Answering AK’s claims [a] “[the so-called Gish Gallop is an] ID technique” and [b] “evil is a concept fabricated by religion”

_{kairosfocus

May 12, 2018

Atheism, Geo-strategic issues, Logic and Reason, rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Sometimes, one of UD’s frequent objectors makes an inadvertently telling objection that deserves highlighting in order to publicly document what we are up against. In this case, AK has provided us with TWO, as headlined. Accordingly, over the past several days, I responded in the Skeptical Review thread. This morning, on seeing doubling down, I have further responded and I now highlight for all to see:

KF, 125: >> . . . let us go back to your context from 64 above: “the ID technique [–> that’s already a Big Lie agit prop tactic and slander] that you excel at called the Gish Gallop [–> diagnostic, terrible sign], made famous by Duane Gish and others [–> root-slander]” and again at 100 above: “evil is a concept fabricated by religion.”

Before anything else, I note this is an attempt to relativise and dismiss the reality of evil and to side-step two significant developments. First, that while up to the 50’s – 70’s the appeal to the problem of evils was a favourite tactic of atheists to try to dismiss the reality of God. But after Plantinga’s highly successful free will defense [–> cf. PS below] was put on the table the deductive form collapsed and the inductive one was broken in its impact. But of course, some of us are old enough to remember and to bear witness.

In short, deep inside the dismissal is resentment that a favourite rhetorical appeal of atheism has collapsed decisively, and that at the hands of a Christian theist and leading philosopher.

The second matter turns on recognising what evil is, as a secondary phenomenon:

EVIL: the frustration, twisting, perversion or privation of what is good in itself that prevents or hampers it from attaining its proper end. A proper end that is often naturally evident. Such as, that our minds are properly aimed at and governed by truth and linked correct, cogent reasoning and duties to the just, the good, the prudent, the wise, etc.

As WmAD famously highlighted from Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, that issue is the problem of good:

In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” . . .

I doubt that you would as cavalierly assert through the confident manner fallacy: evil [–> GOOD] is a concept fabricated by religion . . .

But the two are inextricably intertwined, indeed evil parasites off the good and much of its repugnance when its destructive effects are manifest for all to see comes from its patent violation and frustration of what is a manifest proper end.

And so, we can hardly but observe that you are forced to appeal to our sense of duty to truth, justice and more, even as you work as a saw-tooth cutting away at our connexion to the root of such things.

Now, Rational Wiki (and no I will not link the source, do your own search):

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as “starting 10 fires in 10 minutes.” [U/D May 16: Subsequently RW updated their definition to speak of “weak arguments.” This is itself problematic (as, in inductive contexts arguments may mutually reinforce as a cumulative case and “weakness” is often a matter of opinion, especially when tendentious charges of “half truth” and out of context or distorted quotes or the notion that you cannot use an expert’s admission against interest are in play) and it turns out that Ms Scott suggested misleading citation and used “half truth” — a half truth being a whole lie — right from the beginning. As at May 15, 2018, Wikipedia used: “During a Gish gallop, a debater confronts an opponent with a rapid series of many specious arguments, half-truths, and misrepresentations in a short space of time, which makes it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of a formal debate.” The term is clearly tainted with invidious insinuations and attacks to the man. It should not be used, especially as it is already a case of attacking a man, by its very name.]

Each tooth of a saw cuts a tiny curlicue of sawdust, but with many teeth going zip-zip-zip, soon a pile of sawdust tells how much of a cut has been given. (That is how mass-mobilisation agit prop activism cumulatively wreaks havoc.)

Now, too, before I speak more specifically, remember my metaphor just above on the cumulative impact of corrosive polarising slander and cutting off the roots of our civilisation — noting, the dismissive genetic fallacy on evil also made by you, AK: one tooth of a zipping saw does not do much, it seems, from how tiny a sawdust shaving is. But once we see many teeth in action, the cumulative effect is huge as the sawdust pile grows and grows and grows zip-zip-zip, especially if the branch we are sitting on is under strain and has to bear all of us.

Then, beyond a certain unpredictable point, a critical threshold is hit and CRAACK, SNAP, COLLAPSE.

Too late, bitterly too late.

Where, we are dealing with a civilisation that — having nukes — is far too dangerous to fail safely.

In that light, AK’s strawman tactic of twisting my words into:

Civilization is going to come crashing down because I used the term “Gish gallop” . . .

. . . only manages to show the sort of destructive blindness caused by evil and in accumulation, the zipping saw at suicidal work in our civilisation may well precipitate the unthinkable.

FYI, AK, you sheared off one little curlicue of sawdust from the branch on which we are all sitting. You did this by a doubly slanderous reference. Which, I called you on, and which you show no signs of due responsiveness and responsibility over. And indeed, making that particular reference is a serious sign of how far the rot has progressed in a particular case.

I don’t know if we can wake up from the stupor of a Plato’s Cave suicidal horror show already in progress, but that will take a miracle of mass repentance.

This I do know, our civilisation is in self-induced mortal peril, and the saws are busily zipping away with destructive agit prop cutting us off from the root and support that are vital for our civilisation to thrive.

Not that the blinded, benumbed and polarised will be particularly inclined to wake up to, face and do something about our common peril.

Now, here is my longstanding response to the Gish-smear slander, here at UD (and no it is not a threat to ban, in answer to yet another twister of facts and issues out there):

In short, this term [= Gish gallop] is an accusation of lying, distorting and the like on a wholesale basis, further allegedly in order to overwhelm an opponent and thus prevent answering the flood of falsehoods.

Something is very wrong here, however, even after taking the questionable list of sources cited at face value for the moment, for the sake of discussion.

For, it is well known that to select several examples of actual falsehood or gross error and to expose them normally suffices to ground the conclusion that the party who has actually indulged such a flood of false assertions, is not responsible or credible and should be dismissed.

One slice of such a spoiled cake has in it all the ingredients, and all that.

In short, if the accusation were TRUE, it would be quite easy to overturn such an argument.

It would fail so spectacularly, that it would be rhetorically suicidal.

Provided, the other side of the debate or discussion were in command of the actual facts, not mere ideological talking points and disputable opinions.

So, it is quite plain that there is no real need for such a named fallacy.

And, in the case of Mr Gish, it is well known that he consistently won debates on origins science by focussing on the problem that the fossil record is full of gaps that lead to a want of on-the-ground evidence for body-plan level macroevolution. [Kindly, see the linked discussion of the real facts, — let me now use the unlimited number of links capacity of an OP: “here is Ken Ham’s summary of the relevant history, and here and here we may see John Morris of ICR on debates. It is to be noted that Creationist spokesmen, for forty years, have actively sought debates, and have had such a long-running pattern of success, that it is the advocates of body-plan level Macro-Evolution by blind chance and necessity who have counselled their colleagues not to participate in debates. As a result, while Gish seems to have taken part in some 300 – 400 debates and Henry Morris some 100, such are reportedly rare today.”]

