Bill Anatomised

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

Bill likes to present himself as an independent thinker, never afraid
to enter the fray here.

What I think interesting about him are the things he doesn't much talk
about.

He claims not to be a member of any religion, and this seems to be a
device to avoid having to defend his religious position. But this
doesn't prevent him from taking a creationist position on the question
of evolution - in fact he has said that he finds the Christian
creationist myth, or what passes for "creation science" to be OK.

We can get a pointer to his beliefs by his characterisation of science
as a set of beliefs held by the majority of scientists.

It helps to understand Bill's position in relation to science. He
regards it as a set of dogmas currently held by the scientific
comunity. Therefore to attack science more effectively, he has to
undermine this set of dogmas. In this he joins forces with other
believers, and it is clear that he and they are wrong.

It's quite common to read creationists here who regard science and
scientific thought to be a rival religion and criticise it on
religious or moral grounds.

And yet it is a source of surprise to many scientists that they have
to take up a position based on religion, especially in the schools. It
is a source of concern that the Turkish government under Erdogan has
just decided to downplay the teaching of evolution in schools, using
exactly the same arguments as the Christian creationists.

What Bil doesn't understand is the role of scientific thought.

To characterise it briefly, and to distinguish it from religious
thought, let us say that every scientific statement is open to
criticism and revision in the light of empirical evdence, whereas no
religious statement from the Bible or the various churches can be
questioned. Of course, there are debates within the churches about
subsidiary matters, but the main dogmas- and here I use the word with
justification - are to be unquestioned

An ineresting light can be thrown of the different behaviour of
scientists and the churches is that in the event of a serious
religious dispute a schism may develop; when there is a serious
dispute in science, the deciding role is played by experiment.


Having got that off my chest, I'd like to ask Bill: "Do you believe
that there was a talking snake in the Garden of Eden? In fact, was
there a Garden of Eden?


Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Kalkidas]

Beyond laughable.

First you say "no religious statement from the Bible or the various
churches can be questioned"

Then you say, "in the event of a serious religious dispute a schism may
develop"

If you keep eating that cake, you won't have it.

I'm with Bill. Your positions are the opposite of "science".

[jillery]

Read for comprehension. His first statement is part of his
hypothetical case, as flagged by "let us say". His second statement
is his understanding of what happens IRL. Try to keep up.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:47:09 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

Let me help you out:
The Protestant claim is "Sola Scriptura," one gets the truth by
reading Holy Writ only This has presented a problem since the time of
Luther. We can say that without fear of contradiction, because almost
immediately afterwards not one, or two, but a plethora of Protestant
churches sprang up, each claiming to have the Truth, which was not to
be questioned. Remember, Kalkidas, a multitude of churches, each so
suree of their various truths that they were prepared to go to wa
rwith each other to defend their truth.

For even Kalkidas to understand, in every church that arose there were
unquestioned and unquestionable truths.

It was this justifiable attempt to argue one's own position by
reference to scriptures that our creationist friends have tried to
carry over into the scientific debate about human origins.

My point, which escaped K, was that scientific disputes are decided by
experiment and not by rhetoric.

Now, K., about that snake....








Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Bill]

This thread has nothing to do with me or my beliefs. It does
have the purpose of neutralizing my remarks so they can be
ignored but that is just by cheesy characterizations.

I have not defended any religion so your so your comments in
that regard are simply irrelevant. Religion is how people
respond to the existence of God(s) and assumes that God(s)
exist. Rejecting a religion says nothing about the existence
of God(s).

Bill

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

I'm not "neutralising" your remarks; I'm examining them.

There's a difference. Can you see it?

>
>I have not defended any religion so your so your comments in
>that regard are simply irrelevant.

Of course you haven't, which is a puzzle, because, although you claim
to be more inclined to accept creationism rather than science, you
haven't to my knowledge given any reason why..

That leads me to say that you seem to be reluctant to say anything
about your religious beliefs.

Am I wrong?


Have fun,

Joe Cummings

>Religion is how people
>respond to the existence of God(s) and assumes that God(s)
>exist. Rejecting a religion says nothing about the existence
>of God(s).

I'd rather say that religion is a social phenomenon where people share
a belief in the supernatural. It's possible that people - possibly
like yourself - may share beliefs without partaking in the social
life of a church.

Have fun,

Joe Cummings




















>Bill

[Kalkidas]

LOL! Your statements are rhetoric. They are the opposite of science.
Irony of ironies, the irony escapes you!

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

Well, K, is that's the best answer you can muster, I'd humbly suggest
that your time might be more profitably spent growing potatoes.


Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[RonO]

Bill, your current line of stupidity (and it is just that, stupidity) is
designed to accomplish nothing but blow smoke. You have acknowledged
that the creationist motivation was to teach their alternative
(practically the whole reason for the existence of TO) so how is what
you are currently doing going to advance the true root of this issue?

The creationists claimed that they had an alternative, and that it could
compete with the scientific alternative. That was the whole basis for
the scientific creationist fiasco. The initial claims were for "equal
time" in the public schools. The ID scam claimed that they had the ID
science that they could teach in the science classroom. The IDiots did
realize that they had nothing to teach, so it did become a stupid
obfuscation scam, but obfuscation was not what they claimed to be doing.
It is true that the switch scam that the creationists get from the ID
scam artists does not mention ID nor creationism, but the switch scam
was not the main purpose for of the ID scam in terms of what the
intitial claims were.

