Self-Defence Mechanisms in Nature.

[inocente]

Intellectual honesty should compel you to compare the probability of **irrational, **purposeless particles **fortuitously **creating rational, purposeful persons…

The probability of the rational Creator is incalculably greater than **irrational **creative particles because the success of science demonstrates **the power of reason **whereas **irrational particles have been shown to produce precisely nothing except irrational **permutations of atomic particles.

We are directly aware of the creative power of our rational mind in stark contrast to the zero evidence for the creative power of **irrational **particles…

In the interests of rigor please summarize the math by which you compared and contrasted those two probabilities. Unless of course you just mean that’s the way your gut feels.

 

[tonyrey]

*Intellectual honesty should compel you to compare the probability of **irrational, ***

It may produce a pain in the gut to discover that many rational beliefs and conclusions - even in science - are not based on statistical calculations…

The fact remains that we are directly aware of the creative power of our rational mind in stark contrast to the zero evidence for the creative power of **irrational **particles (which are not regarded by Christians as having created everything - even persons).

 

[inocente]

It may produce a pain in the gut to discover that many rational beliefs and conclusions - even in science - are not based on statistical calculations…

Ah, so when you recommended the other poster work out the probabilities, you hadn’t actually done it yourself. Fair enough. :coffeeread:

The fact remains that we are directly aware of the creative power of our rational mind in stark contrast to the zero evidence for the creative power of **irrational **particles (which are not regarded by Christians as having created everything - even persons).

No one ever argues that a pile of particles produces intelligence, so your comparison is, putting it mildly, a bit eccentric.

But this is off-topic. You were responding to wanstronian’s post about comparing probabilities, which in turn was a reply to jd’s point about the worryingly large number of people who don’t have a clue how to work out probabilities or even what they signify.

 

[wanstronian]

Intellectual honesty should compel you to compare the probability of **irrational, **purposeless particles **fortuitously **creating rational, purposeful persons…

Indeed - and it should compel you to compare this probability to that of the existence of a supernatural creator - that was my point. The probability of the latter is zero by calculation, logic, and empirical investigation; and only rises above zero when estimated by subjective measurement, by those who want it to be true.

The probability of the rational Creator is incalculably greater than **irrational **creative particles because the success of science demonstrates **the power of reason **whereas **irrational particles have been shown to produce precisely nothing except irrational **permutations of atomic particles.

Sorry, but it doesn’t matter how you dress it up, the argument for ignorance is not a valid response. Calculate the probability of a “rational Creator”, showing your workings and that those workings are objective, then we can make a proper comparison.

The second part of your sentence, “**irrational particles have been shown to produce precisely nothing except irrational **permutations of atomic particless” requires substantiation. Please oblige.

 

[tonyrey]

Intellectual honesty should compel you to compare the probability of irrational, purposeless particles fortuitously creating rational, purposeful persons…

You ignore the fact that our primary datum - and sole certainty - is the existence of our minds yet you blindly opt for the primacy of particles which aren’t even aware they exist! It is not they but the mind that calculates probability and is responsible for logic and empirical investigation. The logical conclusion of materialism is that “you” don’t even exist: everything consists of atomic particles which cause and “explain” everything without exception - even thoughts!

The probability of the rational Creator is incalculably greater than irrational creative particles because the success of science demonstrates the power of reason whereas irrational particles have been shown to produce precisely nothing except irrational permutations of atomic particles.

Sorry, but it doesn’t matter how you dress it up, the argument for ignorance is not a valid response.

Ad hominem which merely evades the issue.

Calculate the probability of a “rational Creator”, showing your workings and that those workings are objective, then we can make a proper comparison.

Since you prize statistical calculations above logic based on the power of the mind the onus is on you to demonstrate **how **you calculate the probability of an “irrational creator”, i.e. matter, showing your workings and that those workings are objective, then we can make a proper comparison… I don’t make any such claim because it is specious.

The second part of your sentence, “irrational particles have been shown to produce precisely nothing except irrational permutations of atomic particles” requires substantiation. Please oblige.

Since you make the absurd claim that irrational particles have been shown to produce everything in the universe the onus is on you to justify that claim. I make no such claim.

 

[tonyrey]

conclusions - even in science - are not based on statistical calculations…
Ah, so when you recommended the other poster work out the probabilities, you hadn’t actually done it yourself. Fair enough.

I don’t believe in specious calculations the other poster hasn’t even produced.