Nobody wins 300+:0 public debates, inducing opponents to find excuses to dodge further debates and to smear the debater unless he stands on solid facts and cogent reasoning. In this case, were [neo-] darwinist evolutionary theory even roughly true, 250+k fossil species in museums and the billions of further readily seen fossils in the field [e.g. Barbados, where I have lived, is literally built out of layers of fossil limestone, often in the form of corals] would overwhelm us with gradualism of body form transformation as a dominant, obvious pattern. Instead, as Gould et al inadvertently highlighted by championing Punctuated Equilibria, the actual pattern is one of systematic gaps and persistent absence of the roots of the tree of life icon — OoL by blind watchmaker mechanisms. That’s why we see so many evolutionary just so stories in the textbooks, the museums, the documentaries and the literature.

By utter contrast, we may answer the slanders against ID simply and directly.

On a trillion directly observed cases [including your objecting comments above, which are meaningful text strings], functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information — FSCO/I for handy short — is a highly reliable sign of intelligently directed configuration [= design] as relevant cause. This is backed up by the search challenge posed by blind chance and mechanical necessity driven needle in haystack search for configuration spaces that start at the 500 to 1,000 bit threshold of complexity. That is, such a search challenge overwhelms sol system or observed cosmos scale resources, given 3.27*10-150 to 1.07*10^301 and sharply up possibilities, overwhemingly non-functional gibberish.

The only empirically warranted, analytically plausible cause of FSCO/I is design.

The issue is not evidence and analysis, but that design is repugnant to a culturally dominant ideology, evolutionary materialistic scientism. Which, on closer inspection, is readily seen to be self-referentially incoherent and thus irretrievably self-falsifying.>>

Food for thought. END

PS: Let me excerpt here a short summary [scroll down here] of Plantinga’s reply to the problem of evil:

>>Leading design theorist and philosopher-theologian William Dembski helps us put the intellectual forms of the problem of evil in context, by citing the sixth century Christian philosopher, Boethius:

In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . .

The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” [“Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate,” Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]

In short, when we come to core worldview problems, we should address the comparative difficulties of the main alternatives, and make our choice on which difficulties it is better to live with.

Plantinga’s free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction:

1.      God exists
2.      God is omnipotent – all powerful
3.      God is omniscient – all-knowing
4.      God is omni-benevolent – all-good
5.      God created the world
6.      The world contains evil

To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of — but obviously does not eliminate — evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1.

Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist.

However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that:

2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos.

Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ?

In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses.

Further, Alvin Plantinga – through his free will defense — was able to show that the theistic set is actually consistent. He did this by augmenting the set with a further proposition that is logically possible (as opposed to seeming plausible to one who may be committed to another worldview) and which makes the consistency clear. That proposition, skeletally, is 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6.

The essence of that defense is:

“A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.] [From: Clark, Kelley James. Return to Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69 – 70, citing Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1974), p. 30.]

Nor is the possible world known as heaven a good counter-example. For, heaven would exist as a world in which the results of choices made to live by the truth in love across a lifetime have culminated in their eternal reward. This we may see from an argument made by the apostle Paul:

Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 78 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [NIV]

Anticipating the onward response that in at least some possible worlds, there are free creatures, all of whom freely do what is right, Plantinga asserts a further possibility: trans-world depravity. That is, in all worlds God could create in which a certain person, say Gordon, exists; then that person would have freely gone wrong at least once. And, what if it is further possible that this holds for every class of created, morally capable being? (Then, there would be no possible worlds in which moral good is possible but in which moral evil would not in fact occur. So the benefit of moral good would entail that the world would contain transworld depraved creatures.)

Moreover, Plantinga proposes that there is a possible state of affairs in which God and natural evil can exist. For instance, if all natural evils are the result of the actions of significantly free creatures such as Satan and his minions, then since it is logically possible that God could not have created a world with a greater balance of good over evil if it did not contain such creatures, God and natural evil are compatible.

At this point, albeit grudgingly, leading atheologians (Such as Mackie and Williams) concede that the deductive form of the problem of evil stands overturned. Thus, a new question is put on the table.

It is: But what if the world seems to contain too much evil, and evil that is apparently pointless, i.e. gratuitous? First, the greater good “absorbs” at least some of the evils. To this, the Christian Theist further responds that there are goods in the world that are left out of the account so far; especially, that the fall of mankind led to the greatest good of all: that God loved the world and gave his Son, setting in motion the programme of redemption as a supreme good that absorbs all evils. That is, it is rational for a Christian to believe there are no un-absorbed evils, even though the a-theologian may beg to differ with the Christian’s beliefs.

However, it should be noted that there is an existential or pastoral form of the problem of evil (as we saw above): where the overwhelming force of evil and pain brings us to doubt God. To that, no mere rational argument will suffice; for it is a life-challenge we face, as did Job. And, as a perusal of Job 23:1 – 7, 38:1 – 7, 40:1 – 8, 42:1 – 6, God may be more interested in exposing our underlying motives and calling for willingness to trust him even where we cannot trace him, than in satisfying our queries and rebutting our pained accusations. That is, it is at least possible that God is primarily in the business of soul-making.

Where then does the problem of evil stand today?

On balance, it is rational to believe that God exists, but obviously there are many deep, even painful questions to which we have no answers. And, those who choose to believe in God will have a radically different evaluation of evil than those who reject him. >>

PPS: For reference, the seven mountains model:

. . . also, the window of change/change challenge model:

. . . and the Overton Window, double-BATNA model:

H’mm, I feel prompted to add this, on the SWOT-BAU vs. ALT solution strategy (which ideally works by bringing a cross-section of stakeholders . . . including hitherto marginalised ones . . . to the table to ponder together a wall-sized version of the chart and use ZOPP-style contributions to collaboratively synthesise a solution-strategy):

PPPS: I tracked down the source and confirm the slander. I clip for record from another thread (on somebody’s review of Darwin’s Doubt):

KF, 151:>>I took time out to track down the essay where the ideas are introduced by Ms Scott. The taint [of slander] I pointed out is there from the outset. Ms Scott complains on citing Gould on the trade secret of paleontology, then says:

Creationist debaters (at least the nationally-prominent ones) are masters at presenting these half-truth non-sequiturs that the audience misunderstands as relevant points. These can be very difficult to counter in a debate situation, unless you have a lot of time.

[–> she later contradicts herself on this point, arguing for a tight time debate format that locks out substantiating the big picture problem that is at stake; surely, 45 minutes and what a 20 – 30 minute rebuttal is a lot of time, especially after hundreds of debates have been done and books have been published so the substance is no surprise. BTW, Creation Scientists Answer their critics is a key part of that literature, as well as Gish’s Fossils say no series]

And you never have enough time to deal with even a fraction of the half-truths or plain erroneous statements that creationists can come out with. Even if you deal with a handful of the unscientific nonsense spewed out by your opponent, your audience is left with the , “Yeah, but…” syndrome: well, maybe there are intermediate forms and the creationist was wrong about radiometric dating, YEAH, BUT why didn’t that evolutionist answer the question about polonium halos?” (or some other argument.)