The creationist ID perps could have been lying from the beginning and
the ringleaders may have had the obfuscation scam as the goal from the
beginning with no intention of doing any science, but the actions of
possible rubes such as Phillip Johnson, and ex Senator Santorum indicate
that there were some people involved in the intelligent design
creationist movement that believed that there was some science to teach
in the public schools. Both of these examples did give up on the ID
scam, and Santorum went back to calling what he wanted taught in the
public schools creationism.

Blowing smoke (the obfuscation scam) isn't going to accomplish anything.
The simple reason for this is that science works. The creationists
recognized that they needed something competitive, so they tried to make
their theology as scientific as they could. If obfuscation were
preferred the creationists would have tried that first. What did they
actually do? What have they consistently done when it has come time to
implement the obfuscation scam (think of Louisiana and Texas). What did
the IDiot/creationists claim to want to do before they started bending
over for the bait and switch scam?

The plain and simple fact is that blowing smoke is stupid. If science
did not work, creationists would have had that argument, but the fact is
that it works well enough so that even people as lost as yourself
understood that lying about that reality wasn't going to do much of
anything. Lying about that reality and blowing smoke may be all that
the creationists can think of to do today, but it wasn't their first
choice. What should that tell you about what you are doing?

Ron Okimoto

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Jun 24, Bill wrote
(in article <oimal2$gav$1...@dont-email.me>):

errr... nope. no ‘nuetralizing’, just examining.

>
>
> I have not defended any religion so your so your comments in
> that regard are simply irrelevant.

I’m fairly sure that the OP said that you declined to state your religion.
Why, yes he did, right here:

"He claims not to be a member of any religion, and this seems to be a
device to avoid having to defend his religious position. But this
doesn't prevent him from taking a creationist position on the question
of evolution - in fact he has said that he finds the Christian

creationist myth, or what passes for "creation science" to be OK.”

> Religion is how people
> respond to the existence of God(s) and assumes that God(s)
> exist. Rejecting a religion says nothing about the existence
> of God(s).

You might want to take that point up with Ray.

In the meantime, it’s now six weeks and you’re still running and running
and running...
>
>
> Bill

[Kalkidas]

Yes, we should all do that. But potatoes don't grow on rhetoric, so
you'll have to give that up first.

[Jonathan]

Maybe you should visit the Vatican's science pages and see
for yourself what they believe, as you're obviously
ignorant of the teachings of mainstream religious
philosophy.


Here's their page on evolution
http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/publications/acta/acta23.html


Here's their page on my favorite subject, Complexity Science.
http://www.pas.va/content/accademia/en/publications/acta/complexity.html


I dare say the Church knows more about science than you do.

> My point, which escaped K, was that scientific disputes are decided by
> experiment and not by rhetoric.
>

Do you agree with the following statement?


Common descent
From Wiki

"Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology,
a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor.
There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth
is descended from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA)'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent


Well it appears the Bible beat science to that idea
by about 3000 years, not bad considering the state
of science that long ago.


THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

The City of God (Book XIV)


"We have already stated in the preceding books that God, desiring
not only that the human race might be able by their similarity
of nature to associate with one another, but also that they
might be bound together in harmony and peace by the ties
of relationship, was pleased to derive all men from
one individual,"
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120114.htm

> Now, K., about that snake....
>

Serpents (Hebrew: נחש‎‎ nāḥāš) are referred to in both the
Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The symbol of a serpent
or snake played important roles in religious and cultural
life of ancient Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia and Greece.
The serpent was a symbol of evil power and chaos from
the underworld as well as a symbol of fertility, life
and healing.

Debate about the serpent in Eden is whether it should be
viewed figuratively or as a literal animal. According
to the Rabbinical tradition, the serpent represents
sexual desire.

The Hebrew word nahash is used to identify the serpent that
appears in Genesis 3:1, in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis,
the serpent is portrayed as a deceptive creature or trickster,
who promotes as good what God had forbidden, and shows
particular cunning in its deception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpents_in_the_Bible



You really need to learn the following term, it's rather
clear they understood it 3000 years ago as the bible
is steeped in metaphors. Using a literal interpretation
of religious text is what groups like ISIS and
small-minded people everywhere prefer.




Definition of metaphor

1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally
denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of
another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them
(as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language
— compare simile




s









>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Have fun,
>
>
> Joe Cummings
>

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 09:34:45 +0200, joecummin...@gmail.com

I am reminded of Mark Watney growing potatoes in "The Martian". If he
had access to K's output, Watney would have had plenty to eat.

[jillery]

>Serpents (Hebrew: ????? n???š) are referred to in both the

What is with you and Martin Harran, to have such similar cognitive
dissonance, that you can't grasp the simple facts that references to
Creationists are not... repeat *not*... necessarily, or even likely,
referring to RCC, and that RCC is not... repeat *not*... the final and
sole authority of religious, or even Christian, doctrine. Can you at
least try to come up with a less obvious way to hijack threads?

[Jonathan]

> dissonanchat you can't grasp the simple facts that references to

> Creationists are not... repeat *not*... necessarily, or even likely,
> referring to RCC, and that RCC is not... repeat *not*... the final and
> sole authority of religious, or even Christian, doctrine. Can you at
> least try to come up with a less obvious way to hijack threads?
>

Jillery's debate tactic, her only tactic...


