one of which was my own destination. In order to proceed safely, I checked back and forth between the truck and my destination. We negotiated a criss-cross and ended up on two sides of the same pump.

The driver of the truck immediately came at me with some abusive language and said over and over “Don’t you shake your head ate me!” Clearly he mistook my checking back and forth for clearance and safety for a comment on his driving. I could not get a word in edgewise to explain myself, and from some other indicators I decided to drop it rather than argue. It was also clear that this person was predisposed to take signals as adversarial. I wondered how easy it was for him to precipitate problematic emotional situations, and decided that he probably had and will have a rough life with that propensity to judgement.

So if we feel that there is an “attitude” connected with words on here, give the poster a break. The words you are reading may not have been intended to have the spin you read them with.

This points to an interesting statement I once heard: “YOU are the world you wander through.” When I heard it and thought about it, I relaized that a meaning of that statement was thea we tend to look at the world through whatever filter we have adopted as anecessities for dealing with life. Like that fellow at the gas station, it might have been some early dynamic in his family that taught him that everyone is a potential enemy. Another person might have loearned that everyone is their potential friend. In either case, there is room for bot correct and disappointing assesments. But the inital presumption is colored by that basic stance.

I would guess that we each have a whole complex of these that we bring with us even to a friendly discussion. No wonder we have different viewpoints and even folks of the same religion might be widely separated on a scale of goodness, while sorted by name of religion are in the same box. My tendency is to sort by goodness. Actions are louder than dogmas.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Would you do the honors? I have seen several varieties of the argument, with subtle differences. I don’t want to err right at the beginning. Plenty of time for that later.

I apologize. I had no idea that this clarification can be construed as harsh. You see, this is why I somewhat apprehensive. If there is a disagreement, what kinds of words am I allowed to use? The last thing on my mind would be to appear to be antagonistic, but sometimes we shall disagree.

\//

ok its up on the apologetics forum

 

[JDaniel]

Doesn’t it? Disbelief or absence of belief is the lack of belief.

Do you understand now why folks in these fora have a problem communicating? I now have to define “disbelief” for you. In no way shape or form does “disbelief” equate to “lack of belief”.

"dis·be·lief (dsb-lf)
n.
Refusal or reluctance to believe. - FREEE ONLINE DICTIONARY"

If one of us cannot even be honest at the outset, how can we hope to have honest communication?

Theism is the belief in some god or gods. A-theism is the negation of this belief.

And, how does one “negate” something? Not by passively denying it (oxymoron); not by passively not knowing about it. “Negate” is a transitive verb. It is a “direct”, or, “active” activity.

Let’s be precise. There are two kinds of atheists, the implicit ones and the explicit ones.

. . . for a change?

Incorrecto mundo.

An implicit atheist might be someone who has never been exposed to the concept of a god. Or someone, whose mental faculties are insufficient to comprehend this concept. By definition neither can profess the belief in a god, either because they never heard of it, or because they cannot comprehend it. Therefore they are both atheists.

**im·plic·it (m-plst)
adj.

1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: “Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self” Patricia Hampl.
3. Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning: implicit trust.**- FREE ONLINE DICTIONARY

You can’t just make up your own definitions, man. You can’t just substitute words where you want to in order to support your theories. “Atheism” CANNOT be implied except in the case of someone who “chooses” to deny the existence of God (or, gods) and that “choice” is known. And, even in this sense, it is not totally “implicit” as it can clearly be seen, heard and noticed by any viewer, listener within ear-, or, eye-, shot. But, at least, if I saw you walking down the street and was pretty sure you hadn’t changed your mind, I could think that atheism was implied in your personage.

Choose another word.

The explicit atheists heard of the concept, are able to understand it, . . .

Debatable.

but for one reason or another do not believe that there is an entity corresponding to this concept.

Well, one out of however many. Good job!

This is the way I use these words.

And, this is the primary reason real discussion bogs down on these pages.

Have a wonderful day.

You, too.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Agreed.

Indeed, atheists are very loosely coupled group. Not all will subscribe to same ethical standard. But that is not what I was talking about. The rule of “Thou shalt not murder” is the corollary of a very simple and secular concept, the reverse golden rule. It is an ancient formula: “do not do unto others that you would not want them to do onto you”.

Sorry:

“golden rule
n.
The biblical teaching that one should behave toward others as one would have others behave toward oneself.”

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

More, from the same source . . .

"ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. golden rule - any important rule; “the golden rule of teaching is to be clear”
prescript, rule - prescribed guide for conduct or action
2. Golden Rule - a command based on Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount; “Whatsoever ye would that men do unto you, do you even so unto them” (Matthew 7:12)
commandment, precept, teaching - a doctrine that is taught; “the teachings of religion”; “he believed all the Christian precepts” "

This is just too easy. :dancing:

There is no reference to any deity here, just a basic concept: “to live and let live”. I would not want you to hurt me, therefore I will not hurt you. I would like you to respect me, therefore I will respect you. It is the formula of reciprocity.

I guess not.

It does not matter that not all the atheists will obey this rule. After all the command against murder established by God was not adhered to by all believers either.

You are making a sweeping statement without proof. Such a statement is makable about a singular person, who it could be attested is a “believer”, but, such a broad and sweeping statement is intellectual dishonesty.

The desirability of a standard is not measured by the number of adherents.

I’m sure there’s an “implicit” slap against Catholics, Christians and/or theists in that statement.

Have a great day.

You, too.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Oops, my mistake, I answered this in response to Andy, a few posts above. Would you please check it out?

Yep. I did. See below . . .

I agree that the Catholic rules for sexual conduct are valid for Catholics (even though many will not follow them to the letter).

