South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 14, 2019, 04:56:52 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Fool’s Gold: Teleology in Science

 (Read 15686 times)
Description: Ignoramuses feverishly delve for it.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2009, 12:19:24 PM »

So Mechanist, it looks like your past of dispensing vapour and inanity is catching up with you and that it consisted of much the same kind of nonsense that we have witnessed here.

Tell me, how do you defend your ID and creationist notions?  I mean, besides weaving together a threadbare tapestry of “Oh, look at all the coincidences!  I can’t explain them therefore a greater intelligence must be at work!”, and hijacking cherry-picked scientific findings, especially those concerning biological evolution, before shoehorning them, mostly by innuendo, into these preconceptions?

How old is Earth, do you think?  Do you think abiogenesis is possible?  Can you give a straight answer?

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2009, 17:58:28 PM »

Seeing that you are neither a neuroscientist nor a cognitive specialist, one has to wonder why you have a point of view with regards to consciousness in relation to quantum mechanics...
Hmm, let’s see now.  Could it be that I have expertise directly relevant to the topic and ready access to more of the same?

You are neither a neuroscientist nor a cognitive specialist.... so there goes expertise directly relevant to consciousness.
Now.... you said:
There are far too many people eagerly hopping over one another to dispense with great conviction opinions on subjects that they know next to nothing about, who expect that those opinions should on the whole be received with glowing admiration, that they should automatically be regarded as unassailable, and who resort to a veritable armoury of ruses to avoid rigorous substantiation of those declarations.  But, as said, it’s just my POV.

Does your great convictions with regards to quantum physics and consciousness come from your expertise in quantum mechanics, and are your opinions about it unassailable and should it be received with glowing admiration?
Why not just have a civil conversation and don't resort to a veritable armoury of ruses?




[ S]eeing that it is a testable hypothesis.
Clueless, mindless, obstinate repetition doesn’t magically produce true statements, although it may raise a chuckle or two.

Ditto  Wink.

@ cyghost? Do you forget that I have actually answered...
Me:
1) Certainly looks as if it might be a few billion years old, say.... maybe 6 billion years?
2) A few billion years if you believe the current radiometric dating methods. Whats wrong with that? I cant give you an exact number... can you?

Now, imagine person X writes this, do you think person Y would be a bit stupid in asking person X what the age of the earth is in trying to make person X look like he does not know or does not want to give an answer? I think any sane person would just ignore person Y's.... nonsense.

Anyway, reason for asking questions back to you is just to show that your incapable of being constructive in actually giving any answers... mind you, i think we all will be interested to hear your answers to the following:

You assert that:
You are not a materialist, not a naturalist and bear no metaphysical biases.

The questions remain:
Lay out what exactly you agree and disagree with naturalism and materialism.
Lay out these "metaphysical biases" you disagree/agree with?
Name them and explain them!

Waiting....


Yo! Mechano_TelePhrone old chap! I've found a little box you can put me in:

G) Defecatory Fatalist. We believe that "Sh1t happens"!

 Tongue Tongue


That is cute. How about a manifesto?
The Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist:
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes so strongly that he is the result of never ending sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes he is just another one of the sh1ts that just so happened to spawn... well more sh1t.
Do not dare to question the logic and rationality of the Defecatory Fatalist as you will be hit with a barrage of.... more sh1t.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer knows his beliefs are just... well... more sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
There shall be no churches for he Defecatory Fatalist believers as the stench left by sh1t that happens for no reason at all can not and shall not be tolerated even by the members.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes the Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist is not sh1t that happens for no reason at all.

So Mechanist, it looks like your past of dispensing vapour and inanity is catching up with you and that it consisted of much the same kind of nonsense that we have witnessed here.
Prepping up that armoury of ruses?

Tell me, how do you defend your ID and creationist notions?  I mean, besides weaving together a threadbare tapestry of “Oh, look at all the coincidences!  I can’t explain them therefore a greater intelligence must be at work!”, and hijacking cherry-picked scientific findings, especially those concerning biological evolution, before shoehorning them, mostly by innuendo, into these preconceptions?

Phew...hijacking cherry-picked scientific findings? Prepping up that armoury of ruses...again?

How do I defend ID and creationist notions?
Intentionality for one....
Fine-tuned argument is a reasonable argument unless you posit a multiverse.
The repeated emergence of biological structures of eyes, brains, minds (convergence) etc... ie. the biased nature of evolution.

To mention a few.

How old is Earth, do you think?  Do you think abiogenesis is possible?  Can you give a straight answer?

'Luthon64

Round about 4.5 billion years, perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less, give or take an error of 10%. Abiogenisis...possible? Yes. Heck, one might even argue....inevitable.

Please be so kind and at least give a point of view of the following:
Does Philosophical materialism allow for information to be viewed as a fundamental category of Nature. What is the origin of information? Only chance, only necessity, only intentionality, or a combination of some of these? Also, could you perhaps clear up whether you believe matter and matter-mediated properties have any intentionality and intentions or propositions towards something? If not, do you agree with the following statement?
Consciousness can be reduced to material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intention because only matter and matter-mediated properties such as energy exist.  

Can one really differentiate between Philosophical materialism and Eliminative materialism without discarding certain elements from one or the other?
Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2009, 18:22:48 PM »

That is cute. How about a manifesto?
The Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist:
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes so strongly that he is the result of never ending sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes he is just another one of the sh1ts that just so happened to spawn... well more sh1t.
Do not dare to question the logic and rationality of the Defecatory Fatalist as you will be hit with a barrage of.... more sh1t.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer knows his beliefs are just... well... more sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
There shall be no churches for he Defecatory Fatalist believers as the stench left by sh1t that happens for no reason at all can not and shall not be tolerated even by the members.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes the Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist is not sh1t that happens for no reason at all.


Thanks for the "cute" compliment. Fairly close old chap, but don't get too carried away there LOL!  Tongue You're a bit off base here and there, and REMEMBER! - we believe it of YOU too. Allow me to correct you:

Quote
The Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist:
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes that we are all the result of never ending sh1t that happens for no purpose at all. Maybe it does have an end, but we'll be long gone so weh!

The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes everyone, including and especially TelePhrone,  is just another one of the sh1ts that just so happened to spawn... well more sh1t.

Do not dare to question the logic and rationality of the IDiot as you will be hit with a barrage of.... unbelievable sh1t.

The Defecatory Fatalist believer knows his beliefs are just... well... more sh1t that happens for no purpose at all.

There shall be no churches for the Defecatory Fatalist believers as the stench left by the sh1t that happens in christian churches, especially those run by IDiots, sets a sufficiently distasteful example for the DF that he gets put off this whole sh1tty church idea completely.

The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes the Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist is just more sh1t that happens for no reason at all, other than by our choice, to amuse and entertain us while our brief candles flicker and burn.

Careful of all this "for no reason" stuff - rather say "with no conscious purpose" or such like, as causality  can be construed as a "reason". Lots of causality and stuffs around: lots of basic chemistry too.

 Shocked Tongue


EDIT. PS, Mechano-chappy, where you been? Or do you have to post via your work's computers? Doesn't your boss mind? Lollers!
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2009, 20:01:46 PM »

You are neither a neuroscientist nor a cognitive specialist.... so there goes expertise directly relevant to consciousness.
Ya thinks?  Well, like I said, “I have to admit that you’ve got me totally stumped.”  Or do you?



Now.... you said:
There are far too many people eagerly hopping over one another to dispense with great conviction opinions on subjects that they know next to nothing about, who expect that those opinions should on the whole be received with glowing admiration, that they should automatically be regarded as unassailable, and who resort to a veritable armoury of ruses to avoid rigorous substantiation of those declarations.  But, as said, it’s just my POV.
Why, yes, so I did.  Except for making some of the bits bold, that is.



Does your great convictions with regards to quantum physics and consciousness come from your expertise in quantum mechanics, and are your opinions about it unassailable and should it be received with glowing admiration?
It would appear so, wouldn’t it?  It would also appear that I am not the one making unsupported positive claims for the reality and existence of something, wouldn’t it?



Why not just have a civil conversation and don't resort to a veritable armoury of ruses?
But you’re not interested in civil conversation, only in deploying that armoury.  You keep making that much perfectly clear.  Your hypocritical approach to civility needs quite a bit of work, I’d say.



Prepping up that armoury of ruses?
There, you see?  Back to tu quoque.



Phew...hijacking cherry-picked scientific findings?
Yes.  Very tidily phrased, BTW.



Prepping up that armoury of ruses...again?
There, you see?  Back to tu quoque … again.



Intentionality for one....
What “intentionality”?  Whose?



Fine-tuned argument is a reasonable argument unless you posit a multiverse.
A reasonable argument for what exactly?



The repeated emergence of biological structures of eyes, brains, minds (convergence) etc... ie. the biased nature of evolution.
So the fact that a die comes up with a six about once in six throws means that it is purposely willed and guided to be thus.  Sharp.  Razor sharp.  Positively xyresic.



Round about 4.5 billion years, perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less, give or take an error of 10%.
Good answer.



Does Philosophical materialism allow for information to be viewed as a fundamental category of Nature.
Define “information” as a “category of Nature.”



Also, could you perhaps clear up whether you believe matter and matter-mediated properties have any intentionality and intentions or propositions towards something?
Define “intentionality,” “intentions” and “propositions” as relevant to matter and matter-mediated properties having them.



Can one really differentiate between Philosophical materialism and Eliminative materialism without discarding certain elements from one or the other?
Read again the definitions I gave.  The answer is in them.  Here’s a hint: What part, exactly, of “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic” is giving you trouble?

'Luthon64
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2009, 07:43:29 AM »

Hi Mechanist,

I've been following this race of stamina with interest. When asked your opinion on the age of the earth you replied:

Quote
Certainly looks as if it might be a few billion years old, say.... maybe 6 billion years?

and then

Quote
Round about 4.5 billion years, perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less, give or take an error of 10%.

which is around the same order of magnitude, so thats all good.

Now, given an earth old enough for evolution to take place, I was hoping you could clear two things up for me re the ID dogma:

1) Do you believe that God's ultimate goal from the start was to create humans?

2) If so, and assuming God is all-powerful, why did God chose such a massively  elaborate process spanning 4-6 billion years (or perhaps 13-15, depending on your point of view of when it all started) to come up with us? Surely God could have made us in, say, six days flat?

Mintaka
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2009, 08:33:55 AM »

Quote from: phrony
Round about 4.5 billion years, perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less, give or take an error of 10%.

Finally an answer! It seems you simply didn't want to answer *me*? lol

For the record this was his "answer" he alludes to above and I responded with this, noting his "if" qualification. This was the third time.

The fourth time:

cyghost: Or rather, simply answer the question I have put to you three times, ducked and evaded three times: How old is the earth? 1

phrony: What... and give the same answer 4 times in a row. 140 years ago the age of the earth was 100 million years, 1.6 billion years in 1913 and now seems like its 4.5billion years. Why dont you wait a few years, science may very well change that "fact" seeing how it rest so heavily on quite a few assumptions. Homo habilis and Lucy were seen as a real "factual" ancestors, and now? 2

I couldn't for the life of me get him to answer this really simple question. For instance, as everyone can see, he didn't give me the same answer 3 times in a row and he certainly didn't give me the same answer 6 times as he claimed here either.

And he has the audacity to ask me questions and insist I answer them? roflol

Two can play the game phrony, and even if you are a master at it, all you really have to do is actually read what I write to you and you wouldn't remain in the dark   Cheesy
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #36 on: July 28, 2009, 09:57:57 AM »

Does your great convictions with regards to quantum physics and consciousness come from your expertise in quantum mechanics, and are your opinions about it unassailable and should it be received with glowing admiration?
It would appear so, wouldn’t it?

Nope, not so  Huh?. Going to have to remain agnostic until real evidence pops up  Wink.  

Intentionality for one....

What “intentionality”?  Whose?[/quote]
Mine, yours, other minds...

Fine-tuned argument is a reasonable argument unless you posit a multiverse.
A reasonable argument for what exactly?

A reasonable argument can be made that chance alone won't explain the fine-tuned universe.


The repeated emergence of biological structures of eyes, brains, minds (convergence) etc... ie. the biased nature of evolution.
So the fact that a die comes up with a six about once in six throws means that it is purposely willed and guided to be thus.  Sharp.  Razor sharp.  Positively xyresic.

Someone throws the die.... Nice analogy.

Does Philosophical materialism allow for information to be viewed as a fundamental category of Nature.
Define “information” as a “category of Nature.”

The transmission and receiving of bits carrying information about something? Information in the sense that energy supervenes on information.
Is information non-local? Perhaps...
A) Energy is understood to be the ultimate foundation of all matter in this universe.
B) From Einstein's equation, E=mc^2, all matter ultimately emerged out of energy, and is theoretically reducible to energy.
C) From there it can also be derived that time comes to complete stop at the speed of light.
D) In addition, the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
E) The quantum teleportation experiments (such as this one) showed the entire information content (properties) of one photon can be transported/teleported instantaneously onto another photon whereby the second photon assumes the complete identity of the first photon, while the first photon loses its complete identity.

From the article:
Quote
In conclusion, we have performed an experimental test of the Bell inequality with space-like separation large enough to include a hypothetical delay of the quantum state reduction until a macroscopic mass has signi cantly moved, as advocated by Penrose and Diosi. Indeed, in the reported experiment each detection event triggers the application of a step voltage that expands a piezo actuator and displaces a mirror. The time of collapse of the mirror plus the time it takes to move it is shorter than the time the light needs to travel the distance between the receiving stations. In addition, this distance (18 km) sets a new record for Bell experiments with an independent source located in the middle. Let us emphasize that under the assumption that a quantum measurement is nished only once a gravity-induced state reduction has occurred, none of the many former Bell experiments in- volve space-like separation, that is space-like separation from the time the particle (here photons) enter their mea- suring apparatuses (here interferometers) until the time the measurement is nished. In this sense, our exper-ment is the firrst one with true space-like separation. The results con firm the nonlocal nature of quantum correlations.


F) So from there, energy can be argued to supervene on information, and information can be argued to be a fundamental category of Nature.

Also thought this might be interesting:
What is Information?
(A) Facts carry information.
(B) The informational content of a fact is a true proposition.
(C) The information a fact carries is relative to a constraint.
(D) The information a fact carries is not an intrinsic property of it.
(E) The informational content of a fact can concern remote things and situations.
(F) Informational content can be specific; the propositions that are informational contents can be about objects that are not part of the indicating fact.
(G) Indicating facts contain such information only relative to connecting facts; the information is incremental, given those facts.
(H) Many different facts, involving variations in objects, properties, relations and spatiotemporal locations, can indicate one and the same informational content—relative to the same or different constraints.
(I) Information can be stored and transmitted in a variety of forms.
(J) Having information is good; creatures whose behavior is guided or controlled by information (by their information carrying states) are more likely to succeed than those which are not so guided.


Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #37 on: July 28, 2009, 09:58:57 AM »

Also, could you perhaps clear up whether you believe matter and matter-mediated properties have any intentionality and intentions or propositions towards something?
Define “intentionality,” “intentions” and “propositions” as relevant to matter and matter-mediated properties having them.

Intentionality with regards to minds is the ability of a mental state to be about something and to refer to something outside of itself.
Intentionality has the function of guiding behaviour.
An object with intentionality can characterize nonexistent objects such as square triangles even though there is no such thing as square triangles.
An object with intentionality can characterize an object as being A and not B, even if all A's are B's.
An object with intentionality can believe in the four horsemen without believing in the square-root of 16 horsemen.

Intentions can be argued to represent the intentionality of an object.
Propositions

Can one really differentiate between Philosophical materialism and Eliminative materialism without discarding certain elements from one or the other?
Read again the definitions I gave.  The answer is in them.  Here’s a hint: What part, exactly, of “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic” is giving you trouble?

'Luthon64

Yeees... discarding certain elements from one or the other much?
Perhaps you should rename this thread to:
Fool’s Gold: Teleology in Metaphysical Materialism

Science is a teleological endeavour... An endeavour with a purpose and an end.... the search for truth. It is carried out by teleological agents (scientists)... searching for the truth. So perhaps you have found teleogy in science and your fool's gold in the scientists that do the actual science but not in scientific explanations.


Now where is that teleology in Metaphysical Materialism. Do you think it can not be argued that Metaphysical Materialism is so throroughly anti-scientific that it does not even warrant any consideration?

« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 13:29:39 PM by Mechanist. » Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #38 on: July 28, 2009, 10:11:05 AM »

Hi Mechanist,

Now, given an earth old enough for evolution to take place, I was hoping you could clear two things up for me re the ID dogma:

1) Do you believe that God's ultimate goal from the start was to create humans?

2) If so, and assuming God is all-powerful, why did God chose such a massively  elaborate process spanning 4-6 billion years (or perhaps 13-15, depending on your point of view of when it all started) to come up with us? Surely God could have made us in, say, six days flat?

Mintaka

Hi Mintaka,

1) I think that is a reasonable belief considering the evidence.
2) Perhaps that is logically the best process to optimize. An active search of ALL possible solutions of a fitness landscape with the inevitable emergence of optimal beings .... us. It is further argued that the existence of beings more optimal than us are unlikely to exist for our fitness landscape... earth. Whether we have reached a global maximum for our particular fitness landscape is debatable one can argue. Sure, God could make us in 1 second, everyday, for eternity, or not make us, what is wrong with chosing a process that will inevitably result in the emergence of beings of our kind and suitably adapted to their fitness landscape?


Seeing that this is a skeptic site, are there any people on this site skeptical about the claims of naturalism and materialism?
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 10:54:05 AM by Mechanist. » Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #39 on: July 28, 2009, 10:16:55 AM »

Cyghost... your question has been answered by me...to you. Maybe an incorrect answer at first you might argue, but an answer was given to YOU, this assertion is incorrect:
Finally an answer! It seems you simply didn't want to answer *me*? lol

So, for the 7th or 8th time (who cares really), could you perhaps elaborate on your assertions that:
You are not a materialist, not a naturalist and bear no metaphysical biases.

The questions remain:
Lay out what exactly you agree and disagree with naturalism and materialism.
Lay out these "metaphysical biases" you disagree/agree with?
Name them and explain them!

Waiting....
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 10:52:59 AM by Mechanist. » Logged
rwenzori
Sniper
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +7/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 403


Merda accidit.


« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2009, 10:26:01 AM »

Intentionality with regards to minds is the ability of a mental state to refer be about something and to something outside of itself.
Intentionality has the function of guiding behaviour.

<snip>

Intentions can be argued to represent the intentionality of an object.

Just a quick pop-in to point out some errors in the above. ( You STILL don't get intentionality, do you Mechanical-fellow? ).

From the Intentionality entry in that Stanford Encyclopedia you quote:

Quote
...in its philosophical usage, the meaning of the word ‘intentionality’ should not be confused with the ordinary meaning of the word ‘intention.’

Furthermore, intentionality has not necessarily anything to with "guiding behaviour".

You really should read a bit of Being and Time - you'll get a much better idea of what you are on about.

Must work...
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2009, 10:34:15 AM »

Intentionality with regards to minds is the ability of a mental state to refer be about something and to something outside of itself.
Intentionality has the function of guiding behaviour.

<snip>

Intentions can be argued to represent the intentionality of an object.

Just a quick pop-in to point out some errors in the above. ( You STILL don't get intentionality, do you Mechanical-fellow? ).

From the Intentionality entry in that Stanford Encyclopedia you quote:

Quote
...in its philosophical usage, the meaning of the word ‘intentionality’ should not be confused with the ordinary meaning of the word ‘intention.’

Furthermore, intentionality has not necessarily anything to with "guiding behaviour".

You really should read a bit of Being and Time - you'll get a much better idea of what you are on about.

Must work...
Nice selective quoting there  Shocked.
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2009, 12:02:57 PM »

Cyghost... your question has been answered by me...to you. Maybe an incorrect answer at first you might argue, but an answer was given to YOU, this assertion is incorrect:
Finally an answer! It seems you simply didn't want to answer *me*? lol

Not at all. I stand by that assertion and back it up with evidence.
Quote
So, for the 7th or 8th time (who cares really), could you perhaps elaborate on your assertions that:
You are not a materialist, not a naturalist and bear no metaphysical biases.

The questions remain:
Lay out what exactly you agree and disagree with naturalism and materialism.
Lay out these "metaphysical biases" you disagree/agree with?
Name them and explain them!

Waiting....

Well as you cannot read, you are going to wait a looooong time....

This was my answer when you first asked:

I hold no metaphysical position and prefer to accept only that which can be tested and for which we have evidence. Both materialism and naturalism takes it further than I am prepared to go. My position is grounded in the fact that taking things on faith is not a good thing, so I shy away from any such which can be construed as having a faith based nature. I accept to a small degree that ultimately anything and everything has a certain element of faith attached to it but the testable and the evidence based should be embraced to the exclusion of that which has neither.

You didn't accept that answer and I qualified it with this and then got tired telling you I won't answer you further  here and then follow it up with this

As it is, I really do not have the time or inclination to go into this with you.

I'd have considered going through some of these with you but now that I know this evasion pisses you off, I may just use the tactic more often.

And of course, the major reason is because I *still* don't bow down to what you dictate to me to post and what not to post and never ever ever will


There, now I have highlighted the pertinent parts for you.

That you fail to get the message from these is no fault of mine. If you told me you won't answer the age of the earth, I'd have accepted that. Instead I got evasive bullshit.

You are a fucking liar but I find you amusing. Do continue making an arse of yourself.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2009, 12:29:37 PM »

Still not backing up any assertions? Wonders who is actually making a fool of himself...
Do at least try and elaborate...
Lay out what exactly you agree and disagree with naturalism and materialism.
Lay out these "metaphysical biases" you disagree/agree with?
Logged
cyghost
Skeptically yours
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1409


Carpe diem


« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2009, 13:18:47 PM »

roflol

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.587 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page March 17, 2019, 12:53:08 PM
Privacy Policy