[–> Thin gruel. If one has solidly broken several key cases AND has laid out the positive evidence that actually shows by clear observed case the pattern of body-plan level macroevo that surely is there all across the fossil record, the other side should be shattered. Oh, maybe, the point is, that from molecular machines in the cell to major body plans, there is a systematic pattern of gaps and islands of function isolated by gaps without functional forms . . . in which case Gish and co clearly have a point, one the public has a RIGHT to hear.]

The evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format. And the way these things work is that suspicion is sowed in the minds of the audience no matter what . . . .

[–> suspicion that a case has not been made on the empirical merits, substantiating the arguments by icon?]

Now, there are ways to have a formal debate that actually teaches the audience something about science, or evolution, and that has the potential to expose creation science for the junk it is. This is to have a narrowly-focused exchange in which the debaters deal with a limited number of topics. Instead of the “Gish Gallop” format of most debates where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error

[–> see the contradiction? What about the cross-complaint that YEARS of schooling, hundreds of hours of TV time, acres of museum space and more are used to indoctrinate and it is complained that there should never be a forum where both sides can make the case they have in summary at feature article length or book chapter length?]

that the evolutionist hasn’t a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate, the debaters have limited topics and limited time.

There is much that is utterly wrong with this essay, for reasons already highlighted and in part noted in-quote.

In particular, a torrent of half-truths is a thinly veiled way of saying reams of lies. For, a half-truth is a whole lie. Including twisted quotation — as I was accused of above. I here substantiate that my concern was there from the beginning, though Ms Scott is a bit more genteel than the raw statement in Rational Wiki which I found years ago on first encountering this pseudo-fallacy.

Where spewing reams of half-truths, lies, distorted dishonest quotes etc is an actual problem, any half-decent lawyer knows that if you pick out several points of error, and properly expose falsity and deceit or even just incompetence, the credibility of the other side is shattered.

So, the rhetorical premise Scott offers is fundamentally false.

Her claims about Creationists dodging narrow formats is also misleading, as in fact the claimed gradualism is a matter of a wide array of evidence relative to 150 years of fossils, with a broad pattern that should be there but is not. That’s Gould’s famous trade secret. And no it’s not just rates, the rates issue [as is suggested in Punctuated Equilibria] was put up to explain the gaps. The systematic gaps.

So, the core point is there, right from the beginning. The term is tainted, it insinuates deceitful insincerity and manipulation of the public. Even, going so far as to suggest that a format that gives time to make the case is calculated to get away with in effect public education fraud.

I am reminded of the what, six year old offer here at UD that we would publish an up to 6,000 word or so (the limit is generous and flexible, where at 120 WPM that is 50 minutes of speech, about the times in question) essay that would outline and substantiate the core blind watchmaker thesis case for ooL and tree of life. Links can go elsewhere but the case as a summary must be made in the essay. After a year of pursuing it, no satisfactory submission was received from the penumbra of objector sites.

That is relevant to the credibility of the argument Ms Scott made. No, I do not buy the claim, for cause.

Coming back to the core point, it is clear that “Gish gallop” is loaded to the point of slander and should not be used. it boils down to saying that if one puts up a sustained, lecture length or magazine feature article length argument with many sources, using expert testimony against interest one is a liar and misquoter, pretty automatically.

That is patently false and unjustifiably accusatory.

It is time this was set aside.

And, web searches show the term is now being migrated into making even more loaded political points in what is in effect a policy opinion verbal war that is deeply poisoning the atmosphere for discussion.

Something is wrong here, seriously wrong.

Something connected to the obvious ongoing suicide of our civilisation.

It is time to turn back before the crumbling cliff’s edge collapses underfoot.>>

Comments

Bob: But if I (rationally) decide to do something, that event has a rational motivation. Origenes: Yes. Indeed. And that fact constitutes a problem for materialism, since according to materialism there are no rationally motivated events — such as you rationally deciding to do something. Interesting that Bob thinks his statement is part of the answer when it is part of the problem.mike1962_{May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Bob O’H @ 251 // The numbers below refer to arguments listed in post#212 / (2)
Bob: Oh yes it is
No it really is not. We are discussing the materialistic explanation, or lack thereof, of rationality. The so-called hard problem is specifically focused on explaining conscious experience. Wiki: “The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences—how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes.”
Bob: But certainly I intend to “produce reason” and evidently my brain does coordinate itself (i.e. I can decide to think about things).

O: Those facts pose a problem for materialism, since it cannot explain them.

Bob: Indeed: it’s part of the hard problem of consciousness.
No, it is not. (3)
Bob: More seriously, the laws of cricket, logic and morality are all human creations. There’s no reason why they can’t live alongside the laws of physics.
“Alongside”, as in ‘not explainable by laws of physics’? If materialism is true, physical events and physical laws can, in principle, explain everything. (4)
Bob: Why should rationality presupposes control over one’s thoughts? Are you saying that computers aren’t rational?
Yes, that follows from what I am saying. Of course computers are a consequence of rational activity (intelligent design), but are not rational themselves. See also Searle’s ‘Chinese Room.’ (5) A person is ‘simple’, one thing — not quadrillions of things.
I argue that, unlike your brain, you are not composed of other things: you are simple. My argument centers on what I take to be an uncontroversial datum: for any pair of conscious beings, it is impossible for the pair itself to be conscious. Consider, for instance, the pair comprising you and me. You might pinch your arm and feel a pain. I might simultaneously pinch my arm and feel a qualitatively identical pain. But the pair we form would not feel a thing.¹ Pairs of people themselves are incapable of experience. [David Barnett]
(7)
O: For instance, if I reproduce a Chinese sentence without being the author and without any understanding of what I am saying, then I am not rationally involved WRT that Chinese sentence, irrespective of whether that Chinese sentence is rational or not — coherent or not (or true or not).

Bob: OK, so that’s just a silly example. How about reproduce a Chinese sentence whilst being the author and understanding what you’re saying?
In that case, being the author, one can very well be rational. But, that scenario is not under discussion; instead, we are discussing the situation where one is not the author. (8)
O: Okay. There are two types of physical processes: Those that act in accord with physical laws (determined events) and those that do not, such as quantum indeterminacy (undetermined events).

Bob: OK, now I admit it: you’re not rational. This is just nonsense.
Why do you think so?
Bob: But if I (rationally) decide to do something, that event has a rational motivation.

O: Yes. Indeed. And that fact constitutes a problem for materialism, since according to materialism there are no rationally motivated events — such as you rationally deciding to do something.

Bob: No, according to your mis-understanding of materialism. I don’t think materialists have a problem with being rational.
They do not have a problem as long as they do not consider the consequences of their worldview WRT rationality.
Bob: No, you’re totally mis-understanding materialism.
Materialism entails that mental states are entirely material or physical in nature, and correlatively that a complete account of the world, one that is all inclusive, can be given in purely materialist terms. Where do I go wrong? (9)
Bob: Were we discussing being trustworthy in producing truth? You hadn’t mentioned that before.
Yes, when I talk about ‘trusting reason’, I mean trusting that it produces true ideas.Origenes_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 248 -
(2) Bob: Well, that’s the hard problem of consciousness. No, it is not.
Oh yes it is
Bob: But certainly I intend to “produce reason” and evidently my brain does coordinate itself (i.e. I can decide to think about things). Those facts pose a problem for materialism, since it cannot explain them.
Indeed: it's part of the hard problem of consciousness.
(3) Bob: … it is a reason why the process of elucidation of the laws of reason should reduce to physical laws, and the laws of reason should (at some level) be consonant with physical laws, but I don’t see why they have to reduce to physical laws. The laws of cricket, for example, don’t reduce to physical laws. Well, materialism claims that physical laws are the only laws there are. This means that the laws of cricket, the laws of logic and laws of morality must all be explainable by physical laws and physical events.
No, that would mean that there are no laws of cricket. More seriously, the laws of cricket, logic and morality are all human creations. There's no reason why they can't live alongside the laws of physics.
(4) Bob: I don’t accept your point 4 and you haven’t done anything to defend it from my argument. Here is my point (4) again: O: If materialism is true, then our thoughts are the consequence of physical events long before we were born and physical laws. We do not control physical events long before we were born, nor do we control the physical laws. It follows that we have no control over our thoughts. Assuming that rationality presupposes control over one’s thoughts, we are not rational.
Why should rationality presupposes control over one’s thoughts? Are you saying that computers aren't rational?
(5) Bob: The person isn’t “in” the brain: the person (i.e. the consciousness/personality) is a product of the brain’s activity. So your question makes no sense. It’s like asking where “is” the car in all those atoms of metal, carbon etc. in your Prius. So, there is no location of the person in the brain? Is the person the brain as a whole, as is the case in your car example? If so, how about e.g. hemisphere removal as it sometimes occurs to epilepsy patients?
That would be like removing a door on your car. It would still be your car. Yes, at some point one can remove enough of the brain that we would say a person's personality has been removed, but I don't know if there would be a sharp distinction between the personality being there and not.
(7) Bob: But if, for the sake of argument, I accept your suggestion that we are not the authors of ‘our’ thoughts, that still doesn’t stop us being rational, as long as our thoughts are rational. My point is that only the author of thoughts can be termed ‘rational’.
Why not?
For instance, if I reproduce a Chinese sentence without being the author and without any understanding of what I am saying, then I am not rationally involved WRT that Chinese sentence, irrespective of whether that Chinese sentence is rational or not — coherent or not (or true or not).
OK, so that's just a silly example. How about reproduce a Chinese sentence whilst being the author and understanding what you're saying?
(8) Bob: First, I don’t know what you mean by “determined and undetermined”. Okay. There are two types of physical processes: Those that act in accord with physical laws (determined events) and those that do not, such as quantum indeterminacy (undetermined events).
OK, now I admit it: you're not rational. This is just nonsense.
Bob: But if I (rationally) decide to do something, that event has a rational motivation. Yes. Indeed. And that fact constitutes a problem for materialism, since according to materialism there are no rationally motivated events — such as you rationally deciding to do something.
No, according to your mis-understanding of materialism. I don't think materialists have a problem with being rational.
Bob: At this point you’re totally ignoring the issue that we, as humans, can be rational. Not at all. I’m pointing out that, according to materialism, it cannot be the case that humans are rational.
No, you're totally mis-understanding materialism.
(9) O: If one randomly throws scrap metal together and the unintended result looks like a plane, it is unlikely that it is a well-built plane. Bob: If this is the best counter-argument you have, you’re not doing well. Here’s a counter-counter-example: even if there is no intention that the fjord down the hill from my house should be there, I can still trust it to be wet (and cold at this time of year!). Being trustworthy in being wet is not analogous to being trustworthy in producing truth. Being wet is a direct property of certain matter, producing the general theory of relativity is not.
Were we discussing being trustworthy in producing truth? You hadn't mentioned that before.Bob O'H_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT}

AK, you have simply doubled down. I have added a PPPS to the OP (to make sure it is also accessible here) that shows that from the outset, the term is inherently an accusation of lying, and is slander from the root. Your persistence in using this term has now earned you poster child status on trollishness. I take due note that you have tried to embroil me under your accusations, yet again; noting, too, that where I and others are short, it's not enough. Where we take time and lrngth to substantiate, its just empty verbosity. Meanwhile, you pose on barbed quips and slanders without providing significant evidence that you have seriously grappled with the merits of the matter. That is the way of the troll, not that of a responsible critic. KFkairosfocus_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

Allan:
I have used the definition of Gish gallop that I have been using to describe the debating style of some here.
You have used a bastardized version of the definition. And your "debating style" leaves much to be desired. You run away from science and all you do is bluff, equivocate and lie your way through a discussionET_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

Bob O’H @244 // The numbers below refer to arguments listed in post#212// (2)
Bob: Well, that’s the hard problem of consciousness.
No, it is not.
Bob: But certainly I intend to “produce reason” and evidently my brain does coordinate itself (i.e. I can decide to think about things).
Those facts pose a problem for materialism, since it cannot explain them. (3)
Bob: … it is a reason why the process of elucidation of the laws of reason should reduce to physical laws, and the laws of reason should (at some level) be consonant with physical laws, but I don’t see why they have to reduce to physical laws. The laws of cricket, for example, don’t reduce to physical laws.
Well, materialism claims that physical laws are the only laws there are. This means that the laws of cricket, the laws of logic and laws of morality must all be explainable by physical laws and physical events. (4)
Bob: I don’t accept your point 4 and you haven’t done anything to defend it from my argument.
Here is my point (4) again:
O: If materialism is true, then our thoughts are the consequence of physical events long before we were born and physical laws. We do not control physical events long before we were born, nor do we control the physical laws. It follows that we have no control over our thoughts. Assuming that rationality presupposes control over one’s thoughts, we are not rational.
I do not see how your response begins to address this argument. (5)
Bob: The person isn’t “in” the brain: the person (i.e. the consciousness/personality) is a product of the brain’s activity. So your question makes no sense. It’s like asking where “is” the car in all those atoms of metal, carbon etc. in your Prius.
So, there is no location of the person in the brain? Is the person the brain as a whole, as is the case in your car example? If so, how about e.g. hemisphere removal as it sometimes occurs to epilepsy patients? (7)
Bob: But if, for the sake of argument, I accept your suggestion that we are not the authors of ‘our’ thoughts, that still doesn’t stop us being rational, as long as our thoughts are rational.
My point is that only the author of thoughts can be termed ‘rational’. For instance, if I reproduce a Chinese sentence without being the author and without any understanding of what I am saying, then I am not rationally involved WRT that Chinese sentence, irrespective of whether that Chinese sentence is rational or not — coherent or not (or true or not). (8)
Bob: First, I don’t know what you mean by “determined and undetermined”.
Okay. There are two types of physical processes: Those that act in accord with physical laws (determined events) and those that do not, such as quantum indeterminacy (undetermined events). Like I said, according to materialism, that’s all there is. I point out that both types of events are not rationally motivated. IOWs according to materialism, rationally motivated events do not exist.
Bob: But if I (rationally) decide to do something, that event has a rational motivation.
Yes. Indeed. And that fact constitutes a problem for materialism, since according to materialism there are no rationally motivated events — such as you rationally deciding to do something.
Bob: At this point you’re totally ignoring the issue that we, as humans, can be rational.
Not at all. I’m pointing out that, according to materialism, it cannot be the case that humans are rational. (9)
O: If one randomly throws scrap metal together and the unintended result looks like a plane, it is unlikely that it is a well-built plane.

