The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[MajGenl.Meade]

'But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef?' If science itself cannot say where the laws of physics ultimately come from, there is no reason to expect that religion will do any better and rather good reasons to think it will do worse.

That's typical Dawkins. Anyone care to make a syllogism out of that? I'll try:

1. If science cannot say where the laws of physics ultrimately come from
2. Neither can a chaplain, a gardener, a chef or anyone else
3. Therefore religion is much worse than science

Now that's what I call a good sound argument!

Meade

[Gob]

1. If science cannot say where the laws of physics ultrimately come from
2. Neither can a chaplain, a gardener, a chef or anyone else
3. Therefore religion is much worse than science because it pretends to have the answer.

[thestoat]

[Sean]

Funny how it's not rude and inconsiderate in your eyes to throw out unsubstantiated allegations...

Well, I asked rather than assumed and received insults; at least that was better than evasion by ignore. A direct answer would by better, but still, flustering speaks volumes about close-mindedness. I'm ready to stand corrected.

Well you'd best get standing then because you are about to be corrected!

I can understand a campaign for acceptance of other choices of belief, like atheism, but if I understand correctly, there's a position out there that not just religion, but faith, shouldn't be allowed; that there's an active advocation to remove other choices than atheism. IMHO that's intolerant and close-minded.

Now how can I put this simply...

If you want a direct answer try asking a question!

You did not ask, you stated. I didn't insult you, I simply asked you to clarify and back-up your allegation. You refused to do so and I expressed the opinion that, in my eyes, such evasion usually means that you cannot substantiate your claim.

Also Lo, you have stated more than once that being ignored doesn't bother you... but I think it does. You do seem to mention it quite a bit...

[MajGenl.Meade]

1. If science cannot say where the laws of physics ultrimately come from
2. Neither can a chaplain, a gardener, a chef or anyone else
3. Therefore religion is much worse than science because it pretends to have the answer.

-dry chuckle-

Not a good syllogism though, which was my point. The conclusion does not flow from the two premises. What is that? Either a four term fallacy or wait... yes isn't that an undistributed middle? Anyway, its fallacious (which do not mean what you want it to mean Gob).

Dawkins conclusion is not reached from his premises either but is simply a non-evidenced and non-argued statement of faith. Oh dear. Still a crap thinker masquerading as a popular author of fiction (Burpos all round, chaps!)

Meade

[thestoat]

3. Therefore religion is much worse than science

Actually, Meade, you aren't being very logical here. Your statement cannot be logically deduced from Dawkins. He says

there is no reason to expect that religion will do any better and rather good reasons to think it will do worse.

BUT - he doesn't state what those reasons are. Thus your use of the word "therefore" is logically incorrect.

[rubato]

The laws of nature are inherent to the structure of the universe. They are the universe. They do not have to 'come from' anywhere. Claiming that they have to 'come from' some place is not an empirical statement it is a dishonest way of inserting god by the back door.

The human condition only began to improve overall when "god did it" was abandoned as meaningless tripe and materialist science displaced superstition as the dominant description of reality.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

The laws of nature are inherent to the structure of the universe. They are the universe. They do not have to 'come from' anywhere. Claiming that they have to 'come from' some place is not an empirical statement it is a dishonest way of inserting god by the back door.

The human condition only began to improve overall when "god did it" was abandoned as meaningless tripe and materialist science displaced superstition as the dominant description of reality.

yrs,
rubato

Fortunately no-one makes the claim that "laws of nature" (who dat?) are in any way separate from "the universe". God creatred the entire show - universe, laws and rubatos working in harmony for HIs good purposes. The existence of laws presupposes a law-giver - random chance doesn't seem a likely explanation. Except for rubatos and Meades of course.

Fortunately "God did it" has not been abandoned and materialist science has displaced nothing. The human condition (that old problem of historical facts again) has in general improved over several thousands of years before, during and after the major developmetns of theistic understanding. One says in general because the history of humankind has had its up and downs, occasioned by climate, geography, disease and materialists as well as by church groups.

One is reminded of G K Chesterton's answer to the London Times request for correspondence answering the question "What is wrong with the world today?". The great man wrote in reply: "Dear Sirs: I am. Respectfully, G K Chesterton". Now we know who to blame for all these pre-materialist troubles before sanity took over (Hitler, Staln, Pol Pot, Rwanda, the A-bomb, the H-bomb, Zyklon B and all the other benefits of materialst scientists who are, according to figures, remarkably uncontaminated by superstition in their efforts to improve the human condition - thank....er nobody)

Meade

[rubato]

"... The existence of laws presupposes a law-giver - random chance doesn't seem a likely explanation. Except for rubatos and Meades of course.
... "

Pure horseshit.

The existence of physical laws only supposes the existence of physical laws.

The number of premises introduced to make an argument (explain a phenomenon) should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

But superstition has a deep hold on the consciousness of uneducated people everywhere.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Fortunately "God did it" has not been abandoned and materialist science has displaced nothing. The human condition (that old problem of historical facts again) has in general improved over several thousands of years before, during and after the major developmetns of theistic understanding. One says in general because the history of humankind has had its up and downs, occasioned by climate, geography, disease and materialists as well as by church groups.

Spot on.

(I know from experience how frustrating and exasperating it can be when one who has a great deal of knowledge of history attempts to debate it with one who.... well....doesn't....I commend you for your extraordinary patience and forbearance....)

Now we know who to blame for all these pre-materialist troubles before sanity took over (Hitler, Staln, Pol Pot, Rwanda, the A-bomb, the H-bomb, Zyklon B and all the other benefits of materialst scientists who are, according to figures, remarkably uncontaminated by superstition in their efforts to improve the human condition - thank....er nobody)

Touche!

[loCAtek]

Sean, what part of 'I f I understand' and IMHO, did you not understand as inquisitors? In return, I received insults not quantifiers, which leaves the questions unanswered and open to speculation, which I freely engaged in.

[Sean]

Lo, I understand English very well thanks. How about you?

So "If I understand" and IMHO are questions are they?

See, that was a question. It had a question mark and everything...

"If I understand" is in fact a qualifier and "IMHO" denotes an opinion. Neither of which are questions.

Try again...

[rubato]

The Mag Gen'l is unimaginatively recycling the "proofs of the existence of god" from Aquinas and Descartes (and many others) which have long been proven circular. And apparently unaware even that he is doing so.

Science begins with the assertion that all real events have material causes which can be determined. A statement which cannot be rendered empirically is meaningless vapor.

And besides, if time is created by matter then the question 'what came before matter' becomes meaningless. If matter does not exist then 'before' does not exist. "...like asking what is north of the North Pole."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
"...
It is argued that a challenge to the cosmological argument is the nature of time, "One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler–DeWitt equation"[cite this quote] - Carlo Rovelli. The Big Bang theory states that it is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time.[27] Then, the question "What was there before the Universe?" makes no sense; the concept of "before" becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.[27] This has been put forward by J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, who said that asking what occurred before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole.[27] However, some cosmologists and physicists do attempt to investigate what could have occurred before the Big Bang, using such scenarios as the collision of membranes to give a cause for the Big Bang.[28]
... "




yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

The Mag Gen'l is unimaginatively recycling the "proofs of the existence of god" from Aquinas and Descartes (and many others) which have long been proven circular. And apparently unaware even that he is doing so. Science begins with the assertion that all real events have material causes which can be determined. A statement which cannot be rendered empirically is meaningless vapor. And besides, if time is created by matter then the question 'what came before matter' becomes meaningless. If matter does not exist then 'before' does not exist. "...like asking what is north of the North Pole."

" yrs, rubato

I just love irony! Brilliant! You are parroting from Wikipedia and then quoting what you parotted from but I am the one who is "unimaginatively recycling"? Well I must be doing that then because you'd be the expert in the field. OTOH I'm unaware of Aquinas and Descartes - but that kind of ruins your assertion that I'm "unimaginatively recycling" doesn't it? If I have no idea of their arguments then I'd say I was being a bit original but... I defer again.

And wait - there's more irony!
1. A statement which cannot be rendered empirically is meaningless vapor.
2. Science begins with the assertion that all real events have material causes which can be determined.

I'd like to see you render #2 empirically - perhaps I should have gone with (a) and (b).....

And what was the material cause of the event of the Big Bang - that which preceded it? Oh wait - it was nothing at all! That makes good scientific sense and what's more it's very empirical because it can be tested by observation and/or proved and duplicated in experim.... oh.... ah,

[loCAtek]

Lo, I understand English very well thanks. How about you?

So "If I understand" and IMHO are questions are they?

See, that was a question. It had a question mark and everything...

"If I understand" is in fact a qualifier and "IMHO" denotes an opinion. Neither of which are questions.

Try again...

Gladly! I made no 'allegations', because I included the appropriate disclaimers. I acknowledged 'If I understand'; meaning perhaps I didn't? and an IMH Opinion is conjecture;

opinion
c.1300, from O.Fr. opinion (12c.), from L. opinionem (nom. opinio ) "opinion, conjecture, what one thinks," from stem of opinari "think, judge, suppose, opine,"

...which acknowledged, that I hypothesized, and could be wrong?


However, the answer I received, revealed I was correct;

Obviously Lo still believes in the tooth fairy/santa/the bogeyman under the bed and all the things she was taught as a child, as it is impossible to stop believing in anything once you've been informed of it.

All of the above is a stereotype of a religious person, said by the intolerant who wishes to remain close-minded. None of the above is factual, but is designed to pigeonhole a spiritual character into something he can control; like a racist needs to control perceptions of ethnic people to maintain his prejudice.

[Sean]

So it's no longer rude or inconsiderate to name people?

[Sean]

Lo, I understand English very well thanks. How about you?

So "If I understand" and IMHO are questions are they?

See, that was a question. It had a question mark and everything...

"If I understand" is in fact a qualifier and "IMHO" denotes an opinion. Neither of which are questions.

Try again...

Gladly! I made no 'allegations', because I included the appropriate disclaimers. I acknowledged 'If I understand'; meaning perhaps I didn't? and an IMH Opinion is conjecture;

opinion
c.1300, from O.Fr. opinion (12c.), from L. opinionem (nom. opinio ) "opinion, conjecture, what one thinks," from stem of opinari "think, judge, suppose, opine,"

...which acknowledged, that I hypothesized, and could be wrong?

You used the appropriate disclaimers for one who wishes to be able to back out of their words. I've always found it a rather distasteful and cowardly approach.

And if we're using definitions...

Talking bollocks: See Lo's post.

Clutching at straws: See 'Talking bollocks'.



I'm still waiting for you to point out the question which you say you asked...

The way I see it there are three options available to you here:

1.) You could simply admit that you didn't actually ask a question, ask the question and then marvel at the fact that it received answer(s).
2.) You could continue to debate the English language with me, although I should point out that I am actually well educated in said language and you are using words like 'conjecture' to support your position without seeming to know what they actually mean (FYI, conjecture (when used as a noun) means to speculate or theorise without evidence... on second thoughts, maybe it is appropriate).
3.) You could simply ignore my response.

Your call.

[loCAtek]

However, the answer I received, revealed I was correct;

Obviously Lo still believes in the tooth fairy/santa/the bogeyman under the bed and all the things she was taught as a child, as it is impossible to stop believing in anything once you've been informed of it.

All of the above is a stereotype of a religious person, said by the intolerant who wishes to remain close-minded. None of the above is factual, but is designed to pigeonhole a spiritual character into something he can control; like a racist needs to control perceptions of ethnic people to maintain his prejudice.

I'm not the only one who noticed, he's conceited in his disbelief.

[Sean]

Option 3 then I take it...

[The Hen]

I see no conceit. I see no one else noticing it either.