Debate topic: mathematics.


Debater: "I submit mathematics is only self consistent."

Jillery: "Off topic! I ONLY want to debate those that
can't add or subtract, much easier to win"


Self Proclaimed Winner JILLERY!...

In a pigs eye~


Limiting the discussion to creationists is merely an attempt
to flog the simplest possible strawman you can conjure up
and then pretending you've accomplished something.

[jillery]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 14:23:37 -0400, Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>> What is with you and Martin Harran, to have such similar cognitive
>> dissonanchat you can't grasp the simple facts that references to
>> Creationists are not... repeat *not*... necessarily, or even likely,
>> referring to RCC, and that RCC is not... repeat *not*... the final and
>> sole authority of religious, or even Christian, doctrine. Can you at
>> least try to come up with a less obvious way to hijack threads?
>>
>
>
>
>
>Jillery's debate tactic, her only tactic...
>
>
>Debate topic: mathematics.
>
>
>Debater: "I submit mathematics is only self consistent."
>
>Jillery: "Off topic! I ONLY want to debate those that
> can't add or subtract, much easier to win"
>
>Self Proclaimed Winner JILLERY!...

A correct description of your previous post is:

Debate topic: Creationism

You: RCC is correct.

Me: Creationism is not RCC.

You: You're an asshole. I win!


>In a pigs eye~


Even that's worth more than your comments here.

>Limiting the discussion to creationists is merely an attempt
>to flog the simplest possible strawman you can conjure up
>and then pretending you've accomplished something.

You regularly conflate arguments against the anti-science rhetoric of
Creationism with an argument against RCC. The two groups are not the
same. The two groups don't consider themselves the same. By your own
admission, the two groups don't have the same beliefs. So one can
only wonder why when someone says "Creationist", you knee-jerk with
Catholic apologetics.

This is similar to what you do whenever you comment in topics about
Evolution. You don't talk about Evolution, but instead talk about
self-organized systems.

You're a transparent troll.

[Jonathan]

In the discussion was this statement, how is
this limiting the thread to only creationism?

"To characterise it briefly, and to distinguish it from religious
thought, let us say that every scientific statement is open to
criticism and revision in the light of empirical evdence, whereas no
religious statement from the Bible or the various churches can be
questioned. Of course, there are debates within the churches about
subsidiary matters, but the main dogmas- and here I use the word with
justification - are to be unquestioned"

And this...


"An interesting light can be thrown of the different behaviour of

scientists and the churches is that in the event of a serious
religious dispute a schism may develop; when there is a serious
dispute in science, the deciding role is played by experiment."

The thread also involves more general topics than just
your strawman creationism.

> This is similar to what you do whenever you comment in topics about
> Evolution. You don't talk about Evolution, but instead talk about
> self-organized systems.
>
> You're a transparent troll.
>

You and others here want to talk about discredited and
simplistic concepts of religion and science, creationism
and half empty Darwinism.

I wish to raise the discussion to the latest greatest
and to the truth, to that I plead guilty.

But I will never apologize for trying to discuss
what really makes evolution and/or religious
philosophy go, even if the likes of you insist
on remaining mired in the lowest common denominators
of each in order to make winning a debate as easy
as possible.

You see trying to raise a discussion to a higher level
as trolling?

That's just plain stupid.




"Tell all the Truth but tell it slant
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise

As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind"

[jillery]

How does it criticize Catholicism? You said yourself the OP's
comments don't describe it, so why did *you* bring it up?

>"To characterise it briefly, and to distinguish it from religious
>thought, let us say that every scientific statement is open to
>criticism and revision in the light of empirical evdence, whereas no
>religious statement from the Bible or the various churches can be
>questioned. Of course, there are debates within the churches about
>subsidiary matters, but the main dogmas- and here I use the word with
>justification - are to be unquestioned"
>
>
>And this...
>
>
>"An interesting light can be thrown of the different behaviour of
>scientists and the churches is that in the event of a serious
>religious dispute a schism may develop; when there is a serious
>dispute in science, the deciding role is played by experiment."
>
>
>The thread also involves more general topics than just
>your strawman creationism.

You seem to understand that the discussion explicitly was about
religion in general. So one can only wonder why you don't want to
discuss religion in general, instead of obsessing about Catholicism.

>> This is similar to what you do whenever you comment in topics about
>> Evolution. You don't talk about Evolution, but instead talk about
>> self-organized systems.
>>
>> You're a transparent troll.
>>
>
>
>
>You and others here want to talk about discredited and
>simplistic concepts of religion and science, creationism
>and half empty Darwinism.
>
>I wish to raise the discussion to the latest greatest
>and to the truth, to that I plead guilty.

So you admit to posting off-topic and hijacking the thread. You can
stop screaming and stomping your feet now.

>But I will never apologize for trying to discuss
>what really makes evolution and/or religious
>philosophy go, even if the likes of you insist
>on remaining mired in the lowest common denominators
>of each in order to make winning a debate as easy
>as possible.
>
>You see trying to raise a discussion to a higher level
>as trolling?
>
>That's just plain stupid.

I don't consider Catholic apologetics as a higher level of discussion.
What's plain stupid is your insistence on force-fitting your square
peg answers into round-holed questions.

