b. absolve the Creator from being a negligent parent?
Excellent question!!!
Across the span of twenty-years have I endeavored to answer that very question. And yes, I have both answered that question and questioned my answer to that question. However, what I am now questioning is whether or not I can provide an answer which will satisfy your mind like my mind is now mostly satisfied.
Next, I then question whether or not I should provide my answer. After all, the satisfaction that I derive from my answer is founded upon twenty-years of intermittent examination and experience. As a result, that intellectual journey in the pursuit of a logical conclusion is a part of why my answer is satisfactory to me.
So, I must ask: Do you want my answer or would you prefer to know why that question should be answered?
Hello stranger:)
This post evidences receipt of your latest reply.
Shortly, I will address your contentions with an alternative written explanation.
(I need some time to consider your conclusions. I don’t simply disagree for the sake of disagreement.)
Note: Call me stubborn, but don’t call me inconsiderate:)
It is an empirical theory, meaning it is based on experimentation.
Thought experiments and hence not empirical!
You deluded yourself because of preference for a different explanation, is what I'm reading.
Your inference is derived from the imagination of your mind, is what I infer.
Again, why do you waste our time with futility?
If you disagree with my conclusions it is because you believe I am ignorant of the subject. If I examine the evidence you submit, written evidence that is, you assert that I am deluded if I submit a conclusion which contradicts yours. Either way, you are failing to debate the subject and are shifting your argument back and forth betwixt what you call ignorance and/or delusion on my part. This is not how a rational adult conducts logical debate. It is how a religious zealot protects his faith from scrutiny.
(I too can argue ad hominem.)
You missed the point. Evolution causes divergence in populations.
You don’t understand the subject term of your assertion.
Evolution is an abstract term. It is not the cause or effect of that which it describes.
Asserting that evolution causes divergence in populations is analogous to asserting that democracy causes the divergence of government.
Dogs are diverged from wolves, and specifically certain breeds of dogs cannot naturally interbreed with wolves, or other types of dogs due to physical barriers (size difference).
This is not a contradiction of my assertions.
Evolution works because a mutation is selected for, or a specific allele, and this shapes the population.
Mutation shapes the population of what species? You are not providing any evidence that mutations cause genetic incompatibility within a species.
In the case of dogs and wolves, dogs have totally different fur, skeletal proportions, breeding cycles, and behaviour.
So, are you asserting that dogs and wolves can’t interbreed either naturally or artificially because they are not genetically compatible?
If we had no idea where dogs came from we'd assume that each breed was a different species and apart from wolves, due to morphology.
Agreed! Your camp would assume morphology as an alternative theory to protect the theory of Evolution. After all, the theory of evolution is absolutely irrefutable.
Try researching canid evolution for wolf evolution.
Funny!
In a vain effort to direct me to accept, as truth, your evolutionary claims, you are directing me to research evolution for wolf evolution, all of which evidenced by a timeline chart which is nothing more than another theory formulated to conform to the theory of evolution.
Perhaps I should direct you to research the bible of god for the existence of god.
Evolution accounts for diversification, changes in allele frequencies in a population, and speciation. You are mistaken.
Okay, then I suppose that you also think that the theory of evolution does not account for the origin of species; if I am mistaken as you claim.
Whatever you call yourself, you are incorrect on many fronts.
Don’t feel too lowly of yourself because I understand your opinions are rarely correct on any front. Otherwise you would not continue to demonstrate sophomoric inferential skills of deductive and inductive reasoning.
As I said before, denying evolution is like defending a flat Earth. There's just no way that the genetic, molecular, fossil, anatomical, and experimental evidence is all a coincidence supporting the same thing.
Agreed, the absence of evidence for the origin of species!
That's because you don't know much about the subject.
The very beginning of life dealt with primitive protocells and horizontal gene transfer.
Great, an un-testable hypothesis in support of a theory!
There was no breeding to speak of and you could say that we had a soup of mutts. Everything descending from that transitioned to a less hard-to-trace inheritance, and we got to your basic eukaryotic life which at this point had more emphasis on diversification in the way we know now. In other words, live diversifies like branches on a tree, and eventually the branches cannot interbreed due to more and more accumulated genetic differences producing sterile offspring. That's how it works.
While I am chuckling, I must ask the question:
How many theories or hypotheses are necessary to validate a theory of religious proportions such as Evolutionary theory?
Go ahead and include geological, cosmological, and metaphysical theories in your final answer.
The illegal Mexican immigrants who have sought and found refuge in the U.S are not fleeing the debauchery that plagues Mexico. They are spreading the debauchery into the U.S. Consequently, they are debauching, following invasion, the U.S. to make it just like the land they left.
Do they not fly the Mexican flag in the U.S.? Yes, just like the fly it in Mexico, in the front of a vermin infested residence wherein twenty people split the cost of rent of a two room and bath shack which is owned by some moronic liberal seeking to prevent a foreclosure from his favored WallStreet Bank! (There are some conservatives who are equally guilty of the same. Maybe they are closet liberals who are too afraid of being hostile toward foreign invaders. All for the sake of exploiting a gaggle of illegal, Mexican immigrants to protect their social status and a cherished ‘Credit score’!)
What you mean to say is that you know of no empirical evidence for evolution.
No! Evolution is not a sensory experience. It is, however, a theory that is derived from an application of reason.
Of course, if you research it, you'd find that over the last ten thousand years humanity has evolved wolves into dogs, feral cats into kittens, chickens from wild fowl, pigeons, cattle, all manner of animals, and we've taken simple grasses and turned them into corn, rye, wheat, and so on.
Unfortunately, I wasted my time examining a large body of supposed evidence for evolution. Consequently I am aware of the root problem with the theory as well as the fallacious abstractions of the proponents of the theory.
Let’s tackle your examples of the evidence for evolution beginning with wolves and dogs.
Dogs are a variety of wolves; as such, they can interbreed.
Where is the evidence that they, wolves, have slowly and incrementally evolved from some other species which is not genetically compatible for interbreeding?
Should we therefore imagine that the evidence has not been discovered though it must exist?
Btw, the theory of evolution was formulated to explain the origin of species and not the variants of a biological family.
(Consider this a precursor of the logical hurdles you must overcome in order to logically persuade me that the theory of evolution explains, with evidence, the origin of species.)
Reminder: I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. I am however one who is convinced that both camps rely solely upon fallacious arguments to advance their views. None of which means you do as well. It merely means that you must appeal to sound reason in order to validate a conclusion I can accept on the grounds of truth and reason.
Think of it this way, I think that all life originates from one life source. But nobody has yet to explain, with empirical evidence, the how and why of all other forms of life which are not genetically capable of interbreeding with the original source.
Again, it doesn't matter whether my statement comes off as opinion it is still a fact.
Yes, your statement is a fact. But it just doesn’t have any logical connection with reasonable discourse. Specifically:
…trying to refute evolution is like trying to defend a flat Earth.”
The Earth is a tangible object. The theory of evolution is an assertion. One does not analyze the theory of evolution like the Earth is analyzed. Blah, blah blah!
Your analogy would be less illogical if you were to assert:
…trying to refute evolution is like trying to refute a spherical Earth.”
Yet it too is an illogical comparison, despite the modification.
Now for a logical comparison the following suffices:
…trying to refute evolution is like trying to refute the Big Bang.”
I know you believe that the theory of evolution is irrefutable.Therefore why do you waste our time with futility? It is not as though you question your belief. And nor is it as though my belief is known. However you can know this of me: Most Evolutionists and Creationists are prejudicially faithful to their ignorance.
I'm not disputing evolution, like a spherical earth I am saying that it is beyond doubt because so much supports it. Try going to the produce section of a grocery store. That is evolution, with all the cultivars made from totally different native species.
Evolution is not an empirical observation. Furthermore, cultivars denote artificial and not natural selection; unless of course you subscribe to the theory that all species originate from artificial selection.
It doesn't matter how you want to frame what he asked you, trying to refute evolution is like trying to defend a flat Earth. You can't "win" at it because you've chosen the wrong position.
It is purely your opinion that that analogy is valid. None of which is an argument that validates your position or invalidates my position.
Getting back to our Earth example, we've been in space, seen the Earth from afar, sent probes to other worlds, the issue is settled and it is assumed that the evidence speaks well enough for itself that we don't need to explain how seeing Earth from afar validates its spherical nature.
By disputing evolution you're in the same position but simply aren't aware of it yet.
My previous statement still stands.
Are you thinking that evolution is a subject of observation? If so, what are its attributes outside its written definition?
Is this an invite to refute the inferences of which you already believe are irrefutable?
If so, then there is no point in wasting my time attempting to overcome your belief of the irrefutability of evolutionary theory.
You have assumed an absolute and therefore are not subject to considering contradictory propositions.
Essentially, you believe the debate is over. I on the other hand assert that the debate is now rationally impossible because of the absolute nature of your camp’s opinion.
Furthermore, what you are asking me to refute is thus:
The proponents of evolutionary theory believe the theory is irrefutable.
Ergo, that is why you continue to claim that such and such is evidence of evolution without arguing why such and such is evidence of evolution.
In this case I'm talking about beliefs that are held before one hears about evolution, specifically which can affect how a person responds to it.
Then they are, simply, convictions. There is no need to modify the term ‘conviction’ to express your thought.
‘Conviction with prejudice’ is a better term.
It's really not that complicated.
No kidding! But it is a fine piece of sophistry.
Let me now apply your description according to its logical contrary, post-conviction: beliefs that are held after one hears about evolution, specifically which affect how a person responds to it.
Pre-conviction?
This is an excellent example of a hyphenated perversion of both logic and the English language.
It is nearly identical to pre-knowledge. And it is identical with pre-belief.
How can one know today what it is he/she shall believe tomorrow? If this is possible we could use another hyphenated perversion and couple the terms post-belief or post-conviction.
My question was neither hypothetical nor irrelevant.
Then strike the term “if” from your assertion/question. Until you do, it is hypothetical.
Furthermore, strike the terms “then is it”. Until then, it is also a rhetorical question.
Lastly, it is irrelevant because it is does not the answer the question of this debate. Why? We are not debating the purpose of taxation. We are debating whether or not the attribute “legalized theft” is predicable of taxation in truth.
Theft is not a payment, taxes are a payment. If someone breaks into your home and takes your money they are not going to then mow your lawn and take out your garbage afterward. The reason you don't have a choice to pay taxes is because as long as you live in this country you are benefiting from the services provided by the government.
Again, we are not debating the purpose/s of taxation. What do you not understand about debating a proposition?
The reason you don't have a choice to pay taxes is because as long as you live in this country you are benefiting from the services provided by the government.
Perfect, you are now on record of admitting that taxation is theft, by inference. Clearly, you are aware of the fact that taxation is theft. Consequently all you are doing is obfuscating ‘theft’ by renaming it ‘taxation’. How is this so?
Simple, “you don't have a choice to pay taxes”!
Forego your inclination to again argue the purpose of taxation in order to negate ‘theft’ as an attribute of taxation.
The foundation of the U.S. is built upon freedom from taxation, hence the war of independence.
Clearly, the King of England, George, was willing to kill taxpayers in order to benefit the taxpayers. Mind you, all of which was tax-payer funded.
Therefore, he stole from others in order to steal from more.
You are assuming the truth of your conclusion without proving the conclusion. Hence you are “begging the question”.
You must prove that the evidence is proof of something that is not proof of anything else.
Claiming that something is evidence of a claim is not the proof of a claim. If you claimed: “Semi-trucks create craters and therefore some of the craters on the moon were created by semi-trucks”, I would regard that claim with equal contempt on the grounds of logic alone as well.
Here is the inescapable fact: Your camp does not have enough evidence to prove the claim of evidence. Claiming otherwise is again begging the question.
Answer this one question, true or false:
You were taught what to think long before you were taught how to think. ]
I ask that question because I am aware that most proponents of evolutionary biology accepted the premises thereof long before, if ever, they were taught how to logically infer.
Agreed. (Is this an admission that chance exists?)
Yes, artificially, and this is the crux of my contention.
Chance is an attribute that is predicated of our knowledge. Chance is not an attribute that is predicable of any subject other than the knowledge of man. We can’t prove that something exists by chance because our knowledge of its origin is derived from ignorance.
Scientifically, our minds tend to associate cause and consequence. However, there comes a point that that knowledge is based on a purely metaphysical, a priori and not empirical, knowledge. Consequently, if we assert that something exists by chance, we are equally asserting that we do not know the cause of why something exists. After all, all that exists must have a cause. And chance is not the cause of anything.
So yes, we may rightfully use ‘chance’ as a term to describe willful or inescapable ignorance, but we can’t prove that chance is knowledge. Ultimately, chance is equivalent to ignorance. Therefore, chance is the absence of our knowledge.
Whereby shall I infer order?
Nothing which exists is both the cause and consequence of its existence. And in the case of our personal, individuality, every attribute that is predicable of you and I must have a cause that is not predicable of chance.
My conclusion: All things exist as a consequence of a cause; chance is not the cause of any consequence. Rather it describes the limits of our knowledge of cause and consequence and/or our hopes. All of which evidences that ‘chance’ exists only in our minds apart from any external empirical evidence.
I’ll await your reply before I continue…
The whole point of so badly wanting amnesty is because they know they will be able to recruit them to their ideological warfare.
True!
It is as though they are importing the “Mexican ideology”. Perhaps they should deport themselves to Mexico where their ideology is free to debauch and destroy themselves much like the Mexicans have successfully accomplished the same. Like a swarm of locusts, they destroy, devour, and turn to shit everything they land upon.
(Note: Have you noticed that any debate question which requires independent, cognitive thought is void of MSM talking points?)
Btw, thanks for contributing to the debate despite the fact that other’s have yet to receive their talking points.
Mainstream media does not support the illegal-immigration of any people who are opposed to their ideology. But, any people who supports their ideology should be free to enter this country and oppose their ideological counterparts.
Think of it as recruiting illegal foreigners to promote their agenda as long as the same foreigners oppose their ideological enemies.
No. Winning the lottery means winning the money.
To win the money you must have all six numbers.
If you buy tickets for all the possible number combinations you can eliminate the chance of not having the correct numbers.
But if you do that, you will have spent more than the value of the jack pot, so you have not "won the lottery".
That is both true and false. But that is not the reason why I asked the question. Let me now reason from what I think I understand about your position concerning chance.
There are two principal parties of all lotteries, they are: the author/s of the lottery and the lottery players. And of the two there is only one party which does not lose: the author.
So, is the lottery a game of chance or a game of order?
Do we call it a game of chance because there are many losers, or do we call it a game of order because the authors will always derive the benefits of the intended purpose of the lottery?
Obviously, the players are taking a chance that they will win or lose. But the authors are not leaving their benefits of the lottery to chance.
Which is it, chance or order?
(I’ll move on to the question of egg fertilization after we settle the above.)
My taxes go to the army for them to follow the orders. If they lock me up - I have consented to their actions.
That is not consent. It is surrender. One cannot consent to an ultimatum. Shall I explain this in detail?
What I have not agreed to is the government's decision to lock me up. It's the government who I have the problem with not the army.
So, you have a problem with the decision to “lock you up” but you don’t have a problem with being locked up? This is not compatible. Either you have a problem with both the order and its affect, or you have a problem with neither; but you can’t, reasonably, separate cause and effect and then affirm you have a problem with the cause and no problem with its effect.
If I'm not being hypocritical that is. Nobody would truly admit this though. ;)
I hope you can agree with that.
Here is what I agree with:
As long as you pay taxes by consent, taxation is not theft. But, the moment you decide you no longer consent to it, taxation is legalized theft.
Remember, the legalization of an act is not the negation of a criminal act. Furthermore, justice is a natural, universal concept that is common to all men and not subject to a society of criminals who believe that the writ of man establishes justice. After all, this debate can be reduced to one, compound, propositional question:
Justice is not legal or illegal.
Evidence:
Not robbing your neighbor is not legal. There is no law that legalizes the negative action of not robbing your neighbor. This is an evidence of the existence of justice. But contrariwise, just because men can write and obey laws which are thusly legal, does not mean those actions are above and immune to natural justice. See, whether it is legal or illegal, justice is the judge of both.
Have you heard the expression: “Justice is blind.”?
Is this reference to the "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
No!
The currency (fiat) of the United States is the Federal Reserve “Note”; as you full well know. All notes evidence debt.
The creation of all Federal Reserve notes is authorized only by the Fed. No other entity has this authority. The U.S. mint does not have this authority, only the Fed.
Answer this question:
Is there enough money in the system to satisfy all debts, public and private? With interest, the answer is an obvious “no”.
Credit is extended to those who can repay their debts. If the Banks have determined that the debts of this country have exceeded its ability to repay its outstanding debts, then debt is the problem. This is why banks have reduced credit issuance; we are overly indebted to them. I do not think they perceive that additional debt will enable the U.S. to pay its debt liabilities.
(We owe the banks more money than they have created. Borrowing more money from them only exacerbates that problem.)
Did you know that the same army, which is paid in part from your wages, could in fact be given orders to imprison you as an enemy of the state because of your ideology?
Would you therefore consent to taxation for the purpose of depriving you of your ideal? I do not think so! Unless of course you desire to pay the cost for unjustly imprisoning you.
Does this make sense?
Every single dollar in existence has entered commerce as a debt. There are no dollars in the economy which do not represent a principal debt. Thusly, if the economy does not have enough money for the service of its debts then the current crisis is a debt crisis and not a credit crisis.
Albeit, I do agree that the Federal Reserve has laid the foundation for the U.S. economy to perpetually suck off its credit tit.
“End the Fed!”
(Did you know that the economy is debt-based and not credit-based?)
Firstly isn't your argument the improper use of taxes rather than tax itself?
I was following along with your post. Consider it an application of how tax revenues can and do benefit both the poor and wealthy. But, truthfully, I am not intending to dispute proper or improper allocation of tax revenue.
I'm guessing you're not against welfare or helping the poor pay for their meals - but would prefer it if the money didn't go into the hands of private companies?
If I consent to be taxed for that purpose, then the answer is no. And consequently I must disregard who is the final beneficiary.
Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)
I think it'd be better if you argued this one though because I don't really know how to poke at this subject.
I was not thinking ‘private’ standing Armies, rather public.
Would you like to have the first stab at this one? Originally, I did not clarify either a public or private Army.
I completely agree. And I also simultaneously know that Israel has already finalized its plan to strike Iran with nuclear tipped missiles. What I don’t know, however, is what will trigger the execution of that plan.
Obviously we are not, as a country, troubled by Israel’s plan to bomb Iran, with nuclear weapons, but we certainly are troubled by Iran’s intention to finalize the necessary parts for a plan to bomb Israel.
Did I ever mention that I am impervious to fear and war-mongering?
Also, did you know that there is a population of about 25,000 Jews in Iran who are quite comfortable living in Iran? It’s as though 25,000 Jews are telling the world that they feel safe and sound in their home, Iran, despite what the world press and media fills the air-waves with. Hell, the damned constitution of Iran protects, specifically, Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Note: Without taking the time to cite the source, I do know that Israel will pay Jews to move to the mother-land. Yet, there are very few takers. Take that for what it is worth.
I have the ability to produce more than I can use. The surplus can either be used to pay private companies to help themselves and me... or the government to help everybody. That's tax in this day and age (to me anyway) hiring a public (not a private) company.
Do you disagree?
Interesting perspective you have there.
And yes, categorically, I disagree.
Let’s consider exhibit 99: Food stamps
In the U.S., a portion of the taxes collected from private citizens are allocated for food benefits. The recipients of these benefits can then buy food from their local China-mart or Mexi-mart. The businesses which accept these benefits as payment for food are monetarily reimbursed by Morgan Stanley, which handles the clearing house for these transactions; well, 80% of them anyway. Shall I also add that Morgan Stanley generates a profit thereby? What about the farms that receive monetary payment from China-Mart or Mexi-Mart in exchange for their food.
See, in the example of the food stamps, the government is transferring your surplus wealth from your hands to the hands of other private entities, through the hands of the impoverished citizens of your society.
Therefore, in the example of food stamps, you are benefitting private corporations despite your effort to benefit a public company by paying taxes.
(For the record though, I do believe, and I mean “believe”, all human beings have a responsibility to not over-look the needs of the poor. Why? In one simple term: reasonable and unadulterated COMPASSION!) But, I will add the qualification: each according to his ability and abundance in accord with his choice. After all, no man will rationally choose to give one cent each to 1000 paupers when ten bucks given to one pauper will..., and the right to choose which pauper shall be...)
But let’s assume that no man dissents to taxation for the sake of paupers, despite the lucrative profits such taxation provides for private corporations, and consider another subject: a standing army.
Would you care to argue this one for me, or shall I? (I chose that subject as one which seemingly lends itself to a justification for taxation regardless of dissent.)
Legally living in a country means willingness (or atleast pretence) to abide by the rules, and so by owning property within a nations border you have given consent to the laws set by the nation. By living (legally) in a country I have consented to paying tax.
Bullshit! And you know it! (I am being friendly and not antagonistic. Just ask my friends and family.)
Sorry, there is no argument which will persuade me that my dissent is illegal. Especially when I am told that my consent is legally assumed by other persons. However, the fact remains that I have not formally consented to anything. There is no contract in existence which allows another man to evidence I have formally consented, by writing, to be taxed without my consent. (Prove to me that paying taxes universally negates coercion. After all, I would rather consent to the demands of a thief/thieves than suffer both the loss of my property and imprisonment.)
And until some man or group of men can produce a document in which I have voluntarily, and contractually, bound myself to taxation, all efforts to extort my wages are criminal.
Ultimately, your rebuttal, as well as nearly all others of the same position, is criminalizing dissent.
(I would have thought that most people understand that one man’s liberty is not legally negated by other men’s tyranny.)
Let me now focus my argument toward you and those of your view.
Currently, your camp believes it derives a greater benefit from taxation than the benefit of self-reliance. Your camp, which I will now refer to as the “Cabal”, thusly relies upon the labors of others in order to support its standard of existence.
(I’ll stop for moment for the sake of avoiding my re-visitation of the degenerate intellect of serfs and proletariats. And no, I am not intending to insult you. But you may very well be my punching bag, temporarily. Sorry! )
Sorry, my computer cannot reliably download the simplest of videos.
But I did notice in the description of the video an identical comment to my assertion:
The Great Sperm Race tells the story of human conception as it's never been told before. With 250 million competitors, it is the most extreme race on earth and there can only be one winner.
…”and there can only be one winner”.
The following sources support a consideration for the inference of order. Please read the complete articles.
Dr Allan Pacey, senior lecturer in andrology at Sheffield University, told BBC News Online: "This study is potentially very exciting as scientists have been searching to demonstrate whether or not sperm really are attracted to the egg in mammals.
"What it illustrates is that the process of sperm transport to the egg is not just about sperm swimming around until they find an egg.
"It is likely to be highly coordinated and involving a number of different mechanisms of which odorant receptors may play an important role. --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/
Sperm do not swim randomly; they use various clues and factors to help reach the egg.
In humans, apparently, the female reproductive tract becomes warmer as the Fallopian tubes are neared. Current research at Harvard University has shown that sperm swim from colder to warmer regions (Flam 2006). Also, research has indicated that sperm swim towards increasing concentration gradients of a synthetic compound called bourgeonal (Flam 2006). Whether the egg or female body releases the chemoattractant is unclear as of now. But studies have been convincing to show that sperm can smell. Essentially, sperm smell their way from the vagina to the to the location of the egg in the distal parts of the female's Fallopian tubes (Flam 2006). Once the sperm meets the egg, fertilization can occur.--
Do you know why the Mexican president, California, and Washington DC. oppose Arizona’s immigration law?
All of them are fearful of a half-million Dora Explorers, which now reside in Arizona, migrating to their lands.
(Have you heard any of them inviting Arizona’s illegal population? Personally, I would have thought the president of Mexico would have wanted his citizens back in his country to do the same wonderful job they are doing in Arizona. But I guess he too realizes his country is better off without them.)
Here is the initial phase of an argument affirming that Taxation is legalized theft.
Let’s digress for a moment. Capital punishment is legalized killing.
Let’s now consider both propositions.
1) Both taxation and capital punishment are legal. This is axiomatic.
2) Capital punishment is killing. This is axiomatic.
3) Taxation is theft. This is also axiomatic.
How? Simple, the government of the United States enforces both taxation and Capital punishment by obvious, open coercion-- which is legal. I’ll now focus upon the principles of taxation as they relate to men taxing other men. (Only men collect taxes from men. Let’s forget the notion that a government exists apart from men.)
Men bind themselves to one another through contracts. All parties who are signatories of a contract are consenting to the terms of that contract. If a person does not sign a contract, the same has then not bound itself thereby, to other men, according to its terms. Either way, no person can be (justly) punished for refusing to contract with other men.
Notwithstanding, no man can justly assume the consent of another man. Two men can’t assume the consent of a third person. Two-hundred men can’t assume the consent of another person. Five-hundred politicians, calling themselves the ‘government’, can’t assume the consent of another person. Yet, if a people decide that they can assume the consent of another person, the same are enemies, criminals and tyrants to the person who no longer has a choice to determine with whom it shall not covenant.
Are we in agreement thus far before I continue this argument?
Your post is irrelevant. The question of this debate is not about the costs of the infrastructure or the liability of those costs.
But according to your post, you don’t have a problem with theft as long as it benefits you and others. I also suppose your argument would be vastly different if the Christian populace used your taxable wages to pay for infrastructure which benefits them and others.
Every argument, in this debate, that I have read, which denies that taxation is legalized theft, is a red-herring argument. Not a one of those arguments has argued ‘taxation is not legalized theft’. All of them justify theft by asserting taxation is legal and therefore there is no theft.
Would you care to debate the proposition of this debate?
Firstly, I apologize for intentionally avoiding the question of this debate. Consider my post an attack against dual-allegiance as evidenced by Christians, so called.
Now, in answer to your question, “How about the people who aren't Christian?”: I must affirm that I have no desire whatsoever to determine which words people choose in swearing allegiance to a flag or a republic. Swearing one’s allegiance is not some prescribed recital of another person’s ideal for swearing allegiance as the acceptable form of the recital of allegiance. The swearing of allegiance is, of all things, a personal conviction which is not subject to the conviction of another’s opinion and intention.
Or said another way: if a person chooses to swear allegiance to something, the same person is the sole authority for determining the terms and conditions of allegiance. No other person, or group of persons, has a natural right to determine how any man or woman swears allegiance. Let alone determining that which qualifies as an oath of allegiance.
The argument can be made that ‘petroleum’ is the global currency having multiple fiat currencies as its proxy. But I am not here to argue that axiom.
Moreover, I am not here to dispute your intent. For, I am well aware of the pains that are associated with attempting a resolution of the current, global, economic system which is commonly obfuscated by the term ‘globalization’.
However, you do deserve a pat on the back. Very few people are capable of questioning the legitimacy, more rather the lack thereof, of the economic system they are both enslaved and destroyed by.
And to end my appraisal of both as succinctly as I can, I say thus: “ You see the category-six storm building in the horizon and are horrified thereby; your counterparts, on the other hand, see only bright, sun shinny days in the horizon and are daydreaming of the coming bliss."
God forbid you question their ‘coming bliss’!
Should the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge of All[e]giance
Let’s first consider the terms of the pledge. They are:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Let’s now ask a question. Should a Christian pledge his/her allegiance to a ‘flag’ and its ‘republic’ when it, their pledge of allegiance, is in direct conflict with the will of the God of Jesus Christ as represented in the Bible?
Now before someone dare attempt to answer ‘yes’, and consequently justify that answer by perverse interpretations of the bible, the same should first carefully consider a few matters.
a) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to a flag or a republic in lieu of allegiance to God?
b) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to a republic and its flag as well as God?
c) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to anything other than God?
d) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that God sanctions and demands a “pledge of allegiance” with the qualifier “under God”?
e) Why are American Christians the most ardent supporters of the term “under God” in the pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States when they should be wholly indifferent to the pledge itself? Especially since they should not be pledging allegiance to anything other than God!
But regardless of what I understand of both the scriptures and the inconsistencies of Christian practices as measured by the Bible, I can boldly affirm that no man who calls himself a Christian is justified by the words of the bible by swearing his allegiance to a “flag” and/or a “republic” by the qualification “under God”. Furthermore, no Christian should have any input on any question that is centered upon choosing the terms of the Pledge of Allegiance; unless of course he is an idolater who serves himself despite the God, of whom, he proclaims he is servant.
Conclusion: Whether the pledge reads “under God”, “under Satan”; or “under Obama”, the only people who should be debating the selection of terms for the pledge should be the ones who do not associate themselves with the God of the Bible. Yet, it appears this debate, on a national scale, is one the most ‘holy’ of ‘holies’ among, paradoxically, CHRISTIANS.
As for me, I say thus: “Let all men, who hold the “pledge of allegiance” near and dear to their heart, decide the terms of their ‘promise’, which is an oath, while excluding the opinions of those who have done nothing but demonstrate pseudo, dual allegiance!”
No man can serve two masters…
On the one hand you have an obstacle course that is almost impossible to penetrate in order to fertilize an egg, and on the other hand, it just so happens that men are equipped with the perfect weapon (high number of sperm) to overcome the obstacle.
One could validly deduce order and determinism.
Agreed!
But when it comes to which sperm will make it, I think that is up to chance. Which does not mean that the selection is not a result of causality.
That is the aspect of your example which truly requires an explanation on my behalf. And so I shall.
With very few exceptions, fertilization is accomplished by one sperm. Of the hundred million or so sperm, only one will fertilize the egg; all others die in the process. In one night of sex, a male may inject hundreds of millions of sperm into the vagina. And yet, only one of millions will succeed ahead of its brothers and sisters. We can call this sperm the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. In this instance of hundreds of millions sperm having the same objective, only one will win out. All others are discharged from the keep as dead, first place, losers. So what does all this suggest? Only the strongest and healthiest sperm of hundreds of millions will fertilize the egg.
Let’s now be philosophical on this question.
Egg fertilization is the ultimate goal of all human sperm. But only one will achieve that goal per pregnancy. No more than one and no less than one sperm.
You and I, as well as all other humans, are rooted in our sperm origin as the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. Therefore all of us have succeeded where all the hundreds of millions of others in the herd have failed. Philosophically, we can reason that all of us can and should be thankful that we are alive today because we were the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. Baring in mind also that our progenitors, siblings, and progeny are also the ‘alpha sperm of the other herds’.
The truth of this is so consistent, it stands to reason that ‘order’ should be inferred thereby; unless of course I have unknowingly erred in my judgment.
How do you maintain absolute order, when you must have choice?
I suspect my answer to that question will lead us to an even deeper discussion. All of which I welcome; philosophy is my delight. (I’ll be easy with the philosophical terms.)
Nonetheless, let’s tackle that question as a separate subject if we have arrived at a termination of the former discussion; though both are inter-related.
Note: I ignored all of the issues associated with human twins. Including those issues would only lengthen, without changing, my argument. I like brevity when it is honestly intended versus deceitfully employed.
Some biological events are, in my opinion, irrefutably chaotic. For example, the sperm race. The obstacles that a sperm has to go through in order to reach the egg are so many and so deadly that nature has compensated by allowing man to produce millions of them, just so there is a chance of one of them making it to the egg. If I took an egocentric view I would conclude that I was meant to be the one. But the truth of the matter is, it was just chance and good luck.
The fact that men produce millions of sperm during ejaculation is, in my opinion, evidence that even nature recognizes chance and chaos. Why if there was order, men would only need produce one sperm that was equipped to go through the deadly obstacle course and create a baby.
So chaos does exist.
Hello, let’s continue.
Working only from the above example, I can validly infer determinism and order. Yet, that is not your inference. However before I submit a contrary or contradictory argument, accordingly, I give you an opportunity to re-evaluate the example.
And regardless of the result of your re-evaluation, I think your ‘initial’ inference is patently invalid. But, (with the emphasis on ‘but’) I think you are more than sufficiently intelligent to recognize the conflict of the evidence and the inference thereby.
I’ll await your follow-up reply before I support or challenge your final inference. And if you still stand by your initial inference, I will post my explanation of the submitted evidence as outlined in your example.
Btw, your example does, in truth, expose the necessary inference of either chaos or order.
I was attempting to merely draw-out your knowledge and position on the limitations and basis of human knowledge and their axioms in that regard. I will later reference the same if necessary.
According to what I understand, which is according to what I have been taught and confirmed by personal observation, the theory of evolution is another explanation of diversity by mutation; in which case the theory can be verified by the empiricism derived from the artificial selection of a cattle farmer or dog breeder. The theory of evolution is true to fact on this account, but the theory was not developed for that purpose; it was developed for the purpose of alleging genus to genus mutations which originate from a single progenitor of another genus.
However from what evidence, empirical, shall we infer the mutation of a genus from and to a genus? I know the fossil record is cited as evidence of the same, but there is no empirical evidence available that confirms, or any test that verifies, that genus ‘B’ is the consequent of the antecedent progenitor ‘Z’.
I am dropping the issue of Mr. Gould’s assertion. Primarily because I perceive you have an interest in considering a viewpoint (without prejudice) which is contradictory of yours’. And, in all fairness, because you are honest with me, I too shall be honest with you. Let’s proceed in that manner.
I shall now begin the process of explaining my opposition to the theory of evolution as a consequence of a reasonable approach. (This will not be easily communicated, so don’t be too critical of what maybe perceived as being ‘overly complex’ or ‘overly simplistic’; so confirm, before you conclude, I have adequately communicated my thoughts to you when you are interpreting statements that appear to be either.) (Key note-- I don’t’ accept this: When not evolution, therefore creation, or when not creation, therefore evolution.)
The theory of evolution is predicated upon the presumption that the knowledge of the diversity of life is derivable from ‘a posteriori’ knowledge. This is the foundational principle of the theory. However, that presumption is only possible by ‘a priori’ knowledge.
Questions or comments?
If it was Jew specific, I would contend it is possible.
Albeit, I would be interested to know which species of animal is impacted most by A.I.D.S.
(I have yet to hear of some scientist somewhere teaching primates to wear condoms to stop the spreading of aids.)
Note: if someone will point me in the proper direction I can argue for or against the specificity of the victims of Aids.
Science welcomes criticism as long as you follow the rules of academic integrity.
I noticed you changed the subject from ‘scientists’ to ‘science’ as an attempt to divert the force of my argument.
Also, I suppose you are aware of the fact that ‘scientists’ are not immune to the criticism of their peers. Nevertheless, science is nothing more than an abstract term attached to what we recognize as knowledge. Science has no opinion. But, scientists do have an opinion which is called “science”.
Why do so many people reference ‘Science’ as though it is some form of entity that exists independently from people?
The complicated answer is that they don't arrive at conclusions that contradict evolution unless they use shoddy experimental methods, create a strawman of evolution and contradict that, or violate the basic standards of academic integrity. Then once they are caught, they are as expected ridiculed for being unable to keep their personal prejudices out of their research. They then whine and complain to news outlets who edit out the inconvenient parts of the story (the parts where the scientist lied in their research, for example) and publish the information in the front pages of creationist propaganda mills.
So who is correct?
The exiled scientist can use every premise you named as a valid argument to justify the results of his experiment. How do “you” know he is wrong without examining his hypothesis and the test of the same?
(The method is scientific until the consensus of scientists decide what is or is not valid according to what is accepted at that time. After all, if scientists are determining the rules of “academic integrity” (integrity is meaningless, the Mafia too relies upon the sanctity of ‘integrity’), it stands to reason they too determine what fulfills their criteria. This is unavoidable.
Now back to the first question: How do you know the truth or falsity of their claims without knowing their hypothesis and the necessary experiments to test the same?
Your rebuttal blurs the line of a genetic fallacy.
However you must therefore be able to provide a complete description of god (who he is, what he is made of, how he got here, how he can do what he does, a picture, a biography, etc.). It's not enough to simply say "He made the universe!"
Okay, because you cannot provide a complete description of your Grandpa of 10,000 years ago, I will not accept your assertion he existed. Hell, a complete description is not falsifiable. It must not be…
Falsifiable: a trick of the mind the most people fall victim to.
(I suppose you are toying with me. :)
From your argument you seem to imply that there are two extremes, and each is incorrect, whereas you in the middle are the sane one.
From what did I imply I am sane when they are not?
While there are certainly cases in politics and other fields in which the middle ground is the best option merely assuming this to always be the case without looking at the argument itself is obviously a flawed argument, especially when it comes to matters of science. We wouldn't suppose that it is reasonable to assume that the earth is half flat and half spherical would we? Or that the center of the solar system lies somewhere between the sun and the earth? Of course not.
I did not provide an argument that creates a middle term for each theory.
Creationism is true to fact or it is not.
Evolution is true to fact or it is not.
I affirm that both are not true to fact. This is not a middle ground argument. I am not asserting that each theory is particularly both true and false. Furthermore I did not establish a dichotomy of either theory; this is rather an application of the ‘law of the excluded middle term’.
You claim that we have not "proven" evolution, and when I hear claims like this I think of a certain quote:
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. -Stephen Jay Gould (US author, naturalist, paleontologist, & popularizer of science (1941 - 2002))
I am in the process of systematically responding to your rebuttal. However, that quote has caused me to pause that process and digress, temporarily, with a rebuttal of Mr. Gould’s assertion and analogy.
But, before I do, I will give you the first opportunity to submit a brief analysis of the same; after which I will also submit an analysis. And having concluded our discussion of this matter, I will then resume my initial intent.
One small compound requirement:
The tattoos need to be in English and Glow-in-the-dark with L.E.D. technology.
(I am greatly enraged that your proposal implies you want blind-people to contract an incurable disease or diseases from sex. This is discrimination! Should not the tattoo be in brail (however you spell it) as well?)
SARCASM! Intended only for entertainment value!
Fondler's and peeper's discretion is advised.
I don't find anything particularly holy about the theory of evolution, but I do understand its significance.
There is nothing wrong with the term ‘holy’ as a modifier. We frequently use the term ‘holiday’ when referencing days of significance. Holiday is immediately derived from ‘holy’+day. Most college level dictionaries evidence that derivation. The term ‘holy’ connotes a meaning of importance and significance within a class of mostly, insignificant properties.
Holy Book
Holy Day
Holy Man
Holy Cow
Holy Theory
Holy Birth
Holy Shit
Albeit, I can understand why one would refuse to use it as a modifier.
Aside from being supported by incredible amounts of evidence, and having been observed in nature, our understanding of evolution is key to medical research. This is the main reason I am upset when people try to claim that their 2,000 year old religious texts are more accurate than scientific inquiry: they are actually impeding the development of modern medicine.
I do not doubt you are convinced of the application of evolutionary theory in the advancement of medical knowledge. In and of itself, your view unto that end is commendable.
But, I think modern-day medical advancement is a beneficial consequence of scientific research to prove the theory of evolution. Or stated another way: Scientists have grossly failed to support the theory of evolution, while at the same time having successfully learned more about animal biology than had they if they were not trying to prove something.
On those grounds, I can agree to an extent with your contention.
Think of it like this: The scientific pursuit to prove something, which has yet to be proven (to me at least), has been more beneficial to medical advancement than achieving the goal of the pursuit.
May they, the scientists, continue their pursuit of the unachievable so that we may endlessly benefit from the efforts of their pursuit.
(Maybe the creationists have kept the evolutionists from resting upon their laurels.)
Its not that they reference some other man's knowledge as a justification for their beliefs, its that they reference demonstrable, repeatable, valid data/evidence uncovered by some other men, and verified by many other men doing experiments, and which is open for anyone to verify.
…and which is open for anyone to verify.
The sheeple don’t verify anything but talking points. However if they were to evaluate the evidence and arrive at a contradictory conclusion, they would be derided by their peers and authorities (scientific or theological). And by virtue of the fact that most people strive to be a member of something that is considered “intelligent” they simply keep their mouths shut and their minds prostrated. Consequently, that is why most of them appeal to the authority of another’s knowledge as the chief justification for their beliefs.
Think of it like this: they don’t verify the evidence for a justification of why they believe what they believe, but they certainly believe the authorities are to be believed.
But in contrast there are some among us who are not sheeple. Albeit, are you aware of what happens to a scientist in the field of evolutionary biology who arrives at a conclusion which contradicts the theory of evolution? Are you also aware of what happens to a pastor who arrives at a conclusion that contradicts the orthodoxy of the sect of Christianity he was ordained to minister?
Answer: Their funding is pulled because their conclusions do not conform to, or confirm, the conclusions for which they were hired and appointed.
Theologians don't have demonstrable, repeatable and sound evidence for god; they might have a few decent trys at logical arguments(which most if not all can be shown as bad) All they have is emotion and social forces to propagate their views.
What makes you think you know what is necessary as evidence of God’s existence? Logically, you must know what is evidence of god’s existence in order to deny the attribute of existence of that subject.
The denial of God’s existence must logically be based upon some sort of knowledge of what is denied.
Here is an example which expresses the same problem.
Person ‘A’ asserts that person ‘D’ does not exist.
When asked about the identity of person D, person A replies: “Sir, I don’t know the identity of person D, but I am convinced if person D exists I would know its identity. And hence because I do not know its identity, that person cannot exist.”
When asked another question, person A replies: “I am the only person who can prove that I exist. After all, is it not absurd to think that the proof of my existence is subject to someone who is not me? Furthermore, I have no burden to prove to anyone I exist, I simply exist regardless of what others do or don’t know about me. But, if I introduce myself to someone they should know I exist.”
Most Christians refer to their priests and pastors as figures of authority, (a biased authority at that) and more often than not they believe what they believe because they believe the figure of authority is THE authority for their belief.
This is no different than scientists as shepherds of sheep.
After all, if the sheep are so knowledgeable of the sciences of their beliefs, which are taught by scientists, they would stop referencing some other man’s knowledge as a justification for their beliefs.
Consider:
God exists because the consensus of theologians declares he does; although the sheep have not examined enough evidence to justify authoritative knowledge.
Anthropogenic global warming is a fact because the scientific consensus declares it is; although the sheep have not examined enough evidence to justify authoritative knowledge.
You will notice I defend neither camp. But, I am certainly entertained by the proponents of both camps rushing to defend their “holy cows”. (I like to piss on the ideas of both camps when it leads to a pissing contest betwixt the evolutionists and creationists.)
After all, most people can’t discern the self-evident difference betwixt demonstrating the validity of an inference and the inference of validity.
Example:
Evidence, proof and validity are inferential claims: they are not truths by virtue of claiming those inferences are facts. True, it is a fact they claim as truth, proof, validity, or evidence many things, but all of those assertions are facts; but those facts do not evidence anything more than an assertion which they intend to be understood as true.
They infer something is evidence. They infer that that evidence is valid. They infer that their inference is proof.
But as of now, I have yet to see either camp demonstrate the validity of their inferences.
(Note: there are some who realize the inherent fallibility of their view, consequently, that is why neither camp refuses to stop trying to prove their claims of truth.)
When the ratio (at CD) of evolutionists to creationists swings in favor of creationists, I will mock their Bullshit too. Provided of course they are equally zealous supporters and defenders of their “holy cow” with an equal zeal to ridicule their opponents.
Whoever thought that humans were 'intelligent'?
That is why I think that question is un-intelligent. :)
But, if it is an intelligent question then I concede that at least one human is intelligent. But if I am not the one, intelligent human then my un-intelligence disqualifies me from understanding the question so I can then answer it.
You will notice I defend neither camp. But, I am certainly entertained by the proponents of both camps rushing to defend their “holy cows”. (I like to piss on the ideas of both camps when it leads to a pissing contest betwixt the evolutionists and creationists.)
After all, most people can’t discern the self-evident difference betwixt demonstrating the validity of an inference and the inference of validity.
Example:
Evidence, proof and validity are inferential claims: they are not truths by virtue of claiming those inferences are facts. True, it is a fact they claim as truth, proof, validity, or evidence many things, but all of those assertions are facts; but those facts do not evidence anything more than an assertion which they intend to be understood as true.
They infer something is evidence. They infer that that evidence is valid. They infer that their inference is proof.
But as of now, I have yet to see either camp demonstrate the validity of their inferences.
(Note: there are some who realize the inherent fallibility of their view, consequently, that is why neither camp refuses to stop trying to prove their claims of truth.)
When the ratio (at CD) of evolutionists to creationists swings in favor of creationists, I will mock their Bullshit too. Provided of course they are equally zealous supporters and defenders of their “holy cow” with an equal zeal to ridicule their opponents.
You will notice I defend neither camp. But, I am certainly entertained by the proponents of both camps rushing to defend their “holy cows”. (I like to piss on the ideas of both camps when it leads to a pissing contest betwixt the evolutionists and creationists.)
After all, most people can’t discern the self-evident difference betwixt demonstrating the validity of an inference and the inference of validity.
Example:
Evidence, proof and validity are inferential claims: they are not truths by virtue of claiming those inferences are facts. True, it is a fact they claim as truth, proof, validity, or evidence many things, but all of those assertions are facts; albeit those facts do not evidence anything more than an assertion which they intend to be accepted as true.
They infer something is evidence. They infer that that evidence is valid. They infer that their inference is proof.
But as of now, I have yet to see either camp demonstrate the validity of their inferences.
(Note: there are some who realize the inherent fallibility of their view, consequently, that is why neither camp refuses to stop trying to prove their claims of truth.)
When the ratio (at CD) of evolutionists to creationists swings in favor of creationists, I will mock their Bullshit too. Provided of course they are equally zealous supporters and defenders of their “holy cow” with an equal zeal to ridicule their opponents.
So my question is, are you aware of this and trying to find a way to reason out of this conclusion?
I am aware of all of that and then some. However what you consider to be a prolonged debate would amount to about a two-minute exchange vis-a vis us.
But in answer to your question, I provide the following.
I can presume to foreknow the outcome of a debate, and likewise you can as well. Yet, because you took upon yourself the task of attempting to refute my stance it must mean that you can provide a refuting argument. This must also mean that you are cognizant of the underlying premises of the conclusion, ‘God is not fictional’, or any co-related proposition. Furthermore, it must also mean you understand that the premises of both of our views are the consequents of our Epistemological viewpoints.
Consequently, I am attempting to compel you to establish an argument that allows me to reason from your premises that your conclusion is valid. (Consider this debate as an attempt on my part to arrive at conclusions that necessarily follow from their premises and not an attempt to accept our conclusions at face value for the sake of avoiding a genuine, syllogistic argument which is then debatable.)
No knowledge of reality is a priori?
That's one way of looking at it. I always thought of a priori as reasoning based on logic or theory with no regard for its related application in the real world (because as we know, sometimes flukes happen that inexplicably find themselves to violate previously pure groupings and standards).
While not dismissing your reply which immediately preceded the above reply, I'll expedite this debate by addressing the current response to the above proposition.(I’ll address it if the following reply doesn’t adequately imply an alternative view.)
All knowledge, simplistically, is either a priori justified or a posteriori justified.
Example:
The proposition, “No knowledge of reality is a priori.” is a priori justified. It is a belief that is knowledge as the result of deductive knowledge and not experience. If it were by experience there would exist observable, tangible evidence that warrants an a posteriori justification.
As an empiricist, do you agree that the proposition is false because of contradictory a priori justification and not a posteriori justification ( meaning that “some knowledge of reality is a priori)?
Consider this:
Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form
If the "peer review process" confirms this claim, then it can also be validly argued therefrom that:
The creation of life is the result of an intelligent creator/s! The creationist's view is that God took a bunch of dust and created "man" thereby. It would seem as though science has finally confirmed the belief of creationists, while at the same time denying the base premise of evolutionists.
Am I correct? Yes! That is why we shall later see that the consensus of scientific opinion denies the current conclusion of Craig Venter’s experiment. I could drive this into the ground, but I think Craig’s claim is obviously a curse instead of a blessing for evolution.
(If scientists successfully create “life”, non-synthetic or synthetic, it only evidences that intelligent design is a valid position.)
Thanks for answering my question when others avoided it. We can now debate the underlying epistemological views which support our contradictory propositions.
Rationalism versus Empiricism when the subject is God
But before I commence I must ask one question in order to be fair in our discourse.
No knowledge of reality is a priori?
Working strictly from your assertion, “Burden of Proof dictates that what is asserted is false until proven true.”, I present the following.
…,but it doesn't change the fact that Burden of Proof dictates that what is asserted is false until proven true. God is a positive claim without any proof.
In all the years of human civilisation (that's over 9000), there hasn't been written, spoken, or found one bit of evidence that can pass scientific or academic scrutiny and yet affirm god's existence. In light of this lack of evidence, the reasonable, sceptical position is "negative."
(You will note that this argument contains your words as posted in this debate. Consequently I will use those words to evidence your burden.)
Exhibit A
“In all the years of human civilisation (that's over 9000), there hasn't been written, spoken, or found one bit of evidence (that can pass scientific or academic scrutiny) and yet affirm god's existence.”
Therefore by reason of your assertion, “Burden of Proof dictates that what is asserted is false until proven true.”, I will suppose it is false; for you have not proven that all of those types of evidences that were scrutinized have failed to pass scientific or academic examination. (I can’t assume the assertion is true without supporting evidence.)
(Go ahead and also provide supporting evidence that the scrutiny of scientists and academicians is consistent throughout 9,000+ years of human civilization.)
(Please forego the term “God” is itself a positive affirmation. It is only a subject with disputed attributes. Consequently that is why your assertion that “God does not exist” is comprehensible.)
To be continued.......................................................
.......................................
Tune in later for additional entertainment.
(Unless of course this debate is interupted by an emergency refutation.)
Disputations 1:1 (Lawn-man’s version of the bible): Come now and let us reason together saith the Lawnman.
I assume we agree on this: Both of us can provide valid argumentation in support of our pre-suppositions of the truth or falsity of God’s existence. Moreover, some of the justifications of both can be rooted in the bible itself.
I have no problem with that. After all, whether we presuppose the existence or non-existence of God, any ‘source’ of evidence that supports either view is acceptable when its logically valid, despite whether it is true or false. Now, having prefaced our rebuttals by expressing our mutual respect, I begin.
#1 The bible does not support the inference that ‘Adam’ is the first human. (Human is adequate.)
But, let’s suppose that it does, and consequently all humans are the progeny of the first human whose name is Adam. Let’s compare it with the scriptures. I Corinthians:
15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
According to the translated writing, which is alleged as the words of the Apostle Paul, we cannot infer that Paul understood the name “Adam” to strictly denote human or man; although “Adam” is the first man. However, we can validly infer that he recognized two “Adams”, no more than two and no fewer than two. This is evidenced by verse 15:45…first man Adam…, the last Adam...
Paul does not modify the term ‘Adam’ with ‘man’ in the term “the last Adam” in verse 45, but he does in verse 47 by the qualification of “the second man”. Inferentially, we understand he speaks of the first man Adam and the second man Adam.
Therefore the second man is both the last man and the last Adam; the first man is the first Adam.
Deduction: If the Lord (Jesus, simplified) is both “the last Adam” and “the last man” and they both are the second of only two, then no male of the human race since and before Jesus, excluding the first Adam, is either a “man” or “Adam”.
Clearly, our definition of “man” is not consistent with Paul’s understanding of what the scriptures evidence by the terms ‘man’ and ’Adam’.
(I am avoiding the issue of the original terms of the translated Bible. However, if I were to address the translation issue, it would evidence that the translators took license to rewrite the accepted historical scriptures of the Hebrews in the English version of the bible by blatant abuses of logical inference.)
Think of it this way:
If 1 is 1, then the translators infer that 1 is 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and whatsoever promotes the god of their imagination, especially when the truth is in conflict with self-deification.
(If you own a Strong’s concordance of the Bible you can immediately confirm the truth of my claim. Research the reference number that is frequently, but not universally attached to the term ‘Church’. Once you see the ‘license of the translators’ you will find many other licenses that are attached to all the key terms of biblical thought.)
Also, you can study/know about something and never believe it; you can know it well and refute it.
Bingo!
It should be inferred, according to his argument, that any man who chooses to study religion as a subject has opened the door. Furthermore, the act of opening the door is the result of "an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind".
So, in essence, if you are guilty of studying religion for whatever purpose, the only reason you have opened the door is because of "an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind".
You will note the requirement, "it takes".
(I have no more to contribute. I have justified my contradictory position.)
And remember in that other debate where I said your post was pure gibberish it was impossible to respond to? Well:
That explains a lot; I now understand what it is I am dealing with. Consequently, since you do this concerning something that is physically verifiable, I now know why your posts evidence clumsy argumentation concerning a metaphysical subject.
In which “other” debate did you affirm “my post is pure gibberish”?
Where is the evidence? You should already be aware of what it is you are looking for in order to know you have found evidence.
(I suspect you will respond with something similar to: “the absence of evidence is evidence of existence”.)
As for the balance of your first and last post in this debate with me, it is all beside the point. Not once have you posted a reply that evidenced you are debating a metaphysical question. Your posts belong in the realm of the physical and not the metaphysical. Otherwise you would not continue to reference your false analogy of the “meteor crater”. And furthermore you would not continue to re-state the same irrelevant analogy.
Did you assume that the concept of God is somehow affirmed or denied by some sort of physical evidence or the lack thereof?
Albeit, if you re-examine my posts wherein I request evidence for your inference, you will find I asked for evidence and not physical evidence.
A metaphysical argument would satisfy that request!
Conclusion: Your posts are purely gibberish because they evidence ignorance of the nature of the question with bold-faced irrelevance. Consequently, that is why my efforts to correct your misguided and irrelevant posts seem to be gibberish to you.
When homosexuals or heterosexuals marry one another, they by faith believe their spouse will remain faithful without any evidence supporting that belief. This is the premise of marriage.
Without faith, marriage is irrational. But, because of faith, marriage is rational. Ergo, faith is not wrong because marriage as a consequence is right.
(I am a little un-sober, let’s also see if I am a little un-intelligent thereby; counter arguments are welcome.)
Debate idea:
Do you ever wonder if your debating opponent is on dope or drunk?
Damn, long time no presence!
I have often entertained the notion that the majority of materials of the pyramids are the result of todays equivalent of concrete.
Albeit, I do have a tendency to allow questions like this to remain unanswered in my mind. After all, I do enjoy speculative thinking for the sake of speculation. Call this my "The truth is out there" moment.
If I am the Chief, yes. I can differentiate betwixt necesssary abuse and blatant,unnecessary insult.
Furthermore, I am for spanking! But I also think it is prudent to recognize the process of correction even when it means appropriate ad-hominem.
I was unaware that the subject ‘people’ included children (young); which by the way do not choose religion as per his and your arguments.
So, when the question is asked: “Do people use their brains in choosing a religion?”, I immediately deduce that young children have no choice and hence they do not choose a religion. They are simply walking through the door that is opened unto them where through they ignorantly and obediently enter. Ergo, the term ‘people’ must mean adults.
Now, as for your rebuttal of my rebuttal, I will only affirm this:
There is a night and day difference betwixt opening the door and turning around and walking out versus opening the door, walking in, and locking the door behind yourself.
Albeit, the argument I refuted basically asserted that any man who opens the door is condemned for doing so, despite the result or later consequence of opening the door. All of which was admitted by implication in his argument.
Did he not enter the door he opened? And did he not also walk out the same?
I would like to jump in on this discussion.
Let’s see if you have an intelligent contribution?
You are unaware of the necessary evidence for the existence of God.
Sure I am. Scientific observation comporting with the scientific method. Where is your god now?
Are you aware that you have jumped in to a discussion which is an epistemological question of a metaphysical issue (the scientific method is not an instrument for this task)?
Sure you are! Where is your scientific method now?
So, until you tell me what evidence you looked for, your invalid inference that God does not exist is no inference, it is an assumption from ignorance.
No. Assuming a god exists when there is no proof that it does exist is a belief grounded in ignorance.
Was I requesting proof, or was I requesting evidence? The distinction betwixt the two is of utmost importance. There must be evidence in order to begin the process of determining whether or not the evidence is sufficient for proof; even when it means the absence of certain evidences.
Your argument essentially boils down to that if science has gaps in knowledge of the natural world then we should just assume those gaps to be filled by a god.
Patently wrong! That is your false-inference of an argument wherein I have not purported the same.
THAT is actually an argument from ignorance or more commonly referred to as the "god of the gaps" method of argumentation. It is a logical fallacy. You defer to god as the explanation with no positive evidence yet demand evidence that you cannot provide yourself.
If I have, then quote my argument. (Why do I get the impression you did not read a word of what I asserted or requested?)
A proposition is not true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false.
Obviously! But what is the relevance of stating a truth that is not contrary or contradictory of any aspect of my argument?
It is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence.
You are again confusing ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’.
Evidence, sufficient, leads to likely proof. But to take the absence of proof as evidence of the truth of the proof is bullshit. This is circular reasoning, and a bad example at that.
It takes an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind to open the door to something so obviously flawed.
Don’t take offense, it is not intended.
If you are confident that religion is flawed, your assertion is the result of considering religion itself.
Please explain to me how it is possible to know religion is “so obviously flawed” without you yourself opening the door to religion. Furthermore, it can be affirmed that you have considered religion, but have failed to find a religion you are comfortable with.
You have indicted yourself with the same accusation when you assert that religion is obviously flawed; unless of course you have not studied religion. And if you have not, your argument is from ignorance and thusly baseless.
If this is true, it is not the remedy for a problem that is the result of inadequate moderation by the authors of the debates wherein we participate.
Solution:
Moderators, as responsible authors, can either A: start moderating their debates and banning the abusers therefrom, or B: lose the authorization to create debates. And thusly the enforcement of these measures shall create a debating atmosphere that is intolerant of abusive argument which is abusive for the sake of being abusive.
Furthermore, let’s not abandon the advancement of the pursuit of greater intelligence because of quasi problems with quasi solutions for the sake of quasi intelligence. And let it be known any attempt to now negate ‘hasty generalizations’ because of an uncomfortable ‘hasty generalization’ (and it is about sentiment towards certain generalizations) will lead to the slippery slope of more negations of other categories of generalizations. All of which concluding with the last generalization: There is truth!
Do we not think some truths are offensive?
But whatever is decided, take heed:
Don’t ban generalizations; ban moderators who derive some sense of pleasure from the un-restrained intellectual sadists who get their rocks off by practicing intellectual sadism. For if it is decided to ban one category of generalization, that decision sanctions intellectual sadism in all other generalizations.
(We can’t ban stupidity, but intellectual abusiveness must be moderated.)
The debate question could have been : Black people steal.
In which case a simplified question would have been, are generalizations wrong. To which I wholly agree.
As a stand-alone statement, which lacks a context of the intent of the speaker, it is not a generalization. It is by itself only a statement of fact wherein the subject ‘Black people’ is understood as an undistributed subject. However, what normally occurs when people encounter a statement such as that they often falsely understood it as a generalization.
This is all about inference from the undistributed quantity of the subject of an assertion or premise. And yet when the distribution is uncertain people tend assume the assertion is universal; especially when the assertion is capable of invoking an emotional inference.
Here are some examples of what I speak. Judge for yourself how you apply quantity when the quantity is not certain. Also, take note of when you tend to infer universality according to the color (emotional attachment) or nature of the assertion; and its impression on your sentiments.
Water in Mexico is not safe to drink.
Poor people are hungry.
Rich people are wealthy.
Democrats were clothing in public.
Conservatives hide homosexuality.
Popes bless lovers of boys.
Bagpipes make wonderful sound.
Oil-leaks destroy the environment.
White people collect un-employment benefits.
Black people collect welfare.
Red People collect food-stamps.
Black people are dark in skin color.
White people are pale.
Does that help?
"You infer that from the total lack of evidence for same when it should be present if the proposition were true."
That response is your answer to my question:
From what evidence do you infer: "God does not exist."?
You did not answer my question! You answered the question of “how” you infer. That doesn’t provide the evidence from which you infer the absence of God.
I did not ask the question: How do you infer, “God does not exist” from the absence of evidence? Your response evidences the assumption of ignorance. This is what your post evidences:
You are unaware of the necessary evidence for the existence of God. Therefore because of the total lack of knowledge of the necessary evidence, the evidence of the absence of God’s existence is inferred from a total lack of evidence, which, is not known.
You claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, but you miserably fail to state the evidence you looked for from which you can infer the absence of God. In essence you do not know what it is you are looking for, which, can be used as evidence for or against the presence of God.
So, until you tell me what evidence you looked for, your invalid inference that God does not exist is no inference, it is an assumption from ignorance.
America is more conservative today than twenty-years ago. As a liberal, your judgment is more perceptive to the nuances of the departures from your ideals. I therefore concede your judgment on that matter.
Consequently, I also withdraw my previous argument.
Furthermore, in retrospect, you have provided an explanation that accounts for my observation of the recent surge of the liberal volume. Meaning, there is less liberalism now than then, but the liberals are shouting louder to be heard to compensate for the loss of liberal impetus and increase of neo-conservative voices.
I have yet to admit this.
I did not assert you did. I presumed you would reference the thread betwixt Zombee and I.
But you have not actually demonstrated the invalidity of the inference: "...based on x-characteristics, god does not exist." I'll be waiting for that "valid and verbose" explanation.
