Creationism - an example

[El_Machinae]

@Carlos: I see that you still haven't managed to refute the "banana as God's candybar" theory. What's wrong? Your evolutionist "science" failing you!?!??!?!??!

1) Everything God makes is perfect
2) People prefer perfect things (exhibit a: Jessica Alba)
3) People prefer candybars to bananas

Conclusion - the banana is NOT a type of candybar, or people would not eat candy bars. If God invented pop, do you think people would drink Pepsi? I'd think not.

Bananas are something else.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I long since gave up any hope of ever understanding BJ's worldview....

Then I have posted less well than I thought.

 

[punkbass2000]

• Instead of a charismatic leader wouldn't you rather have a leader who understands the issues and wants the betterment of his people? WHo cares about charisma then? Forego the charisma and give him logic and reason and then lets see if he is not a better leader. In fact if everyone was logical we may take the next logical step. We will not need leaders.

I think you're going a little quickly there. Sure, if everyone is logical, fine. But since they're not, you'll go a lot further as a political leader with charisma than with pure logic. And unlikable socio-political genius who never even has a meaningful position in parliament will never accomplish nearly as much as an affable politician who can barely tie his own shoe-laces.

 

[Fifty]

I think you're going a little quickly there. Sure, if everyone is logical, fine. But since they're not, you'll go a lot further as a political leader with charisma than with pure logic. And unlikable socio-political genius who never even has a meaningful position in parliament will never accomplish nearly as much as an affable politician who can barely tie his own shoe-laces.

Assuming the goal of the charasmatic leader is to gain the support of his people/constituents, acting in an emotional or seemingly illogical manner is indeed fully logical, since that manner of being would be more conductive toward gaining their support/trust.

 

[punkbass2000]

They may act logically, but that does not mean that are being logical and without emotion. To happen to stumble upon a logical path is not the same as thinking in a logical manner.

 

[Fifty]

They may act logically, but that does not mean that are being logical and without emotion. To happen to stumble upon a logical path is not the same as thinking in a logical manner.

I'm not sure what you mean.

If acting emotional is what will gain you support, and you know this, then it is completely logical to act emotional, and it would be illogical to act "cold" and emotionless.

I think the "Spock" idea is creating some problems. I don't know anything about Star Trek, but if there was ever a point where Spock's apparent lack of emotion hindered his achieving a goal, then he was NOT acting logically at that point. The idea that logic is "cold" is unfounded, IMO.

 

[Perfection]

I'm not sure what you mean.

If acting emotional is what will gain you support, and you know this, then it is completely logical to act emotional, and it would be illogical to act "cold" and emotionless.

I think the "Spock" idea is creating some problems. I don't know anything about Star Trek, but if there was ever a point where Spock's apparent lack of emotion hindered his achieving a goal, then he was NOT acting logically at that point. The idea that logic is "cold" is unfounded, IMO.

Well goals can't be arrived logically unless they come from a larger goal. That's really the point.

Besides, Spock wasn't that funny.

 

[Fifty]

Well goals can't be arrived logically unless they come from a larger goal. That's really the point.

Well if you want to get foundational up in this hood then I'll just continue my contention that scientific, mathematical, and all other forms of reason are completely unfounded!!!!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Good. We are agreeing on something.

But in each of these all you are doing is that you are saying "when dealing with an emotional subject you are better off using emotions". (Arguably maybe. I am not convinced. But lets say you are right. ) That's circular in a way. The point is we remove all emotions from the scenario and then analyze it.

I'm also saying that there are circumstance in which reason is less appropriate or less likely to be a successful tactic. Remove all emotions and then analyze the situation? You assume that all solutions can be found with this method and it is plainly not true. You must not be married. Motherhood would not be possible in such a world.

I'm bold you are not.
In any case:

• Instead of a charismatic leader wouldn't you rather have a leader who understands the issues and wants the betterment of his people? WHo cares about charisma then? Forego the charisma and give him logic and reason and then lets see if he is not a better leader. In fact if everyone was logical we may take the next logical step. We will not need leaders.
  Charismatic people can lead others to an end with results that can be good or bad. Technocrats may know stuff and how to do things, but they can be sorely lacking in the ability to move others to action. We are not governed by reason, but by self interest. If everyone was Spock-like and had the same programming, you might be correct.
  
• Empathy is not necessary when someone is distraught. All we need to know is if there is a rational reason for helping them then we help. My empathy does not help the distraught. My actions on the other hand do. Does it matter whether the action was the result of empathy or reason?
  Remind me not to call on you when I'm in turmoil. In dealing with people the best results, male oriented rationality is often a very bad move. Especially with the ladies. I can rationalize any position for or against any particular action and come up with reasons why doing something or nothing is the best path, when in most cases the best path is actually just being there and recognizing the pain.
• As for poetry and paintings, I have to say, that although I enjoy your poetry enormously (and have penned a few of mine in remote antiquity - and not too bad i might add), on the whole, if we removed/lost all poetry and art from the world, IMHO, mankind would not lose much. Considering the rate at which modern poetry and art is churned out I can write computer programs quite unemotionally to churn them out in gigabytes at a time at about the same quality (a little tounge in cheek about the last part but not entirely incorrect - have you been to the NY Guggenheim to see their paitings and sculptures. All I can say is ). In any case, if we did not have Shakespeare what would you and I lose? OTOH, can you image if there was no Newton?
  I appreciate you calling my verses "poetry" I would not classify them as such. Rhyming verses is probably sufficient. Humans did without Newton and Shakespeare for 4000 years. Your lifestyle (and mine) is heavily dependent upon Newton; we've just grown accustomed to the benefits he provided. Your claim of little impact if we had no arts is pretty lame considering that you cherish thoughtful reasoning. The task of assessing such a thing would be massive. Bad art does not diminish the value of art just as bad people do not diminish the value of humans in general. The "universality" of the attempt to create it speaks to its important role in our very nature and genetic makeup. Can you imagine life without music or games?
  
• If you have not explained logically, what have you explained? I'll give you this one.
• Only because your subjects are emotional.
  No the students are emotional, passionate and bored. I have taught elementary school and it is not a rational process. Reasoning is very helpful in planning and organizing and trying to take things step by step, but 75% of it is all about body language, tone, enthusiasm, responsiveness etc.

Are transient emotions better than an eternel equanimity? This is a great question and I want to think some more before I answer.

 

[warpus]

1. Prove that all that is true, and that it was scientific reasoning that brought them about.

What? Alright.

Without an understanding of electricity - we would have never had computers. Without an understanding of nuclear fission - we would have never been able to build nuclear power plants. Without an understanding of chemistry - we would have never been able to produce plastic..

Do I need to go on?

2. Once you've done that, prove that scientific reasoning will be applicable in the future.

How could it not be? There are thousands.. hundreds of thousands of scientists in labs all over the world working on advances in computer science, electronics, medicine, etc. Surely if scientific reasoning wasn't applicable, they would have given up.. but they haven't! Scientific reason has been, and is continuing to lead to advances in various fields.

Impossible to say.

Then please outline how you could use spirituality to discover the inner-workings of electricity, for example.

I have no reason to believe that the proof is right in front of me. I do not have proof that my senses aren't deceiving me, I do not have proof that reason is to be trusted, and most importantly I don't have any justification for the believe that inductive reasoning is a valid form of reasoning at all. And without valid inductive reasoning, even deductive reasoning becomes arbitrary and baseless.

Without scientific reason, your computer would not exist. Perhaps you don't believe that it exists?

 

[Fifty]

Without an understanding of electricity - we would have never had computers. Without an understanding of nuclear fission - we would have never been able to build nuclear power plants. Without an understanding of chemistry - we would have never been able to produce plastic..

That doesn't prove anything. You haven't proved the accuracy of your your faculty of reason and memory, for one.

How could it not be? There are thousands.. hundreds of thousands of scientists in labs all over the world working on advances in computer science, electronics, medicine, etc. Surely if scientific reasoning wasn't applicable, they would have given up.. but they haven't! Scientific reason has been, and is continuing to lead to advances in various fields.

That tells me nothing. Prove that it will be applicable in the future. I'm not even asking for a 100% proof. I'm just asking you to show me that it is LIKELY that scientific reasoning will hold in the future.

Then please outline how you could use spirituality to discover the inner-workings of electricity, for example.

Just because I don't know a way doesn't mean a way doesn't exist.

Without scientific reason, your computer would not exist. Perhaps you don't believe that it exists?

I'll even give you "existence exists" and "my senses are generally correct" as axioms. That still doesn't mean that scientific reasoning works, and it still doesn't mean that my computer was created by science.

 

[Perfection]

Well if you want to get foundational up in this hood then I'll just continue my contention that scientific, mathematical, and all other forms of reason are completely unfounded!!!!

Nope! Empiricism has been empricially demonstrated to work.

 

[Fifty]

Nope! Empiricism has been empricially demonstrated to work.

Circular reasoning!!!!!!

fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy

 

[Bluemofia]

That doesn't prove anything. You haven't proved the accuracy of your your faculty of reason and memory, for one.

That tells me nothing. Prove that it will be applicable in the future. I'm not even asking for a 100% proof. I'm just asking you to show me that it is LIKELY that scientific reasoning will hold in the future.

Just because I don't know a way doesn't mean a way doesn't exist.

I'll even give you "existence exists" and "my senses are generally correct" as axioms. That still doesn't mean that scientific reasoning works, and it still doesn't mean that my computer was created by science.

Wow. I just had this debate with someone 2 days ago. I lost, because everything has to be based upon some assumptions, such as trusting your senses. (he was debating the exact thing/way you were Fifty.)

 

[Fifty]

Wow. I just had this debate with someone 2 days ago. I lost, because everything has to be based upon some assumptions, such as trusting your senses. (he was debating the exact thing/way you were Fifty.)

Even if I give you: reality exists, our memories work correctly, and our senses work correctly, my point still stands!! It takes only The Problem of Induction to ruin all scientific reasoning!

 

[warpus]

still doesn't mean that my computer was created by science.

No, it wasn't created by science, but it was built by techniques perfected by science - techniques that we now understand thanks to the scientific method.

If you say that I'm wrong, what lead to the creation of my computer?

Did it pop out of thin air?

 

[warpus]

Even if I give you: reality exists, our memories work correctly, and our senses work correctly, my point still stands!! It takes only The Problem of Induction to ruin all scientific reasoning!

What problem of induction?

It seems like you're hiding behind philisophical mumbo-jumbo to make some sort of a point.. but I can't really figure out what that might be.

 

[Fifty]

No, it wasn't created by science, but it was built by techniques perfected by science - techniques that we now understand thanks to the scientific method.

Prove it. I'm not even asking for 100% deductive proof. I'm just asking you to show me that it is more likely that it was "built by techniques perfected by science" than any other arbitrary scenario I could pull out of thin air.

If you say that I'm wrong, what lead to the creation of my computer?

Did it pop out of thin air?

I have no idea where it came from. However, assuming that because I don't know, you are correct is a fundamental fallacy (a fallacy of relevance in particular).

 

[Fifty]

What problem of induction?

It seems like you're hiding behind philisophical mumbo-jumbo to make some sort of a point.. but I can't really figure out what that might be.

If it's just "mumbo jumbo" then prove as such please!

The problem of induction is the philosophical issue involved in deciding the place of induction in determining empirical truth. The problem of induction is whether inductive reason works. That is, what is the justification for either:

-generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class of objects (for example, "All ravens we have seen are black, and therefore all ravens are black"); or

-presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, the attractive force described by Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, or Albert Einstein's revision in general relativity).

 

[warpus]

Alright, you had me going for a while there, Descartes!

You might have an easier time proving whatever point you have if your thought experiment was a little bit less ridiculous.