Here's an idea. Before you next post your spam about Catholicism, wait
for someone to at least mention Catholicism. Or better yet, start a
whole new topic, and leave everybody else behind with their
discredited and simplistic concepts.

Now run on home, your mommy needs to change your knappies.

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

>Serpents (Hebrew: ????? n???š) are referred to in both the

It isn't clear what Jonathan is discussing.

The Vatican has accepted the theory of evolution, and thus put itself
at odds with the creationist movement in the US and elsewhere; J;
should remember that it is possible to be a good Christian, to believe
sthat God started up thre whole show, and that after the first moment
of creation, when He created a few living things, these things started
to evolve.

It seems that Jonathan thinks Christianity is a monolithic,
homogeneous, undifferentiated whole. Let me inform Jonathan that it
isn't

As an example, remember Francis complaining that we don't have a poor
church, to be solicitous to the poor; contrast this to the US
megachurches, where not a pastor is poor. In fact they now dispose of
private aircraft - God help us - to help in their ministrations.

(As an aside, it was the the Avignon pope John of Cahors who tried to
justify the Church being wealthy - in the debate over the "poverty of
Christ." In spite of him being characterised as a heretic for this by
Duns Scotus , the growing wealth of the Church led directly to the
Reformation - remember Luther's description of the 'Babylonian
Captivity?"

End of the "Aside")

The US evangelist sects are now generating pastors who are far richer
than any Pope, with the difference that these pastors have families to
provide for, and have second homes (Just like Jesus did?)to maintain.

If we had to describe the lifestyle of some f these preachers we would
have to use the word "luxurious."

Although the creationist religious tell us that evolution leads to an
abandonment of morality, and a growth of sinfulness, it seems that
it's OK for the christian elect to behave exactly as they wish without
reeference to the bible.

My impression is that creationism is held to so strongly as to keep
the faithful in a position of obedience and ignorance.



Have fun,


Joe Cummings

[Stevet]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/24/2017 12:31 PM, joecummin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:47:09 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/24/2017 5:13 AM, joecummin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>

>>> Beyond laughable.
>>>
>>> First you say "no religious statement from the Bible or the various
>>> churches can be questioned"
>>>
>>> Then you say, "in the event of a serious religious dispute a schism may
>>> develop"
>>>

Common descent is not at all the same idea as the biblical account of Adam.
Adam is not the last common ancestor , the last common ancestor is not the
" first man". There is no connection , logical or empirical, between the
evolutionary statistically derived concept, based on observed genomes and
mutation rates, of a last common ancestor and the Abrahamic myth of Adam.
To equate the two is nonsense, like equating Thor's hammer producing
thunder with explosive electrical discharges in ionised clouds producing
thunder.

>
>
>
>> Now, K., about that snake....
>>
>
>
>

> Serpents (Hebrew: נחש‎‎ nāḥāš) are referred to in both the

> s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Have fun,
>>
>>
>> Joe Cummings
>>
>
>

--
Stevet

[Jonathan]

You're quibbling, the idea that life had a common
ancestor is common to both in abstact terms.

To say the specifics are different is not only
obvious but an attempt to deny the basic concept
of creation which is logically quite similar
to modern ideas.

For instance, below is the logic behind the
concept of God, and it is identical in
abstract terms to the concept behind the
big bang theory.

Which is to say that when extrapolating backward
in time, both conclude creation was the result
of a single unique event.

Tell me what is wrong with the following logic?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The Existence of God


"(a) The general causality argument

We must start by assuming the objective certainty and validity
of the principle of causality or sufficient reason — an
assumption upon which the value of the physical sciences
and of human knowledge generally is based. To question its
objective certainty, as did Kant, and represent it as a mere
mental a priori, or possessing only subjective validity, would
open the door to subjectivism and universal scepticism.

It is impossible to prove the principle of causality, just
as it is impossible to prove the principle of contradiction;
but it is not difficult to see that if the former is denied
the latter may also be denied and the whole process of
human reasoning declared fallacious.

The principle states that whatever exists or happens must
have a sufficient reason for its existence or occurrence
either in itself or in something else; in other words that
whatever does not exist of absolute necessity - whatever
is not self-existent — cannot exist without a proportionate
cause external to itself; and if this principle is valid
when employed by the scientist to explain the phenomena
of physics it must be equally valid when employed by
the philosopher for the ultimate explanation of the universe
as a whole.

In the universe we observe that certain things are effects,
i.e. they depend for their existence on other things, and
these again on others; but, however far back we may extend
this series of effects and dependent causes, we must, if
human reason is to be satisfied, come ultimately to a cause
that is not itself an effect, in other words to an
uncaused cause or self-existent being which is the
ground and cause of all being.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm#IBa




And it should be noted religious philosophy makes
no attempt to directly define the 'uncaused cause'
or God.

They realize any source of creation must necessarily predate
this universe and as a result must always stand outside
our universe and have no direct contact within.

What they do is define God by analogy, which is they
attempt to characterize the universe or nature, and
assume the creator, whatever form it may take whether
big bang or supreme intelligence must reflect those
properties in their ideal. As the beginning is the
ideal state and all else that follows less ideal
expressions.

Considering this is logic from 3000 years ago
AND it has stood the test of time being challenged
and honed by many of the best minds humanity has
had to offer across all those centuries, it would
be well advised to take it seriously.

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

>>> Serpents (Hebrew: ????? n???š) are referred to in both the

>>>> Have fun,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe Cummings


OOh, a flame war! I know I should have donned my asbestos trousers.

Let me just recap: I was examining Bill's position here on TO and
suggested he was in fact a creationist.

Now there are creationists and creationists. There are Young Earth and
Old Earth creationists, for example.

There are also people who believe in God, but accept that evolution
could have been God's mode of creation of species. Deistic or Theistic
evolutionists.



My own position is that if you want to say that Almighty God started
the whole shebang up, OK, as long as you don't bring in any miracles
apart from the ac tof creation. Miracles are out.

This seems to be the position of Francis, who denies that god is a
demiurgos or conjurer.

What Jonathan does is to blunderingly link all creationists together.

He then goes into that wonderland called metaphysics and there, too
conflates two separate things:

He cals into aid the principle of Sufficient Reason, and shares the
mistake of the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia:

>The principle states that whatever exists or happens must
>have a sufficient reason for its existence or occurrence
>either in itself or in something else; in other words that
>whatever does not exist of absolute necessity - whatever
>is not self-existent — cannot exist without a proportionate
>cause external to itself; and if this principle is valid
>when employed by the scientist to explain the phenomena
>of physics it must be equally valid when employed by
>the philosopher for the ultimate explanation of the universe
>as a whole.

Further,

>In the universe we observe that certain things are effects,
>i.e. they depend for their existence on other things, and
>these again on others; but, however far back we may extend
>this series of effects and dependent causes, we must, if
>human reason is to be satisfied, come ultimately to a cause
>that is not itself an effect, in other words to an
>uncaused cause or self-existent being which is the
>ground and cause of all being.

Here we get the mix-up: First of all causality is accepted, as it is
by scientists, but then an assumption is made that there is a single
cause for a single event -, and that cause is itself uncaused.

A scientist would say that every phenomenon has a cause, even if that
cause is at present unknown. Moreover, to argue that any event has a
single cause is debatable. Perhaps J woiuld like to discuss that.

A nice little diversion, but it does take us away from an examination
of Bill's position.

What does Mrs. Dickenson say about these fascinating things? Does she
have a poem about snakes?,

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Stevet]

Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/26/2017 7:41 AM, Stevet wrote:
>> Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/24/2017 12:31 PM, joecummin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 06:47:09 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/24/2017 5:13 AM, joecummin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>> Beyond laughable.
>>>>>
>>>>> First you say "no religious statement from the Bible or the various
>>>>> churches can be questioned"
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you say, "in the event of a serious religious dispute a schism may
>>>>> develop"
>>>>>

No they do not. Science says abiogenesis probably occurred once, whilst
Your religion says God created the different forms of life in separate
acts over a period of time, Adam is not the common ancestor of my cat or e
coli.

And "in abstract terms" according to your reasoning, Thor's hammer and
electrical discharge are a shared or common idea, which is obvious
nonsense as is saying biblical creation and abiogenesis are a shared or
common idea.

You simply logically confuse a explanandum with different possible
explanans, and illogical think that because different explanans refer to
the same explanandum this means the different explanans have a necessary
logical connection to each other. This is obviously not the case e.g there
is absolutely no commonality, abstract or otherwise, between Thor's hammer
and electricity.

The facts they seek to explain, in this instance life or thunder, are the
same or "common" or " the same in the abstract, but the explanations ( Thor
or electricity, God or abiogenesis) have nothing in common either
empirically or in the " abstract"

>
> To say the specifics are different is not only
> obvious but an attempt to deny the basic concept
> of creation which is logically quite similar
> to modern ideas.

Again you are just befuddled and hypnotised by language. That the same term
" creation" may be applied to both is merely a matter of Grammar, there is
no conceptual equivalence between abiogenesis and biblical myths.

>
> For instance, below is the logic behind the
> concept of God, and it is identical in
> abstract terms to the concept behind the
> big bang theory.
>
> Which is to say that when extrapolating backward
> in time, both conclude creation was the result
> of a single unique event.

Again the only thing in " common" is what they are trying to explain, the
explanations have nothing in common.

>
> Tell me what is wrong with the following logic?
>
> From the Catholic Encyclopedia.
>
> The Existence of God
>
>
> "(a) The general causality argument
>
> We must start by assuming the objective certainty and validity
> of the principle of causality or sufficient reason — an
> assumption upon which the value of the physical sciences
> and of human knowledge generally is based. To question its
> objective certainty, as did Kant, and represent it as a mere
> mental a priori, or possessing only subjective validity, would
> open the door to subjectivism and universal scepticism.

"Cause and effect" are indeed features of the observable Universe, and few
would disagree. However we do not have any information to determine if "
cause and effect" have any meaning beyond our information horizon. " Cause
and effect" is an empirical phenomena, not a matter of logic.

>
> It is impossible to prove the principle of causality, just
> as it is impossible to prove the principle of contradiction;
> but it is not difficult to see that if the former is denied
> the latter may also be denied and the whole process of
> human reasoning declared fallacious.