That is not the purpose of the examples. The examples evidence the distinction of truth and validity. Had she provided a syllogistic argument that validates her conclusion, I still would not have put it on trial. Why? She admits her position is "an un-provable belief.
However, if you care to submit a syllogistic argument in support of your position, I will respond with a valid and verbose critique of its validity or invalidity.
(I can't assume to know what your syllogistic argument is by a single pseudo-premise: ...based on x characteristics.)
Before I scrutinize your post I would like for you to consider the following reply resulting from the dispute betwixt Zombee and I.
(I think it explains my perspective.)
Although I have a valid and verbose explanation of why I think your inference is invalid, I now have no necessity to put your belief on trial; for when you admit that your position is “an un-provable belief” you have conceded the conclusion of my argument.
I was not going to prove that your assertion is false, and as a result my assertion is true.
All I merely was going to do is logically demonstrate the invalidity of your conclusion. None of which proves your assertion is false and mine true.
Consider these examples that demonstrate the differences betwixt truth and validity.
Example 1)
All men are males.
No males are females.
Therefore, some men are bald-headed.
All three propositions are true to fact. But the conclusion does not follow the premises; it is therefore invalid, yet it is true nonetheless.
Example 2)
All unicorns are warm-blooded animals.
All warm-blooded animals are mortal.
Therefore all unicorns are mortal.
This is a valid argument. Yet, the truth or falsity of the propositions is only as true or false as the existence of unicorns. If unicorns are found to exist, the argument is both true and valid. But, until it can be proven that unicorns are purely fictional, the argument is not true or false; it is merely valid.
And God, like the subject of ‘Unicorns’, must be proven to be fictional. Until someone can prove that God is fictional or is not fictional, all we can utilize meanwhile is valid argument.
(Our arguments are not capable of being the evidence of God’s existence or non-existence.)
Closing:
I respect the Atheist position as well as the anti-Atheist position. While simultaneously respecting the importance and limits of logic and knowledge.
But I do recognize that for what it is; an unprovable belief, not a fact. All I ask from religious people is the same intellectual honesty.
Although I have a valid and verbose explanation of why I think your inference is invalid, I now have no necessity to put your belief on trial; for when you admit that your position is “an un-provable belief” you have conceded the conclusion of my argument.
I was not going to prove that your assertion is false, and as a result my assertion is true.
All I merely was going to do is logically demonstrate the invalidity of your conclusion. None of which proves your assertion is false and mine true.
Consider these examples that demonstrate the differences betwixt truth and validity.
Example 1)
All men are males.
No males are females.
Therefore, some men are bald-headed.
All three propositions are true to fact. But the conclusion does not follow the premises; it is therefore invalid, yet it is true nonetheless.
Example 2)
All unicorns are warm-blooded animals.
All warm-blooded animals are mortal.
Therefore all unicorns are mortal.
This is a valid argument. Yet, the truth or falsity of the propositions is only as true or false as the existence of unicorns. If unicorns are found to exist, the argument is both true and valid. But, until it can be proven that unicorns are purely fictional, the argument is not true or false; it is merely valid.
And God, like the subject of ‘Unicorns’, must be proven to be fictional. Until someone can prove that God is fictional or is not fictional, all we can utilize meanwhile is valid argument.
(Our arguments are not capable of being the evidence of God’s existence or non-existence.)
Closing:
I respect the Atheist position as well as the anti-Atheist position. While simultaneously respecting the importance and limits of logic and knowledge.
You infer that from the total lack of evidence for same when it should be present if the proposition were true.
Okay, let’s apply your reasoning to a different subject.
There is no evidence for the inference that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists.
Therefore, because of the evidence of that absence of evidence, Intelligent, extraterrestrial life does not exist.
Do you agree?
The same way the lack of a giant crater is evidence there wasn't a massive meteor strike on my front lawn last night.
This analogy is irrelevant. We are questioning the inference of attributes of the subject, God. We are not questioning whether a subject can or has effected an observable affect.
Albeit, allow me to apply a similar analogy of that analogy.
There is no evidence that multiple meteors passed over my front lawn yesterday afternoon. Therefore no meteors passed over my front lawn yesterday afternoon. This a fallacious argument!
Reaching a conclusion based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence and believing it no matter what is faith.
All conclusions are inferences. All valid inferences are derived from supporting evidence.
From what evidence do you infer: "God does not exist."?
When has reason persuaded men of wealth and power to relinquish their hard won spoils to they who are judged as lesser folk?
To them, corpocrats, wealth and power confirm their natural right to rule.
(We might be able to take a man out of corpocracy; but we can’t take the corpocracy out of corpocrats.)
people dont put stupid answers very often
As a veteran at CD, I can attest to the fact you are clearly underestimating the non-intelligence of stupidity.
Prior to the arbitrary, 50 Character requirement, many of the now and then veterans were quite annoyed by commentary rebuttals that read something like: WHAT?, SO!, LOL, aldhfaljksdhf, and many others. Consequently, the base requirement that you now ridicule is the result of our annoyance. So, I guess you can thank us for your assessment of the 50 Character requirement, i.e., : ”people dont put stupid answers very often”.
Your welcome!
Debate, logical, (if it is not logical it is not a debate) is a skill that is learned. We don’t accidentally learn logic and learn argument; they must be studied, learned, applied, and practiced. Just because we can utter words or type an argument does not mean that the flap of the mouth, click of the mouse, or flicks of the keyboard constitute logical argument.
Albeit, the only restrictions I have at CD are self-imposed according to the following:
1) Do I have the time and energy to argue the validity of my argument and the invalidity of the counter argument?
2) Does their argument evidence independent cognitive thought or punch-line and buzz-word parroting?
3) Can I learn a truth of which I was otherwise ignorant? Is it objective?
Would not that argument evidence that liberals are adept in the use of propaganda, while at the same time supporting the argument that conservatives are inept in the use of the propaganda? And thusly liberals are so much more effective with propaganda that their skills render it nearly undetectable?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with propaganda in its initial phases. Though, after that all bets are off ( liberal or conservative).
Propaganda: propagation of confidence.
I do think the U.S. is more liberal today than it was twenty-years ago; it evidences to me that the liberal propaganda is more effective, for better or for worse.
Not really, although that is true.
Explanation:
If the debate was titled: “Some Male canines lick their testicles.”; no one will dispute that. That is obvious and not worthy of debate.
Yet, as currently stated, the title allows room for the reader’s imagination or misunderstanding of the meaning.
Some would imagine:
1) All dogs lick testicles, and debate that imagination.
2) Homosexuals are dogs and lick one another’s…
3) Some dogs lick their owner’s testicles.
4) Blah, blah, blah.
We as a people ought to learn to be specific and logical in our assertions and arguments. Otherwise, our arguments are not worthy of a reasoned evaluation. (I think this problem pervades nearly all public debates.)
One example:
Republicans argued that Americans do not want the Democrats version of healthcare reform. Democrats argued that Americans want healthcare reform.
Those assertions are identical in quality to my “dogs lick testicles” assertion. Yet, neither party argued ‘some’ Americans…!
"The childhood obesity epidemic in America is a national health crisis."-White House
"We have a roadmap for implementing our plan across our government and across the country," -Michelle Obama
Obviously, both her and it can exercise the right of free speech. I will not object to the exercise thereof. And according to the same right, I too shall exercise free speech.
“The adulthood stupidity epidemic in the U.S. is a politician’s dream come true.”-Lawnman
”And they (politicians) have a roadmap for implementing the exploitation of stupidity across the government and across the country.”-Lawnman
(I will not dignify bullshit by giving it merit by a counter argument. It is a war of bullshit; if you want to prevail you must use the same ammo as your opponent. )
I think that the people listed would not unanimously respond the same (as per example).
Correction, the examples do not support the inference of unanimity among the participant’s responses. But, they led you to that as the speaker’s intent didn’t they?
I find myself thinking about this as All Dogs Lick Testicles,
I think most of us do, at least initially. And after a few moments of thought we reason that the statement can only mean ‘some’ dogs lick testicles.
Now read this:
1) Blacks are rapists.
2) Conservatives are morons.
3) Liberals are intelligent.
4) Whites are oppressors.
At a KKK rally, example (1) will provoke hatred toward all blacks.
At a Liberal rally, example (2) will provoke a standing ovation.
At a Conservative rally, example (3) will provoke a standing ovation.
At a Black heritage rally, example (4) will provoke hatred toward all whites.
The provocations listed in those examples are responses of people who react as though the propositions are universal, i.e., all blacks, conservatives, liberals, and whites.
Answer the following questions.
Would the people listed in the examples respond the same if the statements read: A few Blacks…; A few Conservatives…; A few Liberals…; A few Whites…?
Is this a subtle means to appeal to emotion?
Politicians employ this tactic in a form that normally begins with: “Americans need…”; is it because they are more effective among the populace if they appeal to emotion rather than reason?