Again, could you be more precise, please? “Valid?”

However they are not applicable to others, since they are not established in a secular manner.

There have been a plethora of posts herein that have pointed out a plethora of not-good (bad) effects, out there, from the “organization and/or individuals for sexual freedom” in abundance, out there. Clearly, higher divorce rates, higher abortion rates, higher VD rates, higher rates of psychological problems, probably more lonliness, more regret, more depression, more secularism, and so on. From what anyone can glean, upon reading many of the related posts, even atheists don’t disagree too vociferously when confronted with statistical facts.

Why would you even want to defend such practices?

Have a nice day.

You, too.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Um, this “garden variety Catholic” is in a pickle. It appears that I’m a cucumber being squashed, so I’ll bid this thread adieu.

Signed,
Garden Variety Catholic from another planet where apples are oranges and everybody is plum crazy around here.

“Ground control to Major Tom. . .”

“Beam me up, Scottie!”

“There’s a disturbance in the Force.”

Philosophers like to reside in the rarified zone, like the stratosphere. We earthlings are the hobbits of the world.
Greetings to Gandalf & company.

Hobbits would rather talk turkey. . . and potatoes. . . and gravy. . .

See you in Rivendell!

I have a very important question for you: “Do you believe in singularities?”



jd

 

[Spock]

yup!

Thank you. I am looking forward to it.

dont worry, im rough and tumble. worse has been said.

my point was, that once prefaced as a religious belief as opposed to a purely rational position, the clarification wasn’t necessary. i assumed it would be implied by the preface.

I understand that. But the words you used: “harsh rhetoric” indicated me that I was out of line. And since I wish to adhere to the proper conduct of the board, I felt that I did something wrong. Should I have just left it unanswered?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thank you. I am looking forward to it.

I understand that. But the words you used: “harsh rhetoric” indicated me that I was out of line. And since I wish to adhere to the proper conduct of the board, I felt that I did something wrong. Should I have just left it unanswered?

no, you just didnt need to launch into an explanation that implied i didnt know the rational ramifications of the statement.

you were talking down to me. intentionally or not.

but thats neither here nor there, a thick skin is necessary here. much worse is said.

but lets leave the subject alone. its not important.

i really only care about rational argumentation. all this girly talk about feelings is getting on my nerves.

 

[Detales]

“The desirability of a standard is not measured by the number of adherents.” ~ Spock

I’m sorry, JD, but would you point out the implicit slap in this statement? My reading is that a standard is a standard because it is a measure of right action not dependent on who does or doesn’t adhere to it. It is right in and of itself as a statement of guidance.

Dictionaries certainly are a good source of immediatly useful definitions. But certainly if we look at a pocket Merriam-Webster as compaered to the OED, we might get a more complete picture of a definition and its history, all pertinent to the continuum of the origin, usage, and perhapse decay of a word, and certaily its transformations over time. So, though the Biblical referent you quoted might most easily be the cultural norm at this moment in time and in this place, it is certailnly not the only example ever used anywhere. As "proof," I submit the following url. 

[religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm)

I would further state that the Golden Rule is, most certainly by virtue of its utterance by Jesus in Luke and Mathew in different forms, the best know statement of this rule to our ears. It is yet a common historical utterance in its other forms in other systems.  It is clear that the original intent of the statement in any form is the promotion of the ideas both of consistency and of reciprocity. That is to say that though a christianist reader would certainly attribute the quality of intent inherent in the Rule to Divinity, that Divinity however aprehended in space and time has resulted in similarly stated formula of very similar usefulness and acceptability. Not everyone ever has heard the words of Jesus, yet God is universally Present.

If your intent is to establish exclusivity and narrowness, then we might say something like "we are talking here of the Golden Rule as stated in Luke 6:13 as distinct from Mathew 7:12 and versions of non-Biblical origin."

 

[Detales]

“woo-ooo; Feelings, nothing more thatn feelings…” Morris Albert

 

[Spock]

Sorry:

“golden rule
n.
The biblical teaching that one should behave toward others as one would have others behave toward oneself.”

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

More, from the same source . . .

"ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. golden rule - any important rule; “the golden rule of teaching is to be clear”
prescript, rule - prescribed guide for conduct or action
2. Golden Rule - a command based on Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount; “Whatsoever ye would that men do unto you, do you even so unto them” (Matthew 7:12)
commandment, precept, teaching - a doctrine that is taught; “the teachings of religion”; “he believed all the Christian precepts” "

This is just too easy. :dancing:

Maybe you missed it: I was talking about the inverse golden rule. And the original golden rule has been articulated well before Jesus. It was present in almost all ethical systems, religious and otherwise - therefore it is rightfully called a secular concept.

I’m sure there’s an “implicit” slap against Catholics, Christians and/or theists in that statement.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

\//

 

[AndyF]

Spock:

My take.

The differences seem trivial.

God implies that His servants while doing their duty doing things constructive and inspirational according to His Law should take additional care in doing “unto others…”. There is action and movement forward in a social context.

The negative does not fully convey duty, and implies the liberty of indifference,individual isolation and self focus. But then that would be consistent with a Godless world. There IS nothing remaining but self gain. The finite world of the godless offers one reward for everyone regardless of merit.

It does not matter that not all the atheists will obey this rule. After all the command against murder established by God was not adhered to by all believers either.

If they collectively obey the rule of chaos, would that matter? If so under what precept that they obey in commune is it justified.?

But it is good for the inquisitive to come here. 0 Faith is a start on the scale of 10. Most are polite and of sincere purpose. They don’t like playing the odds and who is to blame them.

Practical people they are all the same.

Andy