Causality is not a principle, it is a universally observed empirical
phenomena which happens independently of human reasoning. You are just
waffling about nothing

>
> The principle states that whatever exists or happens must
> have a sufficient reason for its existence or occurrence
> either in itself or in something else; in other words that
> whatever does not exist of absolute necessity - whatever
> is not self-existent — cannot exist without a proportionate
> cause external to itself; and if this principle is valid
> when employed by the scientist to explain the phenomena
> of physics it must be equally valid when employed by
> the philosopher for the ultimate explanation of the universe
> as a whole.

Scientist use empirically observations not religious pseudo- logical
principles, the religious pseudo-principle of " absolute necessity" ( code
words for God) has no scientific meaning and is not employed by
scientists.

>
> In the universe we observe that certain things are effects,
> i.e. they depend for their existence on other things, and
> these again on others; but, however far back we may extend
> this series of effects and dependent causes, we must, if
> human reason is to be satisfied, come ultimately to a cause
> that is not itself an effect, in other words to an
> uncaused cause or self-existent being which is the
> ground and cause of all being.
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm#IBa
>
>

This reasoning is obviously self- contradictory. You " prove" that "
something does not have a cause" by the reason that " everything must have
a cause". Your conclusion contradicts and is contrary to the reasoning you
use to reach that conclusion. It is not " reasoning" but mere assertion
that there is an " uncaused cause"

>
>
> And it should be noted religious philosophy makes
> no attempt to directly define the 'uncaused cause'
> or God.

Pull the other one!

>
> They realize any source of creation must necessarily predate
> this universe and as a result must always stand outside
> our universe and have no direct contact within.
>
> What they do is define God by analogy, which is they
> attempt to characterize the universe or nature, and
> assume the creator, whatever form it may take whether
> big bang or supreme intelligence must reflect those
> properties in their ideal. As the beginning is the
> ideal state and all else that follows less ideal
> expressions.

You mean as there is an unresolved empirical question they answer it by
making things up.

>
> Considering this is logic from 3000 years ago
> AND it has stood the test of time being challenged
> and honed by many of the best minds humanity has
> had to offer across all those centuries, it would
> be well advised to take it seriously.

The origin of the Universe is an empirical question not a question of
pseudo-logic.

>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now, K., about that snake....
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>> Serpents (Hebrew: נחש‎‎ nāḥāš) are referred to in both the

>>> s
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Have fun,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe Cummings
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

--
Stevet

[Jonathan]

A singularity doesn't qualify as a 'miracle'?

Show me when a singularity happened at any other time
in the history of the universe? No?

A one-off event that's responsible for the creation of
the universe qualifies as a miracle, whether you
call it a singularity or an act of God.




Definition of miracle

2: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or
accomplishment

> This seems to be the position of Francis, who denies that god is a
> demiurgos or conjurer.
>

Only the science minded and others uneducated in religious
philosophy believe that God is some wise old man out there
waving a magic wand.

And why do the science minded take that childish definition
of God? Because it makes it oh so easy to refute.

The endless song of the atheist, show me the magic wand
or admit all of religion is a delusion of the weak minded.

> What Jonathan does is to blunderingly link all creationists together.
>

Why not, they all suffer from the same logical flaw
as in not being consistent with scientific findings.

There is no claim concerning the cause at all, or whether
it was a single event or cause. They say that at some
point that the cause and effect must stop as you
extrapolate back to the beginning of time.

Are you claiming there is an endless sequence
of cause and effect? That the universe did not
have a beginning?

> A scientist would say that every phenomenon has a cause, even if that
> cause is at present unknown.

With the big bang the cause will ALWAYS be unknowable
as the cause existed in another universe.

Your position is that science should toss their
hands in the air and forget all about it.
Philosophical approaches are the only approach
to the question of creation.

Where science ends, philosophy begins, and science
can't answer the question of creation. It's not
a matter of more data, bigger computers or bigger
telescopes.

Science will never answer the question of creation
as the answer is not to be found within this universe
or objective methods.

> Moreover, to argue that any event has a
> single cause is debatable. Perhaps J woiuld like to discuss that.
>

Emergence, like creation, owes it's existence to the very
same process as, say, collective intelligence.

The classic question of the eye, how could it evolve
one step at a time?

It evolved all at once, just as the wisdom or a
solution born of collective intelligence
suddenly forms, as if by magic.

And the attempt to trace the exact paths or details
of the product of collective intelligence from the start
to the emergent output is utterly futile and always
will be.

What Darwinists refuse to accept is that emergent
intelligence is the source of creation. Natural
selection merely fine tunes what has been created.

But the two go hand-in-hand, intelligent design
and selection are two parts to the whole. The
only difference is the intelligent design is
from within life.

A minor frame of reference error is all that separates
science, religion and creationists.

There is room for them all, and the concept of emergence
ties them all together.

The secret to nature is simple as one two three.

The rules of interaction must be coequal with the
component freedom of interaction.

Or in other words cause and effect determinism
combined with intelligent goals that emerge
from within. That's the great discovery of
complexity science in a nutshell.

Or as Emily said 150 years ago, science
and an emergent heart.



"God made no act without a cause,
Nor heart without an aim,
Our inference is premature,
Our premises to blame."

> A nice little diversion, but it does take us away from an examination
> of Bill's position.
>
> What does Mrs. Dickenson say about these fascinating things? Does she
> have a poem about snakes?,
>

"Taking up the fair Ideal,
Just to cast her down
When a fracture -- we discover
Or a splintered Crown
Makes the Heavens portable
And the Gods -- a lie
Doubtless -- "Adam" -- scowled at Eden
For his perjury!"