It remains that we are directly aware of the creative power of our rational

mind in stark contrast to the zero evidence for the creative power of **irrational **particles (which are not regarded by Christians as having created everything - even persons).
No one ever argues that a pile of particles produces intelligence, so your comparison is, putting it mildly, a bit eccentric.

Don’t you believe - like all materialists without exception - that science can in principle explain all events within the universe, given that you reject the supernatural?

But this is off-topic. You were responding to wanstronian’s post about comparing probabilities, which in turn was a reply to jd’s point about the worryingly large number of people who don’t have a clue how to work out probabilities or even what they signify.

I don’t believe in specious calculations. Probability is not restricted to statistics.

 

[wanstronian]

Well, of my work commitment, family commitment, parish commitment and among all the intellectual contributions from other CAF forumers that enrich my learning, your remarks do not really warrant the merits of my time to respond to.

Ah, so that’s the reason you haven’t responded!

It is not my job to deal with your academic laziness.

It’s always heartening when one’s opponent resorts to plain insult. It usually means they know they’re beaten. As you haven’t actually addressed any of my points, just called my integrity and knowledge into question, I have to assume now that you’re just blustering.

Here are some elementary resources to understand the basis of logic, reason, analysis, deduction, induction, analogy and dialectic,

You probably should understand, being so intelligent, that atheists are unlikely to rely on religious websites for authority on such things as logic and reason! Nevertheless, I thank you for your suggestions, which are, by the way, quite unnecessary. In fact, I feel compelled to point out that, if you have learnt about these disciplines from religious websites, you have probably been miseducated.

in case Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hume, and the others are not suitable to your reading level yet.

More common insult, based on absolutely no knowledge of my levels of academic knowledge or understanding! And you accused me of ad hominem!! (by the way, you still haven’t pointed out where you perceive my ad hom to have been committed - should I take it that you have since realised this was a false accusation?)

And top job on name-dropping, well done you. While we’re at it, I have a couple of names that I think are particularly pertinent to your posts on this thread: David Dunning and Justin Kruger.

But I do appreciate your contribution. Your remarks reflect your inner psyche which is full of hatred interfering with logical mental operation, lacking clarity and consistency of thoughts. That reminds me of who I was before my baptism and makes me more appreciative of where I am now.

Again, this is what an ad hominem really is. You have totally failed to address my comments, preferring instead to make assumptions about me and my “psyche,” and using these false assumptions as the reason why I must be wrong.

I’d like to remind you, as you seem to have hurled so many fallacies my way that you may have forgotten the content of my first post to you - I pointed out that instead of addressing Rossum’s arguments, you were zeroing in on a single statistic that he provided, saying it was wrong. This in itself was a red herring, and since that post you have done nothing but continue to pursue side-issues. I wonder why that can be… although the fact that Rossum subsequently provided a citation for his statistic suggests a reason!

However, your dodging of Rossum’s points are not my concern. I note with satisfaction that you have still failed to address my very first point to you! You are still arguing against a straw man of your own building!

 

[inocente]

I don’t believe in specious calculations the other poster hasn’t even produced.

It was your claim.

*Don’t you believe - like all materialists without exception - that science can in principle explain all events within the universe, given that you reject the supernatural? *

I’m not a materialist. But yes, to rule out forever any explanation of an event or class of events amounts to an exaltation of ignorance. Why would I as a Christian want to bow down to a god of ignorance?

(Apologies for using the word “amounts” there, given your strong aversion to any form of calculation )

I don’t believe in specious calculations. Probability is not restricted to statistics.

Okey-dokey, but as I said, off topic.

 

[wanstronian]

You ignore the fact that our primary datum - and sole certainty - is the existence of our minds yet you blindly opt for the primacy of particles which aren’t even aware they exist! It is not they but the mind that calculates probability and is responsible for logic and empirical investigation. The logical conclusion of materialism is that “you” don’t even exist: everything consists of atomic particles which cause and “explain” everything without exception - even thoughts!

Yawn - same old Argument from Ignorance.

Ad hominem which merely evades the issue.

You still haven’t learnt what an ad hominem is.

Since you prize statistical calculations above logic based on the power of the mind the onus is on you to demonstrate **how **you calculate the probability of an “irrational creator”, i.e. matter, showing your workings and that those workings are objective, then we can make a proper comparison… I don’t make any such claim because it is specious.

Since you make the absurd claim that irrational particles have been shown to produce everything in the universe the onus is on you to justify that claim. I make no such claim.

Now, the shifting of burden of proof - this is what I mean about your dishonesty

(A demonstration of how your statement is yet another unphilosophical ad hominem which can be used by anyone for any purpose - with appropriate substitutions - and does precisely nothing to further the discussion.)

I note with satisfaction that you have no actual response to my point.

An unsubstantiated assertion which fails to refute my statement. Are you unaware of the power of your mind?

Wow - I didn’t think you could get more evasive. I was wrong.

You think that acknowledging the power of the mind in some way substantiates your claim that a supernatural creator donated rationality to us? Talk about a non sequitur! Add that to your huge and growing list of fallacious debating methods.

A paragraph which consists solely of aspersions on the character of the other person and are used as an excuse for opting out of the discussion. I advise you to retract those statements which are not only false but infringements of the forum rules.

They’re not aspersions, they’re observations. You have never justified a single claim you have ever made. When challenged, you resort to fallacious arguments. It’s affirming for me that you have to resort to such tactics instead of actually debating the subject, but it’s also very frustrating, as I’ve said before.

What you believe is up to you, but the way you argue for it is abysmal. I have pointed out your dishonest methods time and again, and you still continue with them. I’m not opting out of honest debate, but such a thing is clearly impossible where you are involved. Thanks for your advice - consider it ignored; if you want evidence of the things I accuse you of, I’m happy to trawl back through our previous posts and provide it.

From now on, I’d prefer it if you left me alone. If you want to try and convince yourself that it’s because your arguments are superior to mine, go right ahead. I couldn’t care less.

 

[tonyrey]

Yawn - same old Argument from Ignorance.

You still haven’t learnt what an ad hominem is.

Now, the shifting of burden of proof - this is what I mean about your dishonesty

I note with satisfaction that you have no actual response to my point.

Wow - I didn’t think you could get more evasive. I was wrong.

You think that acknowledging the power of the mind in some way substantiates your claim that a supernatural creator donated rationality to us? Talk about a non sequitur! Add that to your huge and growing list of fallacious debating methods.

They’re not aspersions, they’re observations. You have never justified a single claim you have ever made. When challenged, you resort to fallacious arguments. It’s affirming for me that you have to resort to such tactics instead of actually debating the subject, but it’s also very frustrating, as I’ve said before.

What you believe is up to you, but the way you argue for it is abysmal. I have pointed out your dishonest methods time and again, and you still continue with them. I’m not opting out of honest debate, but such a thing is clearly impossible where you are involved. Thanks for your advice - consider it ignored; if you want evidence of the things I accuse you of, I’m happy to trawl back through our previous posts and provide it.

From now on, I’d prefer it if you left me alone. If you want to try and convince yourself that it’s because your arguments are superior to mine, go right ahead. I couldn’t care less.

Your posts are flagrant violations of the Forum rules.

 

[tonyrey]

It was your claim.

I’m not a materialist. But yes, to rule out forever any explanation of an event or class of events amounts to an exaltation of ignorance. Why would I as a Christian want to bow down to a god of ignorance?

(Apologies for using the word “amounts” there, given your strong aversion to any form of calculation )

Okey-dokey, but as I said, off topic.

To deny the supernatural is materialism.

 

[tonyrey]

Your understanding of Buddhism is faulty. All of existence arises because of prior conditions.

No response!

 

[inocente]

To deny the supernatural is materialism.

Nope. I’m a monotheist, which means believing in God, not in fairies, zombies, ghosts in machines and other nonsense.

btw when did you first realize God appointed you to judge me?

 

[tonyrey]

Nope. I’m a monotheist, which means believing in God, not in fairies, zombies, ghosts in machines and other nonsense.

What does Providence entail?

 

[inocente]

What does Providence entail?

Never heard the word in Baptist circles unless you mean the American city. Personally I think the notion that God intervenes in the world is unnecessary, unsupportable and wrongheaded.

 

[tonyrey]

Never heard the word in Baptist circles unless you mean the American city. Personally I think the notion that God intervenes in the world is unnecessary, unsupportable and wrongheaded.

The notion that God never intervenes in the world is contrary to the teaching of Jesus that His followers will perform miracles, receive charismatic gifts and answers to prayer. The inspiration of Scripture, the prophecies and the Incarnation itself were direct and interventions by God.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Persistent uncharitable comments =

Closed.