Armand Jacks Destroys ID in One Sentence

_{Barry Arrington

April 16, 2017

Intelligent Design}

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

Armand Jacks says he has a knock down show stopping argument to rebut ID’s claim that intelligent agency is the only known cause of specified complexity.

Get ready.

Hold on to your hat.

Here it is:

Using the same argument, the only known causes of everything we have ever seen in the entire universe are material causes.

Are blind unguided material forces capable of typing the post you just posted AJ? If you say “no” your argument is refuted. If you say “yes” you look like a fool or a liar or both. Talk about the Scylla and Charybdis.

AJ, you really should stop and think for 10 seconds before you write something like that down. I know, I know. Thinking is hard, and 10 seconds is a long time. But still.

As for the title of this post, on reflection maybe I overstated AJ’s accomplishment a little.

Comments

BO'H: Thanks for the short lesson in Finnish, a language I have only heard of in passing. My sole item of Finnish vocabulary, I confess, is that rapala primarily means mud and should be pronounced with a rolled initial R, near as I can make out. of course, I know of it from the famous tackle firm; whose lures I admire. HP, henceforth. KFkairosfocus_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus - just a footnote: I assume by 'HS' you mean hammaspeikko, but that makes no sense in Finnish (unless hammaspeikko is a Hessari journalist). hammaspeikko is a compound of hammas and peikko, so HP would be more accurate. This is obvious if you know some Finnish, but if you don't know Finnish then it's utterly mysterious. Sorry, as you were. :-)Bob O'H_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

Eric: "hammaspeikko @233: Well said." Does UD accept petitions to reinstate someone who has been banned? I agree that AJ was abrasive and a pain in the ass, but he really only latched on to Kairosfocus, for whatever reason. And, i must say, Kairosfocus did not acquit himself any better. But, regardless, as a newbie, I did notice that the more popular threads of late are the ones where AJ was the instigator. I don't know whether that is good or bad but the question must be asked, Is it more important to stimulate discussion or to protect the sensitive feelings of one or two individuals? Just food for thought.hammaspeikko_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

AJ is no longer with us.
Rats. I was hoping to continue a discussion. He was a pain, yes. Stubborn, yes. Recalcitrant at times, yes. Refused to address specific questions posed, yes. But I'm not a fan of banning generally . . . ----- hammaspeikko @233: Well said.Eric Anderson_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT}

Seversky: "AJ is dispatched to the Village of the Banned." Apparently. But, frankly, I don't see the point. His comments did more to ridicule evolutionists than they did IDists. I would have let him continue to rant. But it's not my site.hammaspeikko_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Armand Jacks @ 208
AJ is no longer with us. UD Editors
AJ is dispatched to the Village of the Banned.Seversky_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Jdk: "Is this true? Has Armand Jacks been banned from here?" I can't say for sure. But Kairosfocus says he has. I assume he would know. Why? Should he be allowed to accuse people of lying?hammaspeikko_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

in 227, the guy with the long name says of Armand Jacks, "Rather a moot point now as he is gone." Is this true? Has Armand Jacks been banned from here?jdk_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: "HS, I am not aware of any action on my part that needed either." That is painfully obvious. But my review of his comments, as a new comer here with no skin in the game, clearly shows that he never made a claim that he had an iron clad rebuttal of ID. A claim that you repeated more than once. I am not saying that you owe him an apology. But when he points out that you said something so glaringly wrong, a retraction would have been appropriate. It shouldn't matter what you think of the person personally. An error, regardless of the circumstance, is still an error. But this is just the opinion of a person who tries to lead an honest life.hammaspeikko_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