[joecummin...@gmail.com]

>extrapolate back to the beginning of timey


Try to read this again; "..we must, if human reason is to be
satisfied,come ultimately to a cause that is not itself an effect."
And the cause under discussion is "the ground and cause of all
being."
>

>Are you claiming there is an endless sequence
>of cause and effect? That the universe did not
>have a beginning?

And why not? We talk about the big bang, but the big bang occurred
because of pre-existing conditions. What you want to say is that the
big bang was the moment when everything started up; What I would
suggest is that the big bang was an effect .

>
>
>
>
>> A scientist would say that every phenomenon has a cause, even if that
>> cause is at present unknown.
>
>
>
>With the big bang the cause will ALWAYS be unknowable
>as the cause existed in another universe.

How can you know that?

>
>Your position is that science should toss their
>hands in the air and forget all about it.
>Philosophical approaches are the only approach
>to the question of creation.
>
>Where science ends, philosophy begins, and science
>can't answer the question of creation. It's not
>a matter of more data, bigger computers or bigger
>telescopes.
>
>Science will never answer the question of creation
>as the answer is not to be found within this universe
>or objective methods.

Again, how can you know that?

>
>> Moreover, to argue that any event has a
>> single cause is debatable. Perhaps J woiuld like to discuss that.
>>
>
>
>Emergence, like creation, owes it's existence to the very
>same process as, say, collective intelligence.

Here would have been a very good time for you to look at the causative
factors related to your "emergence,' One or many causes?

>
>The classic question of the eye, how could it evolve
>one step at a time?
>
>It evolved all at once, just as the wisdom or a
>solution born of collective intelligence
>suddenly forms, as if by magic.
>
>And the attempt to trace the exact paths or details
>of the product of collective intelligence from the start
>to the emergent output is utterly futile and always
>will be.
>
>What Darwinists refuse to accept is that emergent
>intelligence is the source of creation. Natural
>selection merely fine tunes what has been created.

Here you have decided, without any evidence, that iintelligence
predates man-and-woman-kind. Evidence?

>
>But the two go hand-in-hand, intelligent design
>and selection are two parts to the whole. The
>only difference is the intelligent design is
>from within life.
>
>A minor frame of reference error is all that separates
>science, religion and creationists.
>
>There is room for them all, and the concept of emergence
>ties them all together.
>
>The secret to nature is simple as one two three.
>
>The rules of interaction must be coequal with the
>component freedom of interaction.
>
>Or in other words cause and effect determinism
>combined with intelligent goals that emerge
>from within. That's the great discovery of
>complexity science in a nutshell.

It's over twelve months ago that I I argued that it is possible to
describe the behaviour of a sand-pile in reductionist terms without
remainde; You didn't respond. It seems you hold the idea of
"emergence" withour having thought it through.

>ily said 150 years ago, science
>and an emergent heart.
>
>
>
>"God made no act without a cause,
>Nor heart without an aim,
>Our inference is premature,
>Our premises to blame."
>
>
>
>
>> A nice little diversion, but it does take us away from an examination
>> of Bill's position.
>>
>> What does Mrs. Dickenson say about these fascinating things? Does she
>> have a poem about snakes?,
>>
>
>
>"Taking up the fair Ideal,
>Just to cast her down
>When a fracture -- we discover
>Or a splintered Crown
>Makes the Heavens portable
>And the Gods -- a lie
>Doubtless -- "Adam" -- scowled at Eden
>For his perjury!"

But no poems about snakes?



JC

[jillery]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 22:20:26 +0200, joecummin...@gmail.com
wrote:


<snip for focus>

Origin narratives necessarily start with an axiomatic assumption of an
uncaused cause, which the narrative can't go beyond. In the case of
Cosmic Inflation, which is what most people nowadays mean by Big Bang,
its uncaused cause is a spacetime singularity of unknown but not
infinite density. In the case of many (most?) religions, of which
Catiholicism is but one, their uncaused cause is an infinite deity.

Since there can be no evidence or argument for any uncaused cause, by
definition, there's no point arguing about what happened "before" the
existence of any uncaused causes. Instead, a more useful line of
reasoning is to determine what properties and/or observations are
necessary consequences of which uncaused causes.

[Jonathan]

Religious philosophy is religion in general. And the Catholic
Church represents one of the mainstream religions. I realize
you'd rather talk about the Church of the Holy Morons, as
they would make it really really easy to feel superior.

But I could use the writings of one of the other mainstream
religions if you like? How about his one?

http://www.sistani.org/english/


But somehow I think the closed minded that dominate
this ng would find it soffensive and maybe turn me in
to the FBI.

>
>>> This is similar to what you do whenever you comment in topics about
>>> Evolution. You don't talk about Evolution, but instead talk about
>>> self-organized systems.

Explain to me the core concepts behind self organization
without looking it up?

No? That's why, it's the other half of the 'equation'
of evolution that few here seem to understand.
I'll let you talk about what most here already know
and believe.

>>>
>>> You're a transparent troll.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You and others here want to talk about discredited and
>> simplistic concepts of religion and science, creationism
>> and half empty Darwinism.
>>
>> I wish to raise the discussion to the latest greatest
>> and to the truth, to that I plead guilty.
>
>
> So you admit to posting off-topic and hijacking the thread. You can
> stop screaming and stomping your feet now.
>

Or, I like talking about things that have three
basic properties.

First it's something I hobby in and know something about
and second, few here seem to know anything about it
and third it fills in much of the gaping holes of
the conventional notions of evolution most here
still cling to like it was a Holy Grail or
something.

And why is everything you don't want to talk
about a troll to you?

>
>> But I will never apologize for trying to discuss
>> what really makes evolution and/or religious
>> philosophy go, even if the likes of you insist
>> on remaining mired in the lowest common denominators
>> of each in order to make winning a debate as easy
>> as possible.
>>
>> You see trying to raise a discussion to a higher level
>> as trolling?
>>
>> That's just plain stupid.
>
>
> I don't consider Catholic apologetics as a higher level of discussion.
> What's plain stupid is your insistence on force-fitting your square
> peg answers into round-holed questions.
>
> Here's an idea. Before you next post your spam about Catholicism, wait
> for someone to at least mention Catholicism. Or better yet, start a
> whole new topic, and leave everybody else behind with their
> discredited and simplistic concepts.
>

That's not an idea, it's a whine.
Here's an idea, how about for once responding
to the ideas put forward in the post?
Even if it doesn't happen to fit squarely
into the topic you've decided the post
is precisely and forever limited to?

> Now run on home, your mommy needs to change your knappies.
>

It's like debating with a etiquette bot, oh wait
so your better half looks like this?


picture
http://bit.ly/2ueGKDq

[jillery]

Apparently you conveniently ignored the above. FYI it's not a
rhetorical question.

>>> "To characterise it briefly, and to distinguish it from religious
>>> thought, let us say that every scientific statement is open to
>>> criticism and revision in the light of empirical evdence, whereas no
>>> religious statement from the Bible or the various churches can be
>>> questioned. Of course, there are debates within the churches about
>>> subsidiary matters, but the main dogmas- and here I use the word with
>>> justification - are to be unquestioned"
>>>
>>>
>>> And this...
>>>
>>>
>>> "An interesting light can be thrown of the different behaviour of
>>> scientists and the churches is that in the event of a serious
>>> religious dispute a schism may develop; when there is a serious
>>> dispute in science, the deciding role is played by experiment."
>>>
>>>
>>> The thread also involves more general topics than just
>>> your strawman creationism.
>>
>>
>> You seem to understand that the discussion explicitly was about
>> religion in general. So one can only wonder why you don't want to
>> discuss religion in general, instead of obsessing about Catholicism.
>>
>
>
>
>Religious philosophy is religion in general. And the Catholic
>Church represents one of the mainstream religions. I realize
>you'd rather talk about the Church of the Holy Morons, as
>they would make it really really easy to feel superior.

I didn't even mention Mormons. Are you really incapable of
recognizing the difference between reality and your delusions?

>But I could use the writings of one of the other mainstream
>religions if you like? How about his one?
>
>http://www.sistani.org/english/

Did you care to at least quote something from your cite, and explain
how said quotes shows your cite to be relevant to you point or to
anything anybody said in this topic?

Or are you being obviously sarcastic again?

>But somehow I think the closed minded that dominate
>this ng would find it soffensive and maybe turn me in
>to the FBI.

And how 'bout them Mets.

>>>> This is similar to what you do whenever you comment in topics about
>>>> Evolution. You don't talk about Evolution, but instead talk about
>>>> self-organized systems.
>
>
>
>Explain to me the core concepts behind self organization
>without looking it up?
>
>No? That's why, it's the other half of the 'equation'
>of evolution that few here seem to understand.
>I'll let you talk about what most here already know
>and believe.

Like Feynman's boyhood friend, you're impressed with knowing the names
of birds. You and he are arrogant about what you know, regardless of
its relevance.

>>>> You're a transparent troll.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You and others here want to talk about discredited and
>>> simplistic concepts of religion and science, creationism
>>> and half empty Darwinism.
>>>
>>> I wish to raise the discussion to the latest greatest
>>> and to the truth, to that I plead guilty.
>>
>>
>> So you admit to posting off-topic and hijacking the thread. You can
>> stop screaming and stomping your feet now.
>>
>
>
>
>Or, I like talking about things that have three
>basic properties.
>
>First it's something I hobby in and know something about
>and second, few here seem to know anything about it
>and third it fills in much of the gaping holes of
>the conventional notions of evolution most here
>still cling to like it was a Holy Grail or
>something.
>
>And why is everything you don't want to talk
>about a troll to you?

And why is everything you don't want to talk about, is what other
posters do want to talk about? Same answer.

>>> But I will never apologize for trying to discuss
>>> what really makes evolution and/or religious
>>> philosophy go, even if the likes of you insist
>>> on remaining mired in the lowest common denominators
>>> of each in order to make winning a debate as easy
>>> as possible.
>>>
>>> You see trying to raise a discussion to a higher level
>>> as trolling?
>>>
>>> That's just plain stupid.
>>
>>
>> I don't consider Catholic apologetics as a higher level of discussion.
>> What's plain stupid is your insistence on force-fitting your square
>> peg answers into round-holed questions.
>>
>> Here's an idea. Before you next post your spam about Catholicism, wait
>> for someone to at least mention Catholicism. Or