Bob: If this is the best counter-argument you have, you’re not doing well. Here’s a counter-counter-example: even if there is no intention that the fjord down the hill from my house should be there, I can still trust it to be wet (and cold at this time of year!).
Being trustworthy in being wet is not analogous to being trustworthy in producing truth. Being wet is a direct property of certain matter, producing the general theory of relativity is not. (10) Maybe I will elucidate the point at a later time.Origenes_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

KairosFocus,
AK, either prove that BA77, the undersigned etc are piling up lies, half truths and weak arguments or stand exposed as utterly irresponsible and willfully slanderous.
I have used the definition of Gish gallop that I have been using to describe the debating style of some here. And it does not mention half truths or lies. The fact that you continue to harp on half truths and lies, even after my corrective, is very telling. By the definition that I am using, it can easily be argued that you, on occasion, are also guilty of the “proof by verbosity” fallacy (AKA the Gish gallop). The reader does not have to go any further than this OP to see this.Allan Keith_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

as to this claim from Bob: "what Gödel showed was that some formal statements can’t be proved within a formal system. Not all statements," And which statements might those be?
First incompleteness theorem Excerpt: Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ Gödel's incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”." Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6
The Theistic implications are obvious:
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians "Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49
Godel also stated:
"Either mathematics is too big for the human mind, or the human mind is more than a machine." - Kurt Gödel As quoted in Topoi : The Categorial Analysis of Logic (1979) by Robert Goldblatt, p. 13 “In materialism all elements behave the same. It is mysterious to think of them as spread out and automatically united. For something to be a whole, it has to have an additional object, say, a soul or a mind.” Kurt Gödel – Hao Wang’s supplemental biography of Gödel, A Logical Journey, MIT Press, 1996. [9.4.12]
Also of note:
The danger of artificial stupidity – Saturday, 28 February 2015 “Computers lack mathematical insight: in his book The Emperor’s New Mind, the Oxford mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose deployed Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem to argue that, in general, the way mathematicians provide their “unassailable demonstrations” of the truth of certain mathematical assertions is fundamentally non-algorithmic and non-computational” http://machineslikeus.com/news/danger-artificial-stupidity The mathematical world - James Franklin - 7 April 2014 Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,, - James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/what-is-left-for-mathematics-to-be-about/
Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for the materialist, Godel's incompleteness theorem has now been extended to physics and now undermines the entire reductive materialistic framework that undergirds Darwinian evolution: In the following article entitled 'Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable', which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description."
Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics - December 9, 2015 Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,, It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, "We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s," added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. "So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists' point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html
Of supplemental note:
The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt:,, what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
And let's not forget that mathematics is immaterial in and of itself, which is more than a slight problem for the reductive materialist:
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? - M. Anthony Mills - April 16, 2018 Excerpt:In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
bornagain77_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

Bob O’H @225
O: If Bob holds that his thoughts are produced by an entity (or entities) beyond his control and are rational, then the only explanation for both these facts is that this ‘entity’, at the beginning of the chain of physical events which constitute the universe, is rational.

Bob: Err, no. The universe is ordered, but I wouldn’t say that it is intelligent.
I wouldn’t either.
Bob: Rationality came about later, just as planets weren’t present at the beginning of the universe.
According to materialism, whatever “came about later” — such as rationality or planets —, is the consequence of physical events and laws which precede it in time. If a chain of events leads to Brandenburg Concerto No. 2, then the only explanation for that fact is that at the beginning of the chain is a composer. Similarly, if a chain of physical events (including the Big Bang) leads up to libraries full of encyclopedias or science books or novels or nuclear power plants or things like that — in short: rationality —, then the only explanation for this fact is that, at the beginning of the chain, is a rational being. Again, welcome to theism.Origenes_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 242 - (I've added the numbers of the points, in case anyone wants to follow back)
(2) So, according to you, ‘the brain’ has overview of itself, the intent to produce reason, and the power to coordinate quadrillions of particles into coherent reason. Given materialism, how does that work?
Well, that's the hard problem of consciousness. :-) But certainly I intend to "produce reason" and evidently my brain does coordinate itself (i.e. I can decide to think about things).
(3) No one knows how laws of reason reduce to physical laws.
Bob: Is there any reason why they should?
(3) Yes, since materialism proposes that physical laws produce the laws of reason.
That's not a good reason: it is a reason why the process of elucidation of the laws of reason should reduce to physical laws, and the laws of reason should (at some level) be consonant with physical laws, but I don't see why they have to reduce to physical laws. The laws of cricket, for example, don't reduce to physical laws. On point 4, a re-statement doesn't get us very far.
(5) So, you say that “one person” can be “quadrillions of particles”. You are a materialist, so you have to say that.
Well, yes. Just like your car is “quadrillions of particles”, but is still a car.
(5a) Okay, but here is one problem with that statement: under materialism, our thoughts, are the consequence of countless particles that precede the existence of the brain in time; see also (4). So, unless you claim that e.g. the Big Bang is part of you as a person, your position is problematic.
Err, no. I don't accept your point 4 and you haven't done anything to defend it from my argument.
(6) Then tell me where the person is in the brain.
The person isn't "in" the brain: the person (i.e. the consciousness/personality) is a product of the brain's activity. So your question makes no sense. It's like asking where "is" the car in all those atoms of metal, carbon etc. in your Prius.
(7) Unresponsive. My argument is that, since we are not the authors of ‘our’ thoughts, we are not rational.
My apologies - I was answering what you wrote. But if, for the sake of argument, I accept your suggestion that we are not the authors of ‘our’ thoughts, that still doesn't stop us being rational, as long as our thoughts are rational.
(8) Unresponsive. Under materialism there are but two kinds of events (determined and undetermined). That’s all there is, according to materialism. Both types of events are not rationally motivated. So, if materialism is true, rationally motivated events do not exist.
Another non sequitur, at best. First, I don't know what you mean by "determined and undetermined". But if I (rationally) decide to do something, that event has a rational motivation. At this point you're totally ignoring the issue that we, as humans, can be rational.
(9) If one randomly throws scrap metal together and the unintended result looks like a plane, it is unlikely that it is a well-built plane.
If this is the best counter-argument you have, you're not doing well. Here's a counter-counter-example: even if there is no intention that the fjord down the hill from my house should be there, I can still trust it to be wet (and cold at this time of year!).
(10) Godel’s incompleteness theorem? But that proves my point.
Ah, no surprise that came up! But what Gödel showed was that some formal statements can't be proved within a formal system. Not all statements, just some. He accepted that a lot of statements can be proved. Including his famous incompleteness theorem.Bob O'H_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

F/N: I have added a third PS to the OP, clipping another thread on how the slanderous taint in the term in accusation a in the OP was there from the beginning. Ms Scott is subtler than the original form of Rational Wiki, but a half truth is a whole lie. And, using the dog whistle term "weak arguments" only serves to camouflage the underlying double slander, of the late Dr Duane Gish and of those accused unjustly and irresponsibly today. The term "Gish Gallop" is a term of dirty rhetorical stereotyping, scapegoating, abuse and bigotry, laced with the insinuation that those who dare to question the domineering evolutionary materialist agenda are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Such a term is a case of verbal bullying and slander, not responsible discussion. Anyone who insists on it shows himself to be playing the troll by doubling down on slander in order to sow discord, alienate, polarise and frustrate serious discussion. Correct and expose the trolls [and draw lessons for the honest onlooker], do not entertain them. KFkairosfocus_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

Bob O’H @224
(1) By its very nature matter is not about rationality, so, why?

Bob: I’m not sure matter is “about” anything, but so what? We’re not discussing semiotics.
The proposition ‘A is the cause of B’, is unlikely to be true when A is not in any way inclined to produce B. For instance, the proposition ‘a group of toddlers produced the general theory of relativity’ is unlikely to be true because toddlers are not interested in that topic. Similarly matter is not ‘interested’ in producing reason. This fact constitutes an obvious problem for the proposition ‘matter produces reason.’ Your response “so what?” does not solve that problem.
(2) There is no concept of a physical thing with the overview, intent and/or power to coordinate events in the brain, which consists of quadrillions of particles separated by relatively vast amounts of space, into coherent reason.

Bob: Yes there is: it’s called the brain.
So, according to you, ‘the brain’ has overview of itself, the intent to produce reason, and the power to coordinate quadrillions of particles into coherent reason. Given materialism, how does that work? One question would be: how does the brain steer quadrillions of particles towards a coordinated rational activity when those particles are not inclined to do so on their own?
(3) No one knows how laws of reason reduce to physical laws.

Bob: Is there any reason why they should?
Yes, since materialism proposes that physical laws produce the laws of reason.
(4) All material events, including our thoughts, trace back to past events long before we were born. We have no control over these events, so, we have no control over our thoughts — or anything else for that matter. So, we are not rational.

Bob: This is a non sequitur (and also denies free will, of course). If we are control over our thoughts, then we would still be able to trace events back to long before we were born.
? I suggest that you consider my argument again: If materialism is true, then our thoughts are the consequence of physical events long before we were born and physical laws. We do not control physical events long before we were born, nor do we control the physical laws. It follows that we have no control over our thoughts. Assuming that rationality presupposes control over one’s thoughts, we are not rational.
(5) Reason is the collective result of quadrillions of particles not of one rational person. So, we, as persons, are not rational.

Bob: That person is made up of the collection of “quadrillions of particles”. As reason is the “collective result”, the collective (i.e. the person) is rational.
So, you say that “one person” can be “quadrillions of particles”. You are a materialist, so you have to say that. Okay, but here is one problem with that statement: under materialism, our thoughts, are the consequence of countless particles that precede the existence of the brain in time; see also (4). So, unless you claim that e.g. the Big Bang is part of you as a person, your position is problematic.
(6) There is no person in the material brain — quadrillions of tiny particles separated by relatively vast amounts of space. So, we are not rational.

Bob: This is also a non sequitur. Fortunately, I don’t think anyone is as arch-reductionist as this.
Then tell me where the person is in the brain.
(7) Matter acts according to the laws of nature and no one controls the laws of nature. So, we are not the authors of ‘our’ thoughts, and, therefore, we are not rational.

Bob: But ‘our’ thoughts could be rational, even if the laws of nature are not under personal control.
Unresponsive. My argument is that, since we are not the authors of ‘our’ thoughts, we are not rational.
(8) Physical events, of the determined and undetermined kind, are not rationally motivated events. So, we are not rational.

Bob: Another non sequitur. Event happen. But people do things, and what people chose to do can be rationally motivated.
Unresponsive. Under materialism there are but two kinds of events (determined and undetermined). That’s all there is, according to materialism. Both types of events are not rationally motivated. So, if materialism is true, rationally motivated events do not exist. It follows that nothing is rational. If nothing is rational … we are not rational.
(9) Reason is an unintended by-product of physical events which are intrinsically not about reason. So, we cannot trust our reason.

Bob: Another non sequitur (I’m spotting a pattern…). Just because something is unintended, that doesn’t mean it can’t be trusted.
If one randomly throws scrap metal together and the unintended result looks like a plane, it is unlikely that it is a well-built plane.
(10) We cannot judge between truth and falsity, because any such judgment would be just as suspect as what we seek to adjudicate. At no point can we step out of the circle of uncontrollable physical processes to a transcendent standpoint that would allow us to reject some beliefs as tainted while remaining untainted ourselves. So, we cannot trust reason.

Bob: This is just wrong: mathematics does precisely this in a formal setting.
Godel’s incompleteness theorem? But that proves my point.
Bob: And anyway, if I drop a large brick on my foot, it’s not suspect that I’ve dropped a large brick on my foot. And it will certainly be true that my foot will hurt. That is not suspect either. I don’t need to step outside the universe to know that my foot hurts.
Okay, this is not about my argument at all. In short, my point is that uncontrollable physical processes cannot judge themselves. Maybe I will elucidate the point at a later time.Origenes_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

AK, either prove that BA77, the undersigned etc are piling up lies, half truths and weak arguments or stand exposed as utterly irresponsible and willfully slanderous. And if you think that you can use "weak arguments" as a dog whistle term for what is utterly clear from the principle that a half-truth is a whole lie, think again. Likewise, you went way beyond the pale when you asserted "evil is a concept fabricated by religion." When corrected on this, you tried to slide away as though that were not grossly irresponsible and foolish. All of the above fits a pattern of gross irresponsibility, and it is again quite plain that you need to think again and change your ways. KFkairosfocus_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

Blip, a good note and the right perspective. We do need to speak truth for corrective record, but we must also not feed the trollish slanders and accusations further. In this case, we see a term of slander and dismissal being promoted by besmirching a name and using the smear to spread to others; with intent to lock out serious discussion by jumping on any reasonable alternative. If you use your words and argue in summary on the merits, who are you to say, quote professional or serious literature. If you cite, you are quote mining -- allegedly distorting and misrepresenting. If you cite in sufficient extent to be clear on context (or argue out in steps), it is a "word salad" or TL/DR. If you cite admissions against interest, you are "quote-mining" again. If you cite extensively, you are piling up lies, half truths and weak arguments. If you point out that in a modern sense inductive context a cumulative case gains cogency from mutual support, you are doing the same. If you point out that if someone were to pile up lies, half truths and poorly supported claims, that would be readily exposed by targetting several key points and correcting, that is studiously ignored in a rush to double down. If you win 300+:0 public debates, publishing your basic evidence in several books (not to mention that tapes are there) your name is twisted into a slanderous accusation. If you highlight the core ID inference and challenge, inviting counter-example [as the empirical test], there is no counter example to a trillion cases in point on origin of FSCO/I, but somehow the design inference is not central to ID and ID is unfalsifiable. And, all along, there is an ad hominem insinuation that lies in the close sub-text: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. These are not the tactics of someone confidently standing on command of the merits. They are the vile techniques of trollishness, a back-handed admission of having lost the case on its merits. The key issue going forward is not the case on the merits (that seems to be over and ID has won by default of ceding the field) but ideologically motivated, irresponsible, entrenched agendas that are institutionally and culturally dominant and domineering. In the end, you are right, that is a manifestation of a serious spiritual problem. KFkairosfocus_{May 21, 2018
May
05
May
21
21
2018
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Troll or not (I'm persuaded to think troll by Allan's repeated choices) the proper response is always to speak truth for the benefit of the other, while understanding the risk of further hardening the heart of the unwilling. It's what happens when doubt crosses from honest questioning to outright rebellion and selfishness. In a previous response Allan mused about enjoying having a beer with Jesus and watching the camel races. I asked where he got the idea Jesus was a nice guy and he said from the Scriptures, same place as me. There are three misconceptions here. The first is that because Jesus is kind he is nice or cool to hang out with. Each has little to do with the other. Nice, cool, they are milk toast. Kind is sacrificial. The second is that, rather than seeing Jesus in Scripture, Allan is seeing himself in a mirror, and liking what he sees. Allan has met his twin brother, not Jesus. This is related to the self-referential problem that plagues materialist ideology. The third is that Allan encounters Jesus in the Scriptures only as a protagonist in a story and assumes that's all I have access to as well. Not so. Jesus did not just live and die. He also rose again. That, too, is in Scripture for those humble enough not to sit in judgment over it, picking and choosing what they wish to accept. Not that there isn't good evidence for the resurrection. On the contrary, it is excellent, but a topic for another day. But there's more. Also found in Scripture is the experience every true believer, eyes wide open, comes to experience and understand: Jesus is alive and relates to him throughout his life as the living Man-God, both brother and Deity simultaneously. And this the believer comes to understand not just from reading a book or from accepting what someone else says. It comes from encountering the living God face to face. And that doesn't happen by staring into a mirror, for the first thing noticed is how utterly different Jesus is from the broken believer. But if this is so, why is it not also the experience of the non-believer? Think of two reasons. First, God is not just interested in intellectual ascent (Yeah, he exists, so what's for dinner?), but in trust (I can place my life completely in his care). This is true of every deep human relationship, isn't it? Second, for the protection of those who don't believe. Although it happens in rare moments, God desires for people to invite him into their lives, not to barge in and impose himself on others. This also is true of every deep human relationship, isn't it? And who has a deep relationship with Jesus, atheists? There is a pattern here. So the fact is, if Jesus were to appear to Allan in Allan's current state of being, no number of diapers would manage to contain Allan's self expression. But I assure you, he would come clean. Problem is, there wouldn't be much Allan left. So the good Lord prefers to wait for Allan's sake, giving him more time. The Lord need not wait to learn, for he knows all things, but he waits so Allan may learn and experience in time. Because time is all that keeps Allan's candle of hope flickering, the candle Allan cannot keep lit himself, nor did he make it, though he posseses it. It was a gift. But there is only so much wax. Allan's remedy is to imagine annihilation, never understanding that he was not made for termination, never coming to the realization that no length of time suffices to pay for sins against the Eternal One. So rejection becomes the remedy. But this is the problem, not the solution. Rejection does not change reality. It only cements Allan's trail in the Garden of Forking Paths. In short time, the cement hardens. Backtracking to the point where the error was chosen and taking another path becomes impossible. Call it death. In an act of poetic justice, the One who makes the immaterial possible would use the end of material life as the only conveyor to the materialist of his sealed fate. Unless Allan calls on the name of the Lord to end his charade, Allan will remember this kind warning at a most inopportune moment. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Love does not want the Fool to perish. But Love grants the Fool the choice.blip_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT}

Folks, above AK proves himself the troll, in this case a willful slanderer. Going forward, treat him as of that ilk. KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Although the population genetics of Darwin's theory denies the reliability of our observations of reality, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.
Steps of the Scientific Method Observation/Research Hypothesis Prediction Experimentation Conclusion http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
Thus, since Darwinian evolution denies 'reliable observation', which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, then Darwinian evolution can never be based upon the scientific method and is therefore falsified once again in its claim to be a scientific theory. Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html
Apparently science itself could care less if atheists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory! As Richard Feynman stated:
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Thus, although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, the fact of the matter is that, in their denial of their own immaterial mind, it is found that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
supplemental note:
Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387 Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God. Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Paper with references for each claim page; Page 34: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit
bornagain77_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Besides the denial of free will undermining any claim the Atheist's makes that he is being, or can be, rational, Darwin's theory itself undermines the Atheist's claim that he is being, or can be, rational.
Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - October 10, 2012 Excerpt: Survival is all that matters on evolutionary naturalism. Our evolving brains are more likely to give us useful fictions that promote survival rather than the truth about reality. Thus evolutionary naturalism undermines all rationality (including confidence in science itself). Renown philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued against naturalism in this way (summary of that argument is linked on the site:). Or, if your short on time and patience to grasp Plantinga's nuanced argument, see if you can digest this thought from evolutionary cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, who baldly states: "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth; sometimes the truth is adaptive, sometimes it is not." Steven Pinker, evolutionary cognitive psychologist, How the Mind Works (W.W. Norton, 1997), p. 305. http://blogs.christianpost.com/science-and-faith/scientific-peer-review-is-in-trouble-from-medical-science-to-darwinism-12421/ Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: Steven Pinker writes, "Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not." The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion -- and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar094171.html Why Atheism is Nonsense Pt.5 - "Naturalism is a Self-defeating Idea"video Excerpt: "Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life." Richard Dawkins - quoted from "The God Delusion" Quote: "In evolutionary games we put truth on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (truth) never gets on the stage" Donald Hoffman PhD. - Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception - 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439
Moreover, as if that was not bad enough, if Darwin's theory were actually true, then ALL of our perceptions of reality would also be illusory:
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? - Video - 9:59 minute mark Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?” https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601 The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality - April 2016 The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions. Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/ The Interface Theory of Perception - 2015 Donald D. Hoffman & Manish Singh & Chetan Prakash http://people.psych.cornell.edu/~jec7/pcd%202015-16%20pubs/interface.pdf http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-manish-singh/papers/Probing_ITP_2015_PBR.pdf (follow-up discussion) The Case Against Reality - May 13, 2016 Excerpt: Hoffman seems to come to a conclusion similar to the one Alvin Plantinga argues in ch. 10 of Where the Conflict Really Lies: we should not expect — in the absence of further argument — that creatures formed by a naturalistic evolutionary process would have veridical perceptions.,,, First, even if Hoffman’s argument were restricted to visual perception, and not to our cognitive faculties more generally (e.g., memory, introspection, a priori rational insight, testimonial belief, inferential reasoning, etc.), the conclusion that our visual perceptions would be wholly unreliable given natural selection would be sufficient for Plantinga’s conclusion of self-defeat. After all, reliance upon the veridicality of our visual perceptions was and always will be crucial for any scientific argument for the truth of evolution. So if these perceptions cannot be trusted, we have little reason to think evolutionary theory is true. Second, it’s not clear that Hoffman’s application of evolutionary game theory is only specially applicable to visual perception, rather than being relevant for our cognitive faculties generally. If “we find that veridical perceptions can be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality” (2010, p. 504, my emphasis), then why wouldn’t veridical cognitive faculties (more generally) be driven to extinction by non-veridical strategies that are tuned to utility rather than objective reality? After all, evolutionary theory purports to be the true account of the formation of all of our cognitive faculties, not just our faculty of visual perception. If evolutionary game theory proves that “true perception generally goes extinct” when “animals that perceive the truth compete with others that sacrifice truth for speed and energy-efficiency” (2008), why wouldn’t there be a similar sacrifice with respect to other cognitive faculties? In fact, Hoffman regards the following theorem as now proven: “According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness” (Atlantic interview). But then wouldn’t it also be the case that an organism that cognizes reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that cognizes none of reality but is just tuned to fitness? On the evolutionary story, every cognitive faculty we have was produced by a process that was tuned to fitness (rather than tuned to some other value, such as truth). http://www.gregwelty.com/2016/05/the-case-against-reality/
bornagain77_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Wikipedia can say just about anything. It doesn't make it trueET_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Wikipedia is credible on anything to do with ID? Wikipedia Earns Censor of the Year Tag for Botching Evolution, Intelligent Design David Klinghoffer By David Klinghoffer | February 12, 2018 https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/david-klinghoffer/wikipedia-earns-censor-year-tag-botching-evolution-intelligent-designbornagain77_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

ET,
There cannot be a Gish gallop on a blog or discussion forum.
Wiki begs to differ:
”In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons, as a pamphlet or green ink web page, with a title that proudly boasts the number of reasons involved.”
Allan Keith_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Bob: "The universe is ordered, but I wouldn’t say that it is intelligent. Rationality came about later, just as planets weren’t present at the beginning of the universe." BA77: "The applicability of mathematics to the universe, Godel, fine-tuning, and quantum mechanics all disagree with you. Conscious Intelligence, i.e. rationality, precedes the existence of the universe." Bob: "I don’t see any point is responding to you: you continually mis-represent my views, even though I have tried to correct you several times." So does Bob now claim that rationality precedes the universe? :) Of related note: The very success of modern science is stunning confirmation of the Christian presuppositions that underlay the founding of modern science. Namely Christianity holds, "among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image"
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications - Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. The truth about science and religion By Terry Scambray - August 14, 2014 Excerpt: In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature. The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/the_truth_about_science_and_religion.html The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited - July 2010 Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,, If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/
bornagain77_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Bob- You seem to afraid to tell us what your views are. So it is your fault if they are misrepresentedET_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

There cannot be a Gish gallop on a blog or discussion forum.ET_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

ba77 @ 226 - I don't see any point is responding to you: you continually mis-represent my views, even though I have tried to correct you several times.Bob O'H_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

And AK's stellar ability at refuting scientific evidence and logic is revealed by his juvenile ad hominem of "Gish gallop." How many times have you've been banned from UD previously AK?bornagain77_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

The arguments against subjective morality and materialism in this thread have devolved into a Gish gallop.Allan Keith_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

as to: 'Err, no. The universe is ordered, but I wouldn’t say that it is intelligent. Rationality came about later, just as planets weren’t present at the beginning of the universe.' The applicability of mathematics to the universe, Godel, fine-tuning, and quantum mechanics all disagree with you. Conscious Intelligence, i.e. rationality, precedes the existence of the universe. I can cite evidence for each claim. Whereas you, like Seversky, can only cite your own self-refuting opinion which was arrived at by no "free will' power of your own. i.e. By your own logic, you are merely a automaton randomly spewing out whatever the laws of physics have predetermined you to spew out. :) Not an enviable position to be in in the least since it is, besides contradicted by multiple lines of evidence, insane.
Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw
bornagain77_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 223 -
If Bob holds that his thoughts are produced by an entity (or entities) beyond his control and are rational, then the only explanation for both these facts is that this ‘entity’, at the beginning of the chain of physical events which constitute the universe, is rational.
Err, no. The universe is ordered, but I wouldn't say that it is intelligent. Rationality came about later, just as planets weren't present at the beginning of the universe.Bob O'H_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

Origenes @ 214 - I asked about your statement "logic informs us that there is no place for rationality in a purely physical world.". I guess it's appropriate in a thread on this post that your 10 reasons constitute a Gish gallop. But it seems I can't avoid it, so here goes...
(1) By its very nature matter is not about rationality, so, why?
I'm not sure matter is "about" anything, but so what? We're not discussing semiotics.
(2) There is no concept of a physical thing with the overview, intent and/or power to coordinate events in the brain, which consists of quadrillions of particles separated by relatively vast amounts of space, into coherent reason.
Yes there is: it's called the brain.
(3) No one knows how laws of reason reduce to physical laws.
Is there any reason why they should? Aren't they about different things? Laws of reason are epistemic rules that we use to (for example) deduce physical laws.
(4) All material events, including our thoughts, trace back to past events long before we were born. We have no control over these events, so, we have no control over our thoughts — or anything else for that matter. So, we are not rational.
This is a non sequitur (and also denies free will, of course). If we are control over our thoughts, then we would still be able to trace events back to long before we were born.
(5) Reason is the collective result of quadrillions of particles not of one rational person. So, we, as persons, are not rational.
That person is made up of the collection of "quadrillions of particles". As reason is the "collective result", the collective (i.e. the person) is rational.
(6) There is no person in the material brain — quadrillions of tiny particles separated by relatively vast amounts of space. So, we are not rational.
This is also a non sequitur. Fortunately, I don't think anyone is as arch-reductionist as this.
(7) Matter acts according to the laws of nature and no one controls the laws of nature. So, we are not the authors of ‘our’ thoughts, and, therefore, we are not rational.
But ‘our’ thoughts could be rational, even if the laws of nature are not under personal control.
(8) Physical events, of the determined and undetermined kind, are not rationally motivated events. So, we are not rational.
Another non sequitur. Event happen. But people do things, and what people chose to do can be rationally motivated.
(9) Reason is an unintended by-product of physical events which are intrinsically not about reason. So, we cannot trust our reason.
Another non sequitur (I'm spotting a pattern...). Just because something is unintended, that doesn't mean it can't be trusted. I never intend to get a puncture on my bike, but when I do, it can be trusted to be a pretty crappy ride.
(10) We cannot judge between truth and falsity, because any such judgment would be just as suspect as what we seek to adjudicate. At no point can we step out of the circle of uncontrollable physical processes to a transcendent standpoint that would allow us to reject some beliefs as tainted while remaining untainted ourselves. So, we cannot trust reason.
This is just wrong: mathematics does precisely this in a formal setting . And anyway, if I drop a large brick on my foot, it's not suspect that I've dropped a large brick on my foot. And it will certainly be true that my foot will hurt. That is not suspect either. I don't need to step outside the universe to know that my foot hurts.Bob O'H_{May 20, 2018
May
05
May
20
20
2018
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply