Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

February 6, 2018

Intelligent Design}

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

“Everybody knows there’s something wrong with them.” Rust Cohle, True Detective, Season 1.

True or False: Powerful evidence that materialism is false.

Explain your answer.

Comments

Bob @ 42: So by "discussion" you mean "bad faith attempt to deflect from substance and wallow in endless definition debates." I will keep that in mind Bob the next time you want to have a "discussion."Barry Arrington_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Bob
StephenB @ 41 – your explanation says nothing about materialism. If design and intent have a material cause, then your argument doesn’t hold. So I think you have to show that something being wrong means that design and intent can’t have a material cause.
If there is something wrong with a thing, then it doesn't meet the objective standard of right established by an intelligent agent. That rules out materialism, which is incompatible with right and wrong values.StephenB_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Barry @ 40 - Actually, yes. You asked a question, I provided an answer. We could even have had a discussion about the ambiguities I saw, and that might have been instructive (e.g. about differences between British and American informal speech). StephenB @ 41 - your explanation says nothing about materialism. If design and intent have a material cause, then your argument doesn't hold. So I think you have to show that something being wrong means that design and intent can't have a material cause.Bob O'H_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Bob
StephenB – can you explain your reasoning? As far as I can see, you would have to make several assumptions to get to that conclusion.
Bob, if something is "wrong" with anything, then that thing is defective in some way; it does not meet the standard of what it ought to be. There can be no *ought to be* except in the context of design and intent.StephenB_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

Bob, "I was hoping to have a discussion" Was that what you were hoping to have when you responded to the OP by saying the quote was so hopelessly ambiguous that you really didn't know what it means? Bob, when you tell whoppers like that aren't you worried that people will, you know, glance up thread and spot the lie for what it is? Do you not care?Barry Arrington_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

I’m afraid Ill have to decline
Excellent, Bob. You get the Brave Sir Robin Award for Most Courageous Atheist of the Day for today. Andrewasauber_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

asauber - I'm afraid Ill have to decline, as I think it would take too long to explain, and would really derail this thread.Bob O'H_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

BO'H: The argument is mine hence the for example, SB will doubtless speak for himself. next, observe my reference to comparative difficulties? As in: "After many centuries, given the evidence, there is but one serious candidate world-root level explanation . . . If one doubts, simply put up a cogent, coherent world-root level alternative: ______ and address comparative worldview level difficulties" That is an invitation to philosphical analysis on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power, it is not an imposition of one answer; though after centuries I am confident that there is no serious alternative on the table. That _____ is an invitation to try. It will prove much harder to successfully fill in than one may think, especially on coherence given the problem of self reference regarding rational, responsible reasoning creatures such as we are. Next, a material being is necessarily composite [as in: atoms etc] so such cannot be a necessary being. As a side point, maximally great implies only and all great-making characteristics across possible worlds, and no lesser-making characteristics -- no being will be greater. A necessary being is independent of external enabling causes and a serious candidate will be either incoherent and impossible of being as a square circle is, or will exist in all possible worlds, being framework to a world existing. Try two-ness as a necessary property of any possible world, for simple example: W = {A | ~A} to have distinct identity, thence twoness and thence the naturals in endless succession. The argument is still deeply compressed but there is enough there at the in a nutshell level to deal with seriously. KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

asauber – that’s certainly not the argument I use.
Bob, Which one do you use? If I may ask? Andrewasauber_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

asauber - that's certainly not the argument I use. I was hoping to have a discussion, rather than an argument. But in these discussions both side allow themselves to get drawn into an argument, and quite often skip that and go straight to Abuse.Bob O'H_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

not being evidence for something doesn’t mean it’s impossible, though. It just means that there is no evidence.
Bob O'H, But isn't the argument Atheists use to become Atheists that there is no evidence for God, therefore there is no God? Why does your side argue inconsistently? And why does your side still act like they know what they are talking about? Andrewasauber_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

There isn't any evidence nor a way to test the claim. It's about as possible as nature producing the Antikythera mechanism.ET_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

ET - not being evidence for something doesn't mean it's impossible, though. It just means that there is no evidence. Anyway, I'm sure Barry would prefer us to not deviate too far from the discussion of the quote of the day.Bob O'H_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Bob- There isn't any evidence that materialistic processes can produce such a creator. There isn't even a way to test such a concept. The same goes for the simplest form of living organism possible. Materialism is a non-starter.ET_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

kf - I hope that's not StephenB's argument. You're saying that the world is like it is because there is one explanation. To which the obvious reply is "why is that the one explanation?" You also fail to deal with the possibility that the inherently good, wise creator God is also a purely material entity. :-)Bob O'H_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

BO'H: not assumptions, he is compressing and outlining or hinting at a case. For example, if we are under moral government (including on duties to truth and sound reasoning etc), instead of a self-defeating self-referential grand delusion that would take down rationality with it, that sharply constrains the plausibilities on the kind of world we inhabit. In what kind of world would we find a self-aware, rationally and responsibly significantly free creature capable of love and other virtues? In what sort of world can the IS-OUGHT gap be soundly bridged at the only level that does not face ungrounded ought, i.e. the roots of reality? After many centuries, given the evidence, there is but one serious candidate world-root level explanation: the inherently good, wise creator God; a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty [even, fealty] and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. If one doubts, simply put up a cogent, coherent world-root level alternative: ______ and address comparative worldview level difficulties. KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT}

StephenB - can you explain your reasoning? As far as I can see, you would have to make several assumptions to get to that conclusion.Bob O'H_{February 8, 2018
February
02
Feb
8
08
2018
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

ET
But yes, for the sake of clarity, especially knowing the audience, Barry should have posted:
“Everybody knows there’s something wrong with them[selves].” In this case, clarity doesn't matter. If everybody knows that there is something wrong with anything at all, self referential or otherwise, then that would be powerful evidence that materialism is false.StephenB_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT}

I find a/mat trolls mildly entertaining, sort of like watching a harmless drunk person walking in circles muttering the same thing over and over again. It is fascinating to me that many a/mats use their one lifetime to regularly visit websites they so obviously disagree with. Very strange behavior.Truth Will Set You Free_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

If you are not here to engage in honest discussion and debate but rather to obstruct and obfuscate we have an example of how that is done.john_a_designer_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

To the minutiae! (To the minutiae) Dilly, Dilly (Dilly, Dilly)ET_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

ET @ 21 - indeed. That would have been clearer.Bob O'H_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT}

ET, Give it a rest. Bob's imagination is far too stunted to do the work you are asking it to do. Leave him be.Barry Arrington_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

Right and without any other context we have to go with what we have. Or we can complain that we don't have enough to go by. But only one of those is the correct way. But yes, for the sake of clarity, especially knowing the audience, Barry should have posted:
“Everybody knows there’s something wrong with them[selves].”
ET_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

ET @ 19 - English 101 would say that "themselves" is correct, because "them" is too ambiguous at best. It may be that the character is using informal dialect, but again there is no context.Bob O'H_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
I notice that you assume that the “them” refers to “themselves”, but there’s nothing in the quote to suggest that that is the correct interpretation. Again, there is no context.
Given what we have it is a safe assumption/ interpretation/ inference. Seeing that no other people were singled out as "them" we have to fall back on "them" is "themselves". English 101ET_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

John @ 16 "Why doesn’t Bob understand this?" Bob says he could not possibly figure out the simple logic you laid out. Everything is just so hopelessly ambiguous don't you know (never mind that everyone else who commented picked up on the gist of the statement instantly). Let's just take that at face value (even though everyone reading this knows it is false). It's not worth arguing about. Barry Arrington_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

john_a_designer - the fictional character was talking about other fictional people knowing about even more fictional people. Without any context given, how can we know who any of these fictional people are? I notice that you assume that the "them" refers to "themselves", but there's nothing in the quote to suggest that that is the correct interpretation. Again, there is no context.Bob O'H_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

How does the fact this was said by “a fictional character” change its truth or meaning if it’s about real human beings? Isn’t the script writer who wrote it a real human being? Isn’t he a human being who has some serious things to say about other human beings? That’s not meaningful? But let’s rewrite so it’s not a fictional character saying it: All human beings know there is something wrong with them as members of the human race. That was written by me. I am not a fictional character. I think that’s true, because being perfectly honest with myself, I know I do not live up to my full potential and I need to lose weight (to name just a couple of things.) I can see a lot of faults in other human beings. We can even create a simple syllogism: 1. All human beings know there is something wrong with them. 2. I am a human being. 3. Therefore, I know there is something wrong with me. That’s the most basic of basic logic. Why doesn’t Bob understand this? Is it because he doesn’t believe the first premise is true? Or is it because he is not human?john_a_designer_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

Yes, Barry. I've just spent the last two hours lecturing on linear models. One thing I have to be careful about is being clear and unambiguous. Seriously, how can the "them" not be ambiguous without any further context? The comment is probably hyperbolic (unless the "everyone" has been clarified by the context), and the "them" could refer to pretty much any group of people (including university professors and lawyers).Bob O'H_{February 7, 2018
February
02
Feb
7
07
2018
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply