Are people GOOD IN NATURE or Bad???

[Simaril]

Gotta say, you're using the word logic without relying too much on the process. 

Couple points.

You have not established that "if it is random, truth cannot be known." Randomness clearly exists in reality without creating a logical paradox. Vegas has not caused a disruption in the space time continuum!

You have said that I am claiming that "we cannot know anything", but I have not said any such thing.

As for reification - puh-lease. Since you missed the interpolations, I'll be concrete and explicit. When I said "randomness" I was hoping you'd follow the implication: "In this way, [the process of successive random events and ensuing natural selection] can progressively [approximate] reality.

[Sonicblu]

I may have missed the point.

Here is how I understood it.   Claims or conclusions can be hidden, not just overt.

1. ID can be a cover for theism.      Premise
2. I'm betting that's what you are talking about.   Premise
3. You have a hidden or inferred conclusion.         That he is talking about theism not intelligence, and by using the word cover you are implying that he either doesn't know it, or is being sneaky about it. 
I think it is clear that he knows what his world view is. It is clear to me what his world view is.
In a discussion like this it is assumed by most  reading that evolution is the only scientific or logical world view.
Therefore if a person can point out that hey everyone he is a theist hey just can't be logical.
That is my take on it.

Please explain the positive reason for the statement if I took it wrong.

Every time we make a statement that has a premise or conclusion (hidden or overt) it is logical. It may not be sound or valid. But still a informal logic statement.

If you leave claims hidden then there seems to be a reason. If not you must expect for someone to take it for less  or more than you intended.

More later I have to go for now. I find the discussion fun and informative. I hope it doesn't come across as a personal attack. I hope I misunderstood your statement.
 

[Simaril]

I may have missed the point.

Here is how I understood it.   Claims or conclusions can be hidden, not just overt.

1. ID can be a cover for theism.      Premise
2. I'm betting that's what you are talking about.   Premise
3. You have a hidden or inferred conclusion.         That he is talking about theism not intelligence, and by using the word cover you are implying that he either doesn't know it, or is being sneaky about it. 
I think it is clear that he knows what his world view is. It is clear to me what his world view is.
In a discussion like this it is assumed by most  reading that evolution is the only scientific or logical world view.
Therefore if a person can point out that hey everyone he is a theist hey just can't be logical.
That is my take on it.

Please explain the positive reason for the statement if I took it wrong.

Every time we make a statement that has a premise or conclusion (hidden or overt) it is logical. It may not be sound or valid. But still a informal logic statement.

If you leave claims hidden then there seems to be a reason. If not you must expect for someone to take it for less  or more than you intended.

More later I have to go for now. I find the discussion fun and informative. I hope it doesn't come across as a personal attack. I hope I misunderstood your statement.
 

'Kay, seems like what we're doing is just a little miscommunication.

My original statement was meant to be a lighthearted tease about the statement I quoted

"...A non-intelligent view..."

Literally, that means a stupid view, right? But I knew that wasn't what you meant, so I tried to make a quip and move on from there. In text discussions, it's easy for those kind of ironic statements to come across wrong - and that's what happened here.

No offense was intended, and no slight was meant.

And as for the "cover for theism" - an unfortunate phrasing that reinforced the impression that I was down on theists. On top of the misfired banter, I can see how an aggressive attitude may have come across. Sorry about that! Entirely accidental.




Now, as for theism and atheism. On this bulletin board we may not discuss religion. So we are not. We are discussing what amounts to a philosophy of knowledge, and of the nature of knowing. And since our views of the nature of knowing, and the nature of reality, are greatly influenced by those things that may not be discussed here -- there will be considerable inclarity at times. We'll just have to be patient with each other and clarify as we go along!

[FireDrgn]

Gotta say, you're using the word logic without relying too much on the process.  A materialist only knows physics as truth. Logic is neither material or physics. You claim implies logic is false.  How do you logically account for logic?Couple points.

You have not established that "if it is random, truth cannot be known." You are misquoting me and re-framing. I said " if reality is random its truth can not be know" Randomness clearly exists in reality without creating a logical paradox.  Vegas has not caused a disruption in the space time continuum! If you roll a dice you have to guess what number will come up. that's why its called gambling. If reality is random you can't know its truth. 

You have said that I am claiming that "we cannot know anything", but I have not said any such thing. "a random genetic development that makes someone believe" that he has 12 bullets maybe poor guy might just have 2. Clearly this is a false reality, so six shooter does not know the true reality. That leaves just you and me. How can we know the true reality? You have a mutation also.

As for reification - puh-lease. Since you missed the interpolations, I'll be concrete and explicit. When I said "randomness" I was hoping you'd follow the implication: "In this way, [the process of successive random events and ensuing natural selection] can progressively [approximate] reality. Six shooter is already dead, cause by a mutation giving him a false reality. Not sure why an ensuing event is needed.  Why do we need random events to approximate reality?

You completely change the discusion from good and bad to reality.

[LLogann]

Going down a crazy road doesn't make you crazy Pengi.

True, but what if we are the psycho-paths, and they are the rational ones?

Dam It........ Listen to what I said, this convo is ova!!!!!  REEEES

I have been around the world doing both civil and government work......... I would say that the individual is good but the group is bad. 

 

[Nilsen]

Selfish. Even giving is mostly a selfish act.

[Simaril]

FireDrgn, I'm done. I can't make sense of what you're saying, and you don't seem to be able to follow what I'm saying. With that much miscommunication, there's not much sense going on.

<S>

[Penguin]

This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create.


How do you know anything you are posting if this statement is true? How can you claim everyone's mind distorts information?

You are claiming you have the truth that there is no natural law yet you just said no one can see it because our minds distort it. How are you able to see this absolute truth but no other one.

evolution is a non intelligent unguided process. It only has survival value. So it is illogical for you to claim logic from this world view.

a debate presupposes the laws of logic, since evolution cannot account for such laws, this proves that there are absolute truths. Only one world view can account for these laws and a sentient being capable of it.
 

Please, next time, don't bold the whole thing, just use the "Quote" button on the bottom of my posts!

Your first statement makes no sense at all- I did not say that this is an absolute truth.  I said that for all encounters that I've ever had, nobody has ever robotically carried out instructions.  Here's a perfect example: accents, everyone has one, and none of them is either correct or incorrect.

Next, evolution is logical.  Only the fittest will survive!  Why would those unfit to reproduce do so?  If that statement weren't true, life wouldn't occur.  If a deadly congenital heart condition suddenly swept through the population, it would die.  Evolution doesn't 'know' what it is doing because it isn't an object, it's a process.  What you're saying is that a oxidation is illogical because it doesn't know what it's changing!

Furthermore, you are self contradictory: first you said that evolution has survival value (which is logical), and then said that evolution is illogical (without backing it up).

In addition to your other errors, you have made an unnecessary statement.  Of course a debate presupposes the laws of logic, if didn't, it wouldn't be a debate, it would be a shouting match.

Finally, you have created a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.  You have assumed that it if evolution isn't logical, that there are absolute truths.  You must first prove that statement, and then you can try to prove evolution illogical to that end. 

I will close with this statement, re-organize your logic so that it may be comprehended easily, and realize that if there is so much as one unsupported statement in your argument, the whole thing is balderdash. 

-Penguin

PS We're getting really close to being ban-hammered, guys.  Let's cut the crud about evolution and get back to the original debate- I'm not in good standing with the Skuzzinator as it is!

[FireDrgn]

FireDrgn, I'm done. I can't make sense of what you're saying, and you don't seem to be able to follow what I'm saying. With that much miscommunication, there's not much sense going on.

<S>

<Salute>

[Sonicblu]

Simaril, Thanks i appreciate your response. We are in agreement on a few things. I was purposefully staying away from the ban hammer as penguin put it. We don't even need to go there. I did digress a wee bit as I was not getting a response to my first statement.

I thought we all understood that evolution was non- intelligent as far as the process goes. Doesn't everyone agree on this? I was using a well know definition.  So It seems reasonable for the sake of this discussion that one world view claims a Non-intelligent process of natural selection, and one world view claims Intelligent guided process. Am I right?

I never said it was a non-intelligent view nor did anyone else. ( big difference ).

 penguin. You keep missing my point.

I never said evolution was illogical ( yes it may be a hidden claim ) what I said was according to your definition of evolution being a  non-intelligent process it can't account for the rules of logic.

both world views have some survival value and some survival of the fittest. Using a true statement doesn't make it logical and doesn't make a whole world view true or logical. Some Survival of the fittest maybe a true statement. However it is not a logical one as far as formal and informal logic are concerned. It must have at least  one or more premises and a conclusion to be a logical statement. Just because something seems logical doesn't make it  "sound" or valid.

Finally, you have created a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.  You have assumed that it if evolution isn't logical, that there are absolute truths.  You must first prove that statement, and then you can try to prove evolution illogical to that end. 


I will and have been proving that there are absolute truths. Please read below.

I never assumed that evolution isn't logical you are mixing terms. I said evolution can't account for the laws of logic. LAWSof logic.

In order for something to be a law of it must be considered an absolute truth.

Your first statement makes no sense at all- I did not say that this is an absolute truth.  I said that for all encounters that I've ever had, nobody has ever robotically carried out instructions.  Here's a perfect example: accents, everyone has one, and none of them is either correct or incorrect.


You don't have to say it is an absolute truth. It is implied. Any statement has to be either true or false. Its called the law of exclude middle.
And it cant be both.

You claimed that we can't know something because our minds distorts information. If your mind distorts information then how do you know that the statement " This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create" is true? Maybe your mind distorted that information.

It is similar to David Hume's rule of empiricism. It was formalized by Emanual Kant Into the rule " we Kan't really know anything". Why is this false?
because the statement that Kant considers to be true falls apart if you apply the rule to itself. If "we can't really know anything" then how does he know that statement is true.

The same rule applies to "every thing is relative" or " all morals are relative"  It is either a true or false statement. If it is true that everything is relative,then even the rule "every thing is relative" is a relative statement not a true statement. In order for it to be true you have to use the law of absolute truths. Do you see how you have to stand on the law of absolute truths to even make the claim every thing is relative.?

The problems is not everyone agrees what the rules or morals are so it seems relative.  The only counter argument that has been proposed to this is to pre qualify the statements with " this is probable". I don't have time to go into the logical problems one encounters with that though. 

IT is either wrong to steal someones wallet or it is not. IT has nothing to do with the survival value of the person taking the wallet. If it is wrong to steal someones wallet then it is wrong to steal anyone's wallet.

Only the fittest will survive!  Why would those unfit to reproduce do so?  If that statement weren't true, life wouldn't occur

Only the fittest will survive? Is this true?

It is circular logic. Your defining the fittest "because" they survived.  If it was only the fittest then only one would survive no multiples or groups.

How do you define unfit?

The only things that don't reproduce are those who choose not to, or those that can't. I don't see how unfit has anything to do with it. Again circular logic, defining those that choose not to or can't as unfit.

Someone once said , they are dead because they were unfit, if they weren't unfit they would be alive. I will have to dig out the actual quote I did paraphrase.





 

[1pLUs44]

(Image removed from quote.)

What do you mean "You People"?

[jd]

SHUT UP.....

[Simaril]

SHUT UP.....

So is that statement good or bad?

[Penguin]

Simaril, Thanks i appreciate your response. We are in agreement on a few things. I was purposefully staying away from the ban hammer as penguin put it. We don't even need to go there. I did digress a wee bit as I was not getting a response to my first statement.

I thought we all understood that evolution was non- intelligent as far as the process goes. Doesn't everyone agree on this? I was using a well know definition.  So It seems reasonable for the sake of this discussion that one world view claims a Non-intelligent process of natural selection, and one world view claims Intelligent guided process. Am I right?

I never said it was a non-intelligent view nor did anyone else. ( big difference ).

 penguin. You keep missing my point.

I never said evolution was illogical ( yes it may be a hidden claim ) what I said was according to your definition of evolution being a  non-intelligent process it can't account for the rules of logic.

both world views have some survival value and some survival of the fittest. Using a true statement doesn't make it logical and doesn't make a whole world view true or logical. Some Survival of the fittest maybe a true statement. However it is not a logical one as far as formal and informal logic are concerned. It must have at least  one or more premises and a conclusion to be a logical statement. Just because something seems logical doesn't make it  "sound" or valid.

Finally, you have created a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy.  You have assumed that it if evolution isn't logical, that there are absolute truths.  You must first prove that statement, and then you can try to prove evolution illogical to that end. 


I will and have been proving that there are absolute truths. Please read below.

I never assumed that evolution isn't logical you are mixing terms. I said evolution can't account for the laws of logic. LAWSof logic.

In order for something to be a law of it must be considered an absolute truth.

Your first statement makes no sense at all- I did not say that this is an absolute truth.  I said that for all encounters that I've ever had, nobody has ever robotically carried out instructions.  Here's a perfect example: accents, everyone has one, and none of them is either correct or incorrect.


You don't have to say it is an absolute truth. It is implied. Any statement has to be either true or false. Its called the law of exclude middle.
And it cant be both.

You claimed that we can't know something because our minds distorts information. If your mind distorts information then how do you know that the statement " This is due to the natural distortion that our own minds create" is true? Maybe your mind distorted that information.

It is similar to David Hume's rule of empiricism. It was formalized by Emanual Kant Into the rule " we Kan't really know anything". Why is this false?
because the statement that Kant considers to be true falls apart if you apply the rule to itself. If "we can't really know anything" then how does he know that statement is true.

The same rule applies to "every thing is relative" or " all morals are relative"  It is either a true or false statement. If it is true that everything is relative,then even the rule "every thing is relative" is a relative statement not a true statement. In order for it to be true you have to use the law of absolute truths. Do you see how you have to stand on the law of absolute truths to even make the claim every thing is relative.?

The problems is not everyone agrees what the rules or morals are so it seems relative.  The only counter argument that has been proposed to this is to pre qualify the statements with " this is probable". I don't have time to go into the logical problems one encounters with that though. 

IT is either wrong to steal someones wallet or it is not. IT has nothing to do with the survival value of the person taking the wallet. If it is wrong to steal someones wallet then it is wrong to steal anyone's wallet.

Only the fittest will survive!  Why would those unfit to reproduce do so?  If that statement weren't true, life wouldn't occur

Only the fittest will survive? Is this true?

It is circular logic. Your defining the fittest "because" they survived.  If it was only the fittest then only one would survive no multiples or groups.

How do you define unfit?

The only things that don't reproduce are those who choose not to, or those that can't. I don't see how unfit has anything to do with it. Again circular logic, defining those that choose not to or can't as unfit.

Someone once said , they are dead because they were unfit, if they weren't unfit they would be alive. I will have to dig out the actual quote I did paraphrase.

Ok, so what I've boiled your (actually pretty well stated) debate's first point is:
Evolution can't account for the laws of logic

I can't respond, partly from fearing Skuzzy, and partly from having no idea what you mean by that- I can only begin to guess.

Your second point is that since our minds distort things, that we cannot know anything.  This is equivocal, we must assume no distortion of what we say when we argue.  What I'm saying is that the 'absolute truth' will seem at least slightly different when read by you or by me.

However, I have an even more profound question, what is an, or the, absolute truth?  Do we even know what we're looking for?  Jeez, this seems like playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey in a washing machine!

And your third point is that only the fittest will survive is circular.  I can remedy that, however, the fittest are those best suited to the conditions at hand (however, these conditions include other conditions which may have barred others from reaching reproductive maturity).  Those who are unfit, are those who are not well suited to the conditions at hand.


I hope that this has cleared up whatever you didn't understand, and showed you that I don't understand some of your point.

Happy Arguing!
-Penguin

[Sonicblu]

Penguin, Thanks for the replies I do enjoy the discussion.

You keep redefining what I'm saying and moving the frame of the debate.
We were talking about does absolute truth exist, not what is an absolute truth. Two different things. I have to get an agreement from you on the first  question before we can argue "what is an absolute truth"

It doesn't matter if we can agree on an absolute truth. It doesn't change the fact that absolute truths exist. Also look up
what a tautology is.

P.M. me with anything you think might get the ban stick. And at anytime one of us might want to pull the plug on the debate and that is ok with me.

You don't have to guess what I'm getting at I said it very plainly. You define evolution as "non-intelligent unguided process"
Evolution presupposes no intelligence.
Logic presupposes the preconditions of intelligibility. How do you get from non-intelligence to intelligence in your world view?

Both your definitions are circular reasoning because they depend on the end result to define them. It is called begging the question. your premise" fittest" depends on the conclusion " they are well suited" same with unfit.

Let me use and example: Put a billion bacteria in a petri dish. Now define "the fittest" before any of them die or pass on their genetic code. You can't do it. You can only say the fittest will survive.  Your defining the fittest by those that survive long enough to pass on their genetic code. and unfit by those that do not.

Let me ask you," are you the fittest, or are you unfit"? What group do you fall into?