Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Stephen C. Meyer on argument by definition

Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Maranatha
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 135
Location: California

14 Jul 2010, 1:47 am

I wasn't friends with Him till after high school, but I'm really glad we finally met.

:wink:



Last edited by Maranatha on 14 Jul 2010, 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

14 Jul 2010, 1:47 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BELoD4Dgk0&feature=related[/youtube]


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jul 2010, 1:52 am

Maranatha wrote:
I wasn't friends with Him till after high school, but I'm really glad we finally met.

:wink:


That's cool.



Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

14 Jul 2010, 3:39 am

http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2010/ ... ience.html

Stephen Meyer wrote:
The whole problem of defining science is difficult...The Scientific Method. But in fact there are many different scientific methods, and that's where they typically run into trouble...These definitional arguments just don't work


:lmao:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Jul 2010, 3:47 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Even further though, I don't think that ID offers anything to make it superior than its competition. It lacks researchers, research, research papers, and generally has not shown itself to be committed to any scientific process. The ruling in Kitzmiller v Dover isn't a matter of Judge Jones having an evolutionary bias, but rather the ID crowd stumbled over itself at every single step.


Judge Jones was fair minded. His reaction to the Creation Institute and their buddies was anger and annoyance at the mendacity and dishonesty of the folks at the Creation Institute. The pro-ID folks were intellectually dishonest. The fudged and they faked.

Any attempt to render Christian version of biology true is doomed to failure because the Christian version is flat out wrong and false.

ruveyn



Last edited by ruveyn on 14 Jul 2010, 3:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jul 2010, 3:56 am

ruveyn wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Even further though, I don't think that ID offers anything to make it superior than its competition. It lacks researchers, research, research papers, and generally has not shown itself to be committed to any scientific process. The ruling in Kitzmiller v Dover isn't a matter of Judge Jones having an evolutionary bias, but rather the ID crowd stumbled over itself at every single step.


Judge Jones was fair minded. His reaction to the Creation Institute and their buddies was anger and annoyance at the mendacity and dishonesty of the folks at the Creation Institute. The pro-ID folks were intellectually dishonest. The fudged and they faked.

Any attempt to render Christian version of biology true is due to failure because the Christian version is flat out wrong and false.

ruveyn


Mendacity and dishonesty now? Really, so along with all the other claims of hypocrisy and all the rest of the name calling crap its "liars" on top of it all? ... Or do you mean "intellectual dishonesty" is how they are having "mendacity" and being "dishonest"? Such a form of dishonesty which seems, in order to be accused of it, depends more upon the conclusions reached than the methods of conclusion obtainment....



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

14 Jul 2010, 10:21 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Can you give evidence that specifically supports your claims to a deity? Not really other than a vague deity that you, specifically, don't worship and don't even begin to imply in your writings.


There is a difficulty in this entire debate centered around the whole issue being too massive to be addressed at once with any single argument. As such, showing by evidence the implied existence of such a "vague deity" is not accepted as a foundational piece of argumentation, but rejected automatically because showing the implied existence of such a "vague deity" doesn't immediately identify who the "vague deity" is and somehow without proper identification a person doesn't exist....


You imply vague possibility of an unidentified deity and then magically jump to the conclusion that its your god and not someone else's or maybe an entirely unidentified god unknown to man. If there were some sort of deity, it wouldn't fit into the current popular molds of what deities are.

And even with that philosophical point, you still haven't given evidence to support your claims of a deity other than fallacious arguments based on a misrepresentation of real scientific work and the abuse of semantics to achieve the misrepresentation.

Also, a deity isn't a person. That's a point you seem to have lost, as well. There is no big invisible person in the sky. Most likely if there were higher beings they would probably be higher dimensional aliens. And even if so, you still get back to the point of being unable to identify which renders the entire act of finding such an entity pointless to the Christians who are so dogged to try and prove the existence of a god and force it on others.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jul 2010, 1:21 pm

skafather84 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Can you give evidence that specifically supports your claims to a deity? Not really other than a vague deity that you, specifically, don't worship and don't even begin to imply in your writings.


There is a difficulty in this entire debate centered around the whole issue being too massive to be addressed at once with any single argument. As such, showing by evidence the implied existence of such a "vague deity" is not accepted as a foundational piece of argumentation, but rejected automatically because showing the implied existence of such a "vague deity" doesn't immediately identify who the "vague deity" is and somehow without proper identification a person doesn't exist....


You imply vague possibility of an unidentified deity and then magically jump to the conclusion that its your god and not someone else's or maybe an entirely unidentified god unknown to man. If there were some sort of deity, it wouldn't fit into the current popular molds of what deities are.

And even with that philosophical point, you still haven't given evidence to support your claims of a deity other than fallacious arguments based on a misrepresentation of real scientific work and the abuse of semantics to achieve the misrepresentation.

Also, a deity isn't a person. That's a point you seem to have lost, as well. There is no big invisible person in the sky. Most likely if there were higher beings they would probably be higher dimensional aliens. And even if so, you still get back to the point of being unable to identify which renders the entire act of finding such an entity pointless to the Christians who are so dogged to try and prove the existence of a god and force it on others.


All reasoning seems like magic to those who only read the first and last sentences of the first and last paragraphs.

BTW, you claimed to be well read in creationist/ID material and also claimed it is all just repeats of itself, so have you read any of the following:

By Jonathan Sarfati: Refuting Evolution 1&2, By Design.
By Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box, The Edge Of Evolution.
By Jay Wile: Reasonable Faith The Scientific Case For Christianity.
By Russell Humphrey's: Starlight & Time.

or which ones have you read?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Jul 2010, 1:43 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Mendacity and dishonesty now? Really, so along with all the other claims of hypocrisy and all the rest of the name calling crap its "liars" on top of it all? ... Or do you mean "intellectual dishonesty" is how they are having "mendacity" and being "dishonest"? Such a form of dishonesty which seems, in order to be accused of it, depends more upon the conclusions reached than the methods of conclusion obtainment....

Umm.... no, actually witnesses in Kitzmiller v Dover displayed selective memory and even lied under oath on occasion, and this is stated in the conclusion by Judge Jones. That they were intellectually dishonest, and were promoting crap is another facet in the trial. That they were liars though, is actually a fact that can be asserted independently of their position as promoters of ID.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

14 Jul 2010, 2:07 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Are you going to be addressing the issue of argumentum ad definitio or just continue providing examples of it?


Actually, I was trying to address that. Dr. Meyer was arguing against the argument by definition, in relation to ID, by providing a list of things that he claims would not fit the definition of science if that definition was strictly followed. I was trying to explain why that is false. Also, argument by definition is valid if that definition correctly represents the idea.