HS, I am not aware of any action on my part that needed either. I am very aware that AJ indulged a lot of trollishness that included all sorts of misrepresentations and unjustified demands. This is now trending tangential-distractive and I have simply spoken once for record. KFkairosfocus_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: HS, there is a difference between you are wrong and you are a liar, esp. when the latter is a false accusation after a long series of others." This may be true. But he did originally ask you to retract or apologize. In my mind, a retraction would have been a reasonable course of action. Rather a moot point now as he is gone.hammaspeikko_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Armand Jacks @213:
I apologize. That was not my intent. My only excuse is that my response was based on a cursory read of your comment.
Thank you for your kind apology. No problem. Apology accepted.
But then, this is not foreknowledge, it is just knowledge of what I am doing in present time. If this is the power you claim that god has, I have no problem with this. But this is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the concept of god knowing what I am going to do before I make that decision.
You are still missing the point. The thing that produces the knowledge of how your order of eggs turned out is the fact that you ordered eggs. Yes, using your free will. The knowledge doesn’t just pop into existence in a vacuum. Whatever you do in the future – through the exercise of your free will – will determine the knowledge related to that event. You seem to be stuck on the issue of whether it is possible for anyone to look into the future. As I’ve said over and over, that is a separate question and you can certainly dispute whether such a being exists. But it has no impact on your free will. I’ll try one more time and then I think there is probably little point in continuing, unless you are willing to go back and examine the chain of causation and actually think through and answer, rather than dismissing, the critical definitional and logical questions I have posed in this thread. ----- So here goes, one last attempt to get this through: Assume you and God are here in the present, right now. You have no ability to gaze into the future. Your vision of time is limited to the present and the past. On the other hand, assume God has the ability, standing right here from his present position, to gaze into the future and see what you are going to do. For some reason, God wants to share this information with you and says “you will order eggs for breakfast”. Now, you start thinking in your head, “Wow this foreknowledge stuff is pretty crazy; what if I changed my mind and ordered pancakes instead?” But you won’t. If you are going to change your mind and order pancakes, then God would have said “you will order pancakes for breakfast”. Now at this point in the example I know you will jump up and say, “Aha, then I couldn’t change my decision, because God told me what I was going to do! I don’t have any free will!” But you are looking at it completely backwards. No. You have free will just as much as you always did. You can change your mind a hundred times and order whatever you want. And it is your exercise of free will that determines what God will know about the future, not the other way around. That is where the causal chain takes its path. Your exercise of free will is the decision node along the path of history. Finally, just to drive the point home, let's add one more factor to the example. Let’s assume that God, for some reason, were required right now to tell you what you were going to have for breakfast tomorrow. Let’s say he had to utter the words about what you were going to have for breakfast. It is now clear that you, by the exercise of your free will tomorrow, will cause God to say particular words. It is you who decides what God sees when he peers into the future. Here is the ultimate bottom line: When talking about how foreknowledge and free will interact, it is the free will that causes the foreknowledge, not the other way around. ---- Well, that is about it. If it still isn’t clear, then you just need to spend some more time thinking through the questions I’ve posed previously in this thread. If you are genuinely interested in this topic, I recommend taking time to go back through my comments, jot the questions down, and this time really think through them in detail. And regarding one question I posed in particular, I’m not sure what your point with all of this was. If you are just confused about the logical and temporal aspects, fine. We're all here learning together. Spend some time to think through it. On the other hand, if this was an attempt at some kind of atheist argument against the existence of God, then by all means, feel free to continue arguing against God’s existence, but in the future at least choose a different argument, because this one doesn’t hold water.Eric Anderson_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

HS, there is a difference between you are wrong and you are a liar, esp. when the latter is a false accusation after a long series of others. It has been clear for a long time that AJ has played the troll. As for his assertion at head of this thread, notice that he offered the claim as a knockdown argument meant to dismiss the design inference on FSCO/I. and, were his claim true it would have had that effect. As the merits are, his assertion is a failure, and utterly misrepresents inductive reasoning in the modern sense. BA was in full right of fair comment to headline and comment on it as a striking example of too much of what we see as ID objectionism. KF PS: I noticed just now the no longer with us, from the Mods. On track record, till he retools with a new sock puppet. A pity as were he to comment with seriousness, a real discussion could be had. As it is, there just plain is too much of the Alinsky spirit in current online discussion.kairosfocus_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

hammaspeikko @219:
I did a little digging into AJ’s assertion that he didn’t claim to have an iron clad rebuttal of ID. I looked through all of his comments on this thread as well as the original comment from the other threat. I hate to say it, but I think that he has a point.
You mean that he doesn't have an iron clad rebuttal or that the didn't claim to? We know he doesn't actually have one. :)Eric Anderson_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

john_a_designer, he did say that he wasn't acartia bogart, mark franks or William spearshake. Other than that, I can't comment. But I assume that these people were banned. That is before my time so I can't judge.hammaspeikko_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

hammaspeikko, Underdog? In your research did you uncover the fact that Armand Jacks is latest incarnation of a “sock puppet” who keeps showing up here? Did you notice this? (comment #30) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wjm-is-on-a-roll-2/#comment-629372 Is that true? If it’s not why hasn’t he said anything? (Like, “that’s not me. I’m new here.”) If it is, we are pretty much wasting our time trying to reason with him. Personally I have little respect for people like AJ or whoever he really is. So obviously I don’t see him as an underdog. I definitely don’t sympathize with him.john_a_designer_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Phinehas: "I predict he will respond as well (using his free will, of course). AJ seems to prefer stirring up controversy while avoiding addressing salient questions. The disagreement with KF is a golden opportunity for him to do both. I agree. If nothing else, he appears to stimulate conversation.hammaspeikko_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

219:
I am sure that he will respond.
I predict he will respond as well (using his free will, of course). AJ seems to prefer stirring up controversy while avoiding addressing salient questions. The disagreement with KF is a golden opportunity for him to do both.Phinehas_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

John_a_designer: "Okay. So why is that such a bad thing? I don't know. I am a sucker for the underdog and I thought that Kairosfocus took AJ's pointing out that he was wrong a little personally. But I guess AJ can speak for himself. I am sure that he will respond.hammaspeikko_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

I did a little digging into AJ’s assertion that he didn’t claim to have an iron clad rebuttal of ID… I hate to say it, but I think that he has a point.
Okay. So why is that such a bad thing?john_a_designer_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

I did a little digging into AJ's assertion that he didn't claim to have an iron clad rebuttal of ID. I looked through all of his comments on this thread as well as the original comment from the other threat. I hate to say it, but I think that he has a point.hammaspeikko_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

AJ: I note that you have not responded to this, from Eric:
Eric: The whole mental block some people seem to be having is that because there is a statement about a future event, then somehow (unexplained and unarticulated, as of now, I might add) this means AJ has no free will. So for anyone who thinks free will readily exists with a statement about the past or the present, but that it evaporates in the future, please explain the basis for such a claim. What is it that permits me to have free will if someone has absolute, incontrovertible knowledge about past or present events, but prevents me from having free will if they have knowledge of future events?
It is your inability or refusal to address this that makes you say silly things like:
AJ: But then, this is not foreknowledge, it is just knowledge of what I am doing in present time. If this is the power you claim that god has, I have no problem with this. But this is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the concept of god knowing what I am going to do before I make that decision.
You keep asserting that knowledge of future events must be seen as different than knowledge of present or past events while giving no support or even an attempt to support this assertion. Please explain the basis for your claim. As Eric asked, "What is it that permits me to have free will if someone has absolute, incontrovertible knowledge about past or present events, but prevents me from having free will if they have knowledge of future events?" Do you have an answer? BTW, I made similar points and asked similar questions @91, 105, and 130, so it isn't as though ignoring salient questions would be new and surprising behavior. :PPhinehas_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

AJ, just earlier today, you were cautioned on your behavour. I noted that you came to UD, check. I noted, you presented an argument, check. earlier, I noted the OP was as presented, check. I pointed out if true, it would be a knockdown argument, check. I then challenged your earlier talking point. Instead of acknowledging that you made an untrustworthy argument or else substantiating -- the latter I believe impossible due to implicit incoherence, you tried to double down on accusations. i take that as de facto proof that you offered a fallacious talking point and hoped to brazen it out with rhetoric -- which is what BA called you on in the OP in any case. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Maybe this will help explain what is going on here: Humans have never experienced the foreknowledge that God possesses, so Armand doesn't understand what it even is. It's theology and Armand has no interest in understanding it. Armand's duty as an Atheist Troll is to try and undermine belief in God, so that's his motivation to string this out. That's what trolls do. Andrewasauber_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

Eric:
This is incredibly disappointing. Why would you twist my words and lie?
I apologize. That was not my intent. My only excuse is that my response was based on a cursory read of your comment.
The claim on the table goes like this: If God knew AJ was going to order eggs, then AJ must order eggs and, ergo, AJ has no free will in the matter. This mistakenly views the knowledge as arising first, largely independent of AJ’s actions, and that the action flows later from the knowledge. In other words it essentially views the knowledge as the cause, and the choice as the effect. This is not what is going on. This is exactly backwards. The knowledge of the action arises as a result of the action, just like it always does.
But then, this is not foreknowledge, it is just knowledge of what I am doing in present time. If this is the power you claim that god has, I have no problem with this. But this is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the concept of god knowing what I am going to do before I make that decision. But again, if you are just saying that god is limited to the knowledge of the present, then it is not incompatible with free will. It is only incompatible if he knows what I will do in the future.Armand Jacks_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Armand indeed has not explained how foreknowledge in party A and freewill in party B are mutually exclusive. His beliefs about this topic are just as religious as anyone else's. Andrewasauber_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

KF:
AJ, you came here to UD and offered that as one of your arguments.
Again you are speaking in disregard to the truth. The current thread arose from a comment I made at another thread. It is available for all to read. Barry mischaracterized it with his first sentence when he said:
Armand Jacks says he has a knock down show stopping argument to rebut ID’s claim that intelligent agency is the only known cause of specified complexity.
If you read the original comment, I did not make any such claim and I did not infer it. Your continuing to repeat this false claim is deplorable. Especially after its falsehood has been repeatedly pointed out to you. My original claim was:
Using the same argument, the only known causes of everything we have ever seen in the entire universe are material causes.
This is not incompatible with ID because we do not know the cause of the universe. We do not know the cause of life. We do not know the cause of DNA. As such, if my claim is true, which I think it is, this would have very little impact on the veracity of ID. So, again, I ask you. Please link to the comment where I claimed to have a knockdown rebuttal of ID or apologize for repeatedly spreading a falsehood.Armand Jacks_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

Armand Jacks @195:
The belief that god’s foreknowledge and free will are not incompatable is just that, a religious belief.
This is incredibly disappointing. Why would you twist my words and lie? I have given you definitional, practical, and logical reasons why your claim fails. You have given zero reason why we should take your claim seriously. Instead, you have just kept repeating it, all the while avoiding the basic questions. Do you understand what it means for me to give an additional argument for those who are religiously inclined? I stated that I didn't bring it up earlier because I suspected it would be unpersuasive to you. I was spot on. Unfortunately, what I didn't anticipate is that you would twist my additional argument as though it were the only argument, continue to dig in your heels, and then lie about the state of the debate at hand. You have been asked politely and repeatedly to support your position with some evidence or at least some reasoned argumentation. If you cannot do so or don't have the intellectual integrity to do so, fine. My point is made, my argument stands, and there is little value in continuing.Eric Anderson_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

AJ, you came here to UD and offered that as one of your arguments. Are you now willing to acknowledge that this claim -- which, were it really true WOULD indeed actually demolish ID in one argument -- is fundamentally fallacious? Namely: Using the same argument, the only known causes of everything we have ever seen in the entire universe are material causes. Or, are you able to back up your implication that it all boils down to leptons, quarks, bosons and fermions etc interacting blindly through chance and mechanical necessity and that this is all that WE (presumably, meatbots . . . ) have EVER seen ANYWHERE in the universe . . . including the WE's in question? KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

AJ is no longer with us. UD EditorsArmand Jacks_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply