tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post8416931818420379356..comments2024-03-29T01:14:19.030-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Best Evidence, Occam and Fine Tuning (part 2 from monday)Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83087470726323599032017-11-06T09:51:50.828-08:002017-11-06T09:51:50.828-08:00it's three posts up:
OK FROM THIS POINT ON I ...it's three posts up:<br /><br />OK FROM THIS POINT ON I AM TRANSFERRING THE DISCUSSION TO THE NEXT POST,ON MONDAY,I WILL NOT ANSWER YOU ANY MORE IN THIS THREAD. THE SECTION IS CLOSED,<br /><br />you can comment I wont take it down because this the comment section, but I wont respond and you get one come back. then it it's closed.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43533975702944023432017-11-06T08:15:32.783-08:002017-11-06T08:15:32.783-08:00You are a liar.You are a liar.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48070184220970646662017-11-06T00:09:40.813-08:002017-11-06T00:09:40.813-08:00I said it's closed and I gave you the last wor...I said it's closed and I gave you the last word,you are going to have to e content with that.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-22608896978969596862017-11-05T09:05:03.313-08:002017-11-05T09:05:03.313-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60748835148492399292017-11-04T11:46:57.461-07:002017-11-04T11:46:57.461-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-50148164646566294532017-11-04T04:49:24.816-07:002017-11-04T04:49:24.816-07:00OK FROM THIS POINT ON I AM TRANSFERRING THE DISCUS...<br /><br /><br /><b>OK FROM THIS POINT ON I AM TRANSFERRING THE DISCUSSION TO THE NEXT POST,ON MONDAY,I WILL NOT ANSWER YOU ANY MORE IN THIS THREAD. THE SECTION IS CLOSED,</b><br /><br />you can comment I wont take it down because this the comment section, but I wont respond and you get one come back. then it it's closed.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81243255166750597732017-11-04T04:42:47.648-07:002017-11-04T04:42:47.648-07:00meI am not bashing them they didn't say they w...<b>me</b>I am not bashing them they didn't say they were holy men. I'm bashing you<br /><br /><br />- And I'm pointing out how wrong you are.<br /><br />sssshshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ;-)<br /><br /><b>me</b>you missed the whole he was making, He did not just say design argument is wrong he gleefully bellowed and strutted around saying he could severe the argument to disprove God this is how, because God had to be complex and that is less probable<br /><br />- Joe, you can't keep track of what the comment refers to. This one was about how you made a false claim attributed to Steinhardt. Remember? You said inflation theory was invented to push God out of the picture. But he never said that. READ THE DAMN THING. That's not what he says.<br /><br /><b>I quoted it to you, he says point blank we did it to get rid of fine tuning,he meant the God ardent because they used fine tuning in the equations they were't getting rid of it they used it,that was the basis of his reason for turning Agilent it,<br /><br />you did not read quote so you didn't follow what was said,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63988815824912407842017-11-04T04:36:59.093-07:002017-11-04T04:36:59.093-07:00im-skeptical said...
mebull shit. I spent two ye...<br />im-skeptical said...<br /><br /><br /><b>me</b>bull shit. I spent two years writing the book. the problem is you have nothing to say so you are clutching at straw<br /><br />- You spent years doing mental masturbation: GOD GOOD. DAWKINS BAD. GOD GOOD. DAWKINS BAD. You don't actually think about anything, including the title of your article.<br /><br /><b>once again he knows all about a book he's never read, all based upon one mention of Dawkie in which I didn't say anything derogatory, what I said of Dawkie in part 1 last Monday is the only mention I make of him in the book, "We might be able to say that the best explanation would account for all the data or account for the most crucial data than other explanations. We could also stipulate that the explanation be the most simple as long as we don't confuse conceptual simplicity with absence of data, or simplicity of structure. For example when Dawkins argues that God would have to be more complex than the universe he creates, he's assuming the laws of physics apply to God."</b><br /><br /><b>me</b>Ys i know he says that that;THAT'S WHY HE;S WRONG!!!! IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT FORM OF COMPLEXITY<br /><br />- In my comment of 8:26 AM, I told you about two distinct responses that Dawkind gives, retarding two different kinds of complexity. 1) is about the complexity of the designer (which you claim is simple).<br /><br /><b>Aquinas was not talking about God being simple by not having lots of parts that;snot what he meant, anything to do with the makeup of God is off limits since we know nothing about it, except to say he;snot physical hr doesn't have a body,</b><br /><br /><br /> 2) is about the complexity of things that exist in our world (which you claim requires a designer capable of creating complex things). <br /><br /><b>NO I DID NOT SAY THAT I SAID WE ARE OT TALKING ABOUT DESIGN ARGUMENTS HERE</b><br /><br /><br />Do you get the difference? They're not the same thing, and Dawkins makes separate arguments about those two different things. Get it through your head. A ten-year-old can understand this if he bothers to listen to what is being said.<br /><br /><b>right those are broth things that don't apply,</b><br /><br /><br /><b>me</b>which is still a misunderstanding because the teleological argument does not deal with complexity, Dawkims thinks God being complex is the issue but it has nothing to do with multiplying parts<br /><br />- See my previous remark. You're mixing up two distinct things, because you don't listen.<br />>>>>>>><br /><b>I just explained why it's wrong,you say two but really one applies to god the other to the universe both are wrong,you" "1) is about the complexity of the designer (which you claim is simple)." you "2) is about the complexity of things that exist in our world "<br /><br />>>>my argument was bout God so 2 doesn't apply at all</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78534045352401828272017-11-04T04:08:46.955-07:002017-11-04T04:08:46.955-07:00ROTFLOL!!! ever heard of baggie the question? you ...ROTFLOL!!! ever heard of baggie the question? you can't just look at the universe and assume it must not have needed a cause merely because its visible<br />- Here's how you "baggie" the question:<br /><br /><b>beg--ok when I get excited and type fast I make mistakes,</b><br /><br />1. Assume God exists.<br />2. Assume Gog created everything.<br />3. Reject any and all other explanations for why things exist.<br />4. Conclude that therefore, God must have created everything.<br /><br /><br /><b>Of course that is NOT the thought process used by theistic thinks, that's a straw man made up by you to mock what you don't understand, typical atheist mentality,</b><br /><br /><b>me</b>that is not what he says. the 747 thing<br /><br /><br />- Here's how science has demonstrated the complex functional things don't need an intelligent designer:<br />1. Start with something that is non-functional or has limited utility.<br />2. Introduce a small random change. (simulation of replication with mutation)<br />3. If utility is improved, keep the change, otherwise reject it. (simulation of natural selection)<br />4. Go to 2.<br /><br /><b>front end loaded assumptions you can;t explain like law of gravity</b><br /><br /><b>we are not arguing about the design argument,I already made this clear to you last time,<br /> get over it. you are trying to repeat it because its your talisman for protection against big mean God and because your religion leads you to think it has be evoked as an ancient supplicant evokes her deity. We are not doing that argument now, you have evoked a straw man, no argument I make says that, not what fine tuning says,</b><br /><br /><br />This process works with no Gods required. It has been demonstrated. Your explanation is illogical, simple-minded, and has never been observed or demonstrated.<br />10:05 AM <br /><br /><b>of course it has not been demonstrated because every single model you have leaves open ended questions about where things come from</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-82928510874441041842017-11-04T03:50:16.749-07:002017-11-04T03:50:16.749-07:00im-skeptical said...
meIf by that you don't m...im-skeptical said...<br /><br /><b>me</b>If by that you don't meant the universe itself but as an explanation,because it require a reason that also fails the kind of simplicity in relation OT the other criteria, it has no explanatory power if there no reason for it to be ...<br /><br /><b>skep</b>- I understand your question-begging explanation for everything, but if everything requires a reason, then what is the reason for God? Please answer without begging the question. And while you're at it, please explain the reason that virtual particles come into existence.<br /><br /><b>I've answered before,I will try to dig it up for you, But type point of saying everything requires a reason so there has to be a stopping point for explanations naturalistic universe does not take us to the stopping point but God does. why? Because God can be a self sustaining answer yet naturalistic universe always has to invite more questions where did it come from? where did the particles come from? where did gravity come from ect, doesn't work to say where did <br />God come from because the concept itself embodies the answer is being itself has to be eternal</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Me:</b>If by that you don't meant the universe itself but as an explanation,because it require a reason that also fails the kind of simplicity in relation OT the other criteria, it has no explanatory power if there no reason for it to be<br /><br /><b>Sep:</b>- How do you know that God is simple? Surely not just because you say so. Please spell out the logic that you use to conclude that God must be simple, and tell me which part of that logic Dawkins got wrong.<br /><br /><b>He got the kind of simplicity wrong as I already said, I answered that in part 1:<br />"We might be able to say that the best explanation would account for all the data or account for the most crucial data than other explanations. We could also stipulate that the explanation be the most simple as long as we don't confuse conceptual simplicity with absence of data, or simplicity of structure. For example when Dawkins argues that God would have to be more complex than the universe he creates, he's assuming the laws of physics apply to God"<br /><br />as for how we know God is simple I will go into more detail on that next time. That's a good one fora whole log piece. Tentative answer just suffice to say it;s a standard of Christian Theology going back to Aquinas, before him.</b><br /><br /><br />mental complexity is nothing<br />- And how do you know that? Do you have any examples? Why is it that the most complex minds we know of are in the most complex brains we know of? Why isn't an amoeba smarter than we are? Sure God is simple. A simple-minded explanation for simple-minded people who don't care how things work IN REALITY.<br /><br /><br /><b>Because I don't need a head big enough to house a planet of Krypton but the concept of Krypton takes up no room in my head. I did not say that biological hardware isn't necessary for biological beings but the mental part is not complex,God is not a biological being,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-24718352048336310232017-11-03T10:36:09.697-07:002017-11-03T10:36:09.697-07:00bull shit. I spent two years writing the book. the...<i>bull shit. I spent two years writing the book. the problem is you have nothing to say so you are clutching at straw</i><br />- You spent years doing mental masturbation: GOD GOOD. DAWKINS BAD. GOD GOOD. DAWKINS BAD. You don't actually think about anything, including the title of your article.<br /><br /><br /><i>Ys i know he says that that;THAT'S WHY HE;S WRONG!!!! IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT FORM OF COMPLEXITY</i><br />- In my comment of 8:26 AM, I told you about two distinct responses that Dawkind gives, retarding two different kinds of complexity. 1) is about the complexity of the designer (which you claim is simple). 2) is about the complexity of things that exist in our world (which you claim requires a designer capable of creating complex things). Do you get the difference? They're not the same thing, and Dawkins makes separate arguments about those two different things. Get it through your head. A ten-year-old can understand this if he bothers to listen to what is being said.<br /><br /><br /><i>which is still a misunderstanding because the teleological argument does not deal with complexity, Dawkims thinks God being complex is the issue but it has nothing to do with multiplying parts</i><br />- See my previous remark. You're mixing up two distinct things, because you don't listen.<br /><br /><br /><i>I am not bashing them they didn't say they were holy men. I'm bashing you</i><br />- And I'm pointing out how wrong you are.<br /><br /><i>you missed the whole he was making, He did not just say design argument is wrong he gleefully bellowed and strutted around saying he could severe the argument to disprove God this is how, because God had to be complex and that is less probable</i><br />- Joe, you can't keep track of what the comment refers to. This one was about how you made a false claim attributed to Steinhardt. Remember? You said inflation theory was invented to push God out of the picture. But he never said that. READ THE DAMN THING. That's not what he says.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2809136442115392682017-11-03T10:05:00.069-07:002017-11-03T10:05:00.069-07:00If by that you don't meant the universe itself...<i>If by that you don't meant the universe itself but as an explanation,because it require a reason that also fails the kind of simplicity in relation OT the other criteria, it has no explanatory power if there no reason for it to be ...</i><br />- I understand your question-begging explanation for everything, but if everything requires a reason, then what is the reason for God? Please answer without begging the question. And while you're at it, please explain the reason that virtual particles come into existence.<br /><br /><br /><i>If by that you don't meant the universe itself but as an explanation,because it require a reason that also fails the kind of simplicity in relation OT the other criteria, it has no explanatory power if there no reason for it to be</i><br />- How do you know that God is simple? Surely not just because you say so. Please spell out the logic that you use to conclude that God must be simple, and tell me which part of that logic Dawkins got wrong.<br /><br /><br /><i>mental complexity is nothing</i><br />- And how do you know that? Do you have any examples? Why is it that the most complex minds we know of are in the most complex brains we know of? Why isn't an amoeba smarter than we are? Sure God is simple. A simple-minded explanation for simple-minded people who don't care how things work IN REALITY.<br /><br /><br /><i>ROTFLOL!!! ever heard of baggie the question? you can't just look at the universe and assume it must not have needed a cause merely because its visible</i><br />- Here's how you "baggie" the question:<br />1. Assume God exists.<br />2. Assume Gog created everything.<br />3. Reject any and all other explanations for why things exist.<br />4. Conclude that therefore, God must have created everything.<br /><br /><i>that is not whaqthesqys the 747 thing be [itsimters of cop[elxioty because that;showhe argue God asiprobable</i><br />- Here's how science has demonstrated the complex functional things don't need an intelligent designer:<br />1. Start with something that is non-functional or has limited utility.<br />2. Introduce a small random change. (simulation of replication with mutation)<br />3. If utility is improved, keep the change, otherwise reject it. (simulation of natural selection)<br />4. Go to 2.<br />This process works with no Gods required. It has been demonstrated. Your explanation is illogical, simple-minded, and has never been observed or demonstrated.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-80930683593969796982017-11-03T10:04:28.661-07:002017-11-03T10:04:28.661-07:00Look it man here are Dawkin's words:
"Th...Look it man here are Dawkin's words:<br /><br />"The Argument from Improbability is the big one. In the traditional guise of the argument from design, it is easily today's most popular argumet offered in favor of the existence of God...[it is unanswerable] but in precisely the opposite direction from the theists intentions. The argument from probability properly deployed comes close to proving that God does not exist...It turns out to be the God hypothesis that tires to get the free lunch...the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable."<br /><br />138 in online version google booksJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40564838643433454982017-11-03T09:32:33.049-07:002017-11-03T09:32:33.049-07:00big deal re-title.
- The point is that you haven&#...big deal re-title.<br />- The point is that you haven't given the matter enough thought to put an appropriate title on your article.<br /><br /><b>bull shit. I spent two years writing the book. the problem is you have nothing to say so you are clutching at straw</b><br /><br /><br />that is complete nosecones,you don't seem to get what's being said the argument applies this other way (ie contradicts your nonsense) weather you like it or not. I know it's not the official label of the argent still true if you think about the logic of it, that's you are supposed to do with arguments is look at the logic,.do you see that?<br />- I'm trying to get you to understand that there's two different things being conflated together. 1) the teleological argument, which says that complex things require a designer - and Dawkins says that BY THAT LOGIC, any such designer must also be complex. <br /><br /><b>Ys i know he says that that;THAT'S WHY HE;S WRONG!!!! IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT FORM OF COMPLEXITY,I am not arguing the design argument do you not get that? I could not care less about that right now, The issue is understanding the right idea of simple,</b><br /><br /><br />2) the argument that says a something like a 747 couldn't be assembled by a natural process - and Dawkins argues that evolution explains how things come to be complex without any intelligence involved.<br /><br /><b>which is still a misunderstanding because the teleological argument does not deal with complexity, Dawkims thinks God being complex is the issue but it has nothing to do with multiplying parts,</b><br /><br /><br />t you don't understand it ,undergraduate boy you do not get it ...<br />you don't even understand the book you cherish so, i doubt that you have read the argument<br />- I understand it MUCH better than you, because I listen. But it will never penetrate your thick, thick skull, because the only thing you understand is DAWKINS .. ATHEIST .. BAD.<br /><br /><b>Obviously not because I just explained it to you. you still think I'm argument</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />not unfair nor is it derogatory to him, it shows you contradict him not I<br />- I hope you can see that your ignorance is on full display.<br /><br /><br />I know these the holy men of your faith,I don]t see that, Multiverse is not provable<br />- This is how you prove that you are not trying to bash scientists?<br /><br /><b>I am not bashing them they didn't say they were holy men. I'm bashing you,</b><br /><br /><br />he sure did I edited,it to get rid of fine tuning<br />- First get a brain, then read the article, Joe. Not just the title. HE NEVER SAID what you claim about the origin of the theory.<br /><br /><b>you missed the whole he was making, He did not just say design argument is wrong he gleefully bellowed and strutted around saying he could severe the argument to disprove God this is how, because God had to be complex and that is less probable,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-61150301365179550602017-11-03T09:12:33.282-07:002017-11-03T09:12:33.282-07:00I never said the universe isn't complex,
you... I never said the universe isn't complex, <br /><br /><b>you said: "seeing is believing. Now you argue that God is simple, so that's the simplest explanation." If by that you don't meant the universe itself but as an explanation,because it require a reason that also fails the kind of simplicity in relation OT the other criteria, it has no explanatory power if there no reason for it to be,,But the real problem is I was explaining why I brought up Dawkins you have sloughed that off because he does fail to grasp the kind of simplicity that is relivant to God cause creator.</b><br /><br />and Dawkins didn't either (yes, I read the book, but unlike you, I understand what he's saying). The theistic design argument is that it requires an intelligent designer, which logically would require a complex mind. <br /><br /><b>no he attaches physical significance to it mental complexity is nothing, it;s not improbable, it;s not Neogene down complexity if there is no complexity of parts,Dawkie's argumet assumes God needs a brain,</b><br /><br /><br />The reality is that it requires no intelligence at all. This has been thoroughly demonstrated.<br /><br /><b>ROTFLOL!!! ever heard of baggie the question? you can't just look at the universe and assume it must not have needed a cause merely because its visible,.<br /><br />But we are not ready to talk about specific evidence we are still talking about how to evaluate evidence</b><br /><br /><b>that is not whaqthesqys the 747 thing be [itsimters of cop[elxioty because that;showhe argue God asiprobable.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-36160030052181753662017-11-03T09:07:22.740-07:002017-11-03T09:07:22.740-07:00Yeah, the interesting question might be where does...<i>Yeah, the interesting question might be where does the distinction come from? It's not in every culture, but its certainly strong in the West, that separation of "intelligence" and "nature" -- is it a holdover from the culture of Christendom? -- one of the places where millenia of the influence of certain forms of Xianity is still felt? (Thinkers like Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Foucault would basically have thought that....)<br /><br />Is it a dangerous idea, now, in the anthropocene, to still believe that human intelligence or at least the products produced by it aren't natural but instead somehow "transcend nature?" </i><br /><br />- It is an artificial distinction, to be sure. I would be happy to say that if humans are natural, then the things we create are also natural. And I would never say that they transcend nature. But the distinction comes into focus particularly in the context of theistic design arguments.<br /><br />The theist argues that complex things are designed intentionally (example, a watch or a 747). Therefore, all complex things are designed intentionally (example, an animal's eye). The issue here (aside from the false logic of their conclusion) is that they fail to distinguish between things that are designed by men, and things that are not. But this distinction is crucial, because science has proven to us that complex things arise without any intelligence or intention. It is to the theist's benefit to simply ignore the distinction, because that's what gives him license to make his conclusion that a designer must be in play. But in ignoring that, he is also ignoring sciance.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78426435074517354722017-11-03T09:05:52.112-07:002017-11-03T09:05:52.112-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-34461972650017218832017-11-03T08:26:57.695-07:002017-11-03T08:26:57.695-07:00you have to look at what the argument is about. th...<i>you have to look at what the argument is about. the 747 is not really thy issue here,the issue here is that he's trying to make God complex by insisting that God is subject to natural law</i><br />- Nowhere does Dawkins say any such thing. The complexity of the designer is a logical consequence of the of the design argument itself, but theists fail to recognize the implications of their own premises.<br /><br /><br /><i>no not the crux, have you even read the God Ellison? he says clearly anything that created the universe would have to be at least as complex as the universe or more. That is why your idol disproves your brunet, He says the universe is very complex you said it's not,its so simple you just look and see it's true.</i><br />- I never said the universe isn't complex, and Dawkins didn't either (yes, I read the book, but unlike you, I understand what he's saying). The theistic design argument is that it requires an intelligent designer, which logically would require a complex mind. The reality is that it requires no intelligence at all. This has been thoroughly demonstrated.<br /><br /><br /><i>big deal re-title.</i><br />- The point is that you haven't given the matter enough thought to put an appropriate title on your article.<br /><br /><br /><i>that is complete nosecones,you don't seem to get what's being said the argument applies this other way (ie contradicts your nonsense) weather you like it or not. I know it's not the official label of the argent still true if you think about the logic of it, that's you are supposed to do with arguments is look at the logic,.do you see that?</i><br />- I'm trying to get you to understand that there's two different things being conflated together. 1) the teleological argument, which says that complex things require a designer - and Dawkins says that BY THAT LOGIC, any such designer must also be complex. 2) the argument that says a something like a 747 couldn't be assembled by a natural process - and Dawkins argues that evolution explains how things come to be complex without any intelligence involved.<br /><br /><br /><i>t you don't understand it ,undergraduate boy you do not get it ...<br />you don't even understand the book you cherish so, i doubt that you have read the argument</i><br />- I understand it MUCH better than you, because I listen. But it will never penetrate your thick, thick skull, because the only thing you understand is DAWKINS .. ATHEIST .. BAD.<br /><br /><br /><i>I immolated that it's so common everyone knows its true its everywhere, you ca find examples easily</i><br />- If it's everywhere, then show me.<br /><br /><br /><i>not unfair nor is it derogatory to him, it shows you contradict him not I</i><br />- I hope you can see that your ignorance is on full display.<br /><br /><br /><i>I know these the holy men of your faith,I don]t see that, Multiverse is not provable</i><br />- This is how you prove that you are not trying to bash scientists?<br /><br /><br /><i>he sure did I edited,it to get rid of fine tuning</i><br />- First get a brain, then read the article, Joe. Not just the title. HE NEVER SAID what you claim about the origin of the theory.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-70735645629824982892017-11-03T02:21:47.190-07:002017-11-03T02:21:47.190-07:00UC Press http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks...UC Press <a href="http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6q2nb3wh&chunk.id=d0e37&brand=ucpress" rel="nofollow"><b>http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6q2nb3wh&chunk.id=d0e37&brand=ucpress</b></a><br /><br />"widely present in the discussions in Germany, even more so in the United States, but above all in France, where for several decades he has functioned as the main "French" philosopher, the unacknowledged but omnipresent master thinker whose thought continues to form the horizon of French philosophical thinking."<br /><br />In occupied France where the resistance fought the Nazis Heidegger is the king of philosophy, Marcuse left Germany to escape fascism and the fought the Nazis by going to America and joined the OAS he was a Marxist. He also continued to use Heidegger's thinking and to tailair it the left,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-62621705569571450002017-11-03T02:01:34.802-07:002017-11-03T02:01:34.802-07:00skepie you dont know hack shit about the Burtt boo...skepie you dont know hack shit about the Burtt bookJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-55194980582691945262017-11-03T02:00:41.074-07:002017-11-03T02:00:41.074-07:00I'll be sure and tell Europe that.
- The work ...I'll be sure and tell Europe that.<br />- The work [Introduction to Metaphysics], in which Heidegger refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism,[4] has been widely regarded as fascist in character.<br /><br /><b>yes little one we all chow that chinked pie, but we we don't care., even Herbert Marcuse used his ideas,he was a Marxist. he refused to ever speak to Heidegger again he still used his ideas,it;s real well known all philosophers accept this, no one refuses to think about phenomenology because of this, it is argent ad hominim</b><br /><br />12:15 PM Delete<br />Blogger im-skeptical said...<br />I read Burtt more than once in Gradate school, if you think that book gives your side any support at all you have no idea what you read.<br />- You didn't learn a thing from it.<br /><br /><b>first of all I know you do not read things you just talk about them.that isoneof y favorite books I know it much netter than you do,<br /><br />it says science is based upon metaphysics it says you don't have science without aching metaphysical assumptions, ,</b><br /><br /><br />this is a perfect example of how you can't follow a straight line of reasoning then you obfuscate when backed into a corner. what you said that made me answer you have not seen a multivers is this ...<br />- You missed my point completely. The original discussion that engendered your comment was about naturalism. My point was that naturalism is a worldview, and it does not entail a multiverse (or any other particular scientific theory). You can't follow your own argument, because your "line of reasoning" consists of nothing more than taking random potshots, without any coherent argument behind them.<br /><br /><br />you use the direct observation of the natural world to arugula against belief then I say but you believe in Multiverse of which you have no direct proof so you are not consist with that principle then you shift over and say that's a scientific theory,that does not change the fact that you are inconsistent.<br />- Maybe if I keep trying, I can get this to penetrate your thick, thick skull. Naturalism is a WORLDVIEW, based essentially on the observation that what we see is the natural world and nothing more. Multiverse cosmology is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, not a worldview. I don't "believe in Multiverse". Do you get it? Two different things.<br /><br /><br />Moreover, your original answer doesn't apply because viewing the natural world is not an answer as to the explanation of its existence<br />- I wasn't trying to explain why anything exists. That's what theists do. I don't think there is any answer for questions like that.<br /><br /><br />that is nonsense it has no expeditionary power of itself just being simple isn't enough it has to be a simple explanation<br />- You were harping about Occam's razor. I made the observation that the natural world alone is simpler that the natural world PLUS God. Besides, "God did it" doesn't explain anything. It just makes theists feel good.<br /><br /><br />No its not, Dawkins proves. he argues assuming God is subject to natural law then argues he would be extremely complex because the universe is complex by Dawkins own says it is.<br />- You don't even know which argument you're talking about, let alone understand it. This is NOT his 747 argument.<br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-63492827214755020072017-11-03T01:49:13.764-07:002017-11-03T01:49:13.764-07:00m-skeptical said...
Evidence is part of explanator...m-skeptical said...<br />Evidence is part of explanatory, its the basis of explanatory. It's the title not the work.<br />- My comment stands. Your article doesn't talk about what constitutes the "best evidence" at all.<br /><br /><b>big deal re-title</b><br /><br /><br />I use Dawkin's reasoning on his "747 argumet" (TGD) as an example of the misuse of simplicity. The point is to understand simplicity, Dawkins is a good example of not understanding it, or using it wrongly.<br />- Now you have conflated two completely different arguments. The first argument that you fail to understand is his answer to the Teleological Argument, and it relates to the complexity of the designer.<br /><br /><b>that is complete nosecones,you don't seem to get what's being said the argument applies this other way (ie contradicts your nonsense) weather you like it or not. I know it's not the official label of the argent still true if you think about the logic of it, that's you are supposed to do with arguments is look at the logic,.do you see that?</b><br /><br /><br /> The 747 Gambit, which you also don't understand, is an answer to evolution deniers who claim that nature alone could never produce a complex object. Two completely different things, and you obviously don't understand them.<br /><br /><b>Look what you just said, what does it have to do with complexity??! He says He say it go read it again. you don't understand it ,undergraduate boy you do not get it he says it,THE UNIVERSE IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND ANYTHING THAT PRODUCES IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST AS COMPLEX,<br /><br />that disproves your idea that it;s simple, its an anti God argument because he says a complex cause would be less probably specifically because it is complex<br /><br />you don't even understand the book you cherish so, i doubt that you have read the argument, </b><br /><br /><br />Give me an example of people speaking English i don't believe anyone does, why don't you face your own bigotry honestly.?<br />- I asked you to provide reference for your ridiculous claims. Where is this atheist dogma to be found? And why haven't I (or any other atheist) ever seen it?<br /><br /><b>I immolated that it's so common everyone knows its true its everywhere, you ca find examples easily</b><br /><br /><br />show me where I used scientists in anyway is wrong, unfairer illogical. show me where quote the passage? show meany diatribe against scientists?<br />- Start with this one: "I use Dawkin's reasoning on his "747 argumet" (TGD) as an example of the misuse of simplicity."<br /><br /><br /><b>not unfair nor is it derogatory to him, it shows you contradict him not I,</b><br /><br /><br />- How about this: "The idea of the multiverse is taken seriously in science, even though it is the stuff of comic books and science fiction."<br /><br /><b>I know these the holy men of your faith,I don]t see that, Multiverse is not provable,</b><br /><br /><br />- Or this: "We attempt to understand being by the imposition of preconceived ideas shaped by abstraction, this is metaphysics. It subjugates reality to ideology rather than revealing the nature of being. Science is engages in this mistake."<br /><br /><b>again you are experiencing the discomfiture of someone assailing your faith, now you know how it feels, these guys are human and they can be wrong, ot's not unfair to say that,</b><br /><br />that one is ... Paul Steinhardt<br />- You claimed that the theory was "invented just to answer God arguments". Steinhardt says no such thing. <br /><br /><b>he sure did I edited,it to get rid of fine tuning</b><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5112984375657309802017-11-03T01:31:29.481-07:002017-11-03T01:31:29.481-07:00Yeah, the interesting question might be where does...Yeah, the interesting question might be where does the distinction come from? It's not in every culture, but its certainly strong in the West, that separation of "intelligence" and "nature" -- is it a holdover from the culture of Christendom? -- one of the places where millenia of the influence of certain forms of Xianity is still felt? (Thinkers like Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Foucault would basically have thought that....)<br /><br />Is it a dangerous idea, now, in the anthropocene, to still believe that human intelligence or at least the products produced by it aren't natural but instead somehow "transcend nature?" <br /><br />Thx for the article, btw....Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-46134446807389149182017-11-03T01:18:15.535-07:002017-11-03T01:18:15.535-07:00- Of course you could look at it that way. But But...- Of course you could look at it that way. But But the crux of the issue is whether the thing was designed by an intelligent agent. For the naturalist, anything designed intentionally is not natural. For the theist, there is apparently no distinction.<br /><br /><b>no not the crux, have you even read the God Ellison? he says clearly anything that created the universe would have to be at least as complex as the universe or more. That is why your idol disproves your brunet, He says the universe is very complex you said it's not,its so simple you just look and see it's true.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-57014476923136976982017-11-03T01:08:03.376-07:002017-11-03T01:08:03.376-07:00Mike Gerow said...
I'd just say a 747 IS a nat...Mike Gerow said...<br />I'd just say a 747 IS a natural object. A tool developed used by a natural phenomenon called "humanity" strikes me as itself a "natural" thing .....but that would be invoking strands of philosophy and theory that owe a lot to Martin Heidegger.....<br /><br /><br /><b>you have to look at what the argument is about. the 747 is not really thy issue here,the issue here is that he's trying to make God complex by insisting that God is subject to natural law,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com