How do we approach a new proposition?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Post Reply
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:23 pm

Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:28 pm
Actually, my best estimate is a modified gap theory. The Earth would then be millions/billions, but mankind as such only a few thousand.

Another possible theory is Omphalos (Belly-button theory), though that is somewhat solipcistic and lends itself to ridicule, most notably the trickster defense and the last thursday defense.

But that is, again, a question I hold in abeyance pending further evidence one way or the other.
I think that you are confusing "theory" as simply an opinion like "I have a theory that the moon is made of green cheese" with the scientific meaning of theory - From Wiki:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
Your "gap theory" falls well short of the above.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:30 pm

Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:36 pm
Now, you go on to object that you "don't live in a Christian society, I live in a democracy where the major religion is Christianity. There's a big difference." Fine. Wonderful. Then take one of those moral principles you espoused earlier... Say, that you try to live in harmony with your neighbors. I defy you to build that moral rule from first principles. Or from anything concrete at all, without either falling back on religion or going off into utter absurdity. Go on, explain why it is "good" to live in harmony with one's neighbors.

It's good to live in harmony with our neighbors because...
It feels good to me. I can justify it using my own set of morals, just like you can with religion. I don't need religion, although you might for whatever reasons you may think you have.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:35 pm

Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:28 pm
Another possible theory is Omphalos (Belly-button theory), though that is somewhat solipcistic and lends itself to ridicule, most notably the trickster defense and the last thursday defense.

But that is, again, a question I hold in abeyance pending further evidence one way or the other.
I'll bite, what are the trickster and last Thursday defence? Do you think that we evolved from the great apes Og? Do you have any problems with what this article and short video presents? http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/in ... -evolution
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:40 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:30 pm
Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:36 pm
Now, you go on to object that you "don't live in a Christian society, I live in a democracy where the major religion is Christianity. There's a big difference." Fine. Wonderful. Then take one of those moral principles you espoused earlier... Say, that you try to live in harmony with your neighbors. I defy you to build that moral rule from first principles. Or from anything concrete at all, without either falling back on religion or going off into utter absurdity. Go on, explain why it is "good" to live in harmony with one's neighbors.

It's good to live in harmony with our neighbors because...
It feels good to me. I can justify it using my own set of morals, just like you can with religion. I don't need religion, although you might for whatever reasons you may think you have.
So it's purely subjective, and applies only to you. And when your neighbor dumps his garbage on your front garden, you can't complain, because that may be in accordance with his personal set of morals.

After all, he might be a Pythagorean, and it's not like he's helping you unload freight.

In other words, your morals are nonsense. QED.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:45 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:23 pm
Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:28 pm
Actually, my best estimate is a modified gap theory. The Earth would then be millions/billions, but mankind as such only a few thousand.

Another possible theory is Omphalos (Belly-button theory), though that is somewhat solipcistic and lends itself to ridicule, most notably the trickster defense and the last thursday defense.

But that is, again, a question I hold in abeyance pending further evidence one way or the other.
I think that you are confusing "theory" as simply an opinion like "I have a theory that the moon is made of green cheese" with the scientific meaning of theory - From Wiki:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
Your "gap theory" falls well short of the above.
"Theory" as used above is not a "scientific" theory, as it does not address a scientific question. It addresses a question of hermeneutics.

A theory addresses a problem or paradox, provides an explanation of currently known data, and offers a prediction for results of future testing. Anything that is both explanative and predictive can be called a theory.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:47 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:35 pm
Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:28 pm
Another possible theory is Omphalos (Belly-button theory), though that is somewhat solipcistic and lends itself to ridicule, most notably the trickster defense and the last thursday defense.

But that is, again, a question I hold in abeyance pending further evidence one way or the other.
I'll bite, what are the trickster and last Thursday defence? Do you think that we evolved from the great apes Og? Do you have any problems with what this article and short video presents? http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/in ... -evolution
I typically do not click exterior links. If you can't put it into your own words, then there is no need for us to discuss it. I don't argue by proxy.

If you open a new thread, we can address the age of the earth.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:45 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:40 pm
So it's purely subjective, and applies only to you.
Absolutely!
And when your neighbor dumps his garbage on your front garden, you can't complain, because that may be in accordance with his personal set of morals.
Nope, he still has to comply with local laws.
In other words, your morals are nonsense. QED.
Not as nonsensical as an invisible, muted arbiter.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:49 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:47 pm
I typically do not click exterior links. If you can't put it into your own words, then there is no need for us to discuss it. I don't argue by proxy.
Explaining the Theory of Biological Evolution is not an easy topic to put into a short summary. Do you believe that we evolved from great apes and that we are all primates?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:59 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:45 pm
A theory addresses a problem or paradox, provides an explanation of currently known data, and offers a prediction for results of future testing. Anything that is both explanative and predictive can be called a theory.
Like today is sunny and I expect tomorrow will be to. Is that a theory? If you restrict your hermeneutics to the Bible by applying your gap creationist opinion, I would accept that and not be particularly interested. If you are trying to make out that you have a scientific explanation for restricting human existence to 6,000 years, I would like to see your evidence and logic about that.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:31 pm

SEG wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:45 am
Og3 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:40 pm
So it's purely subjective, and applies only to you.
Absolutely!
But you also say
And when your neighbor dumps his garbage on your front garden, you can't complain, because that may be in accordance with his personal set of morals.
Nope, he still has to comply with local laws.
So you want it to be objective, as well.

Laws, after all, are merely codified morals.
In other words, your morals are nonsense. QED.
Not as nonsensical as an invisible, muted arbiter.
Now, that's just a pejorative. I'm showing you that your method is bad -- you're accepting a contradiction in terms, namely, subjective morals that become "laws" and then apply to other people. You're merely throwing out flamebait.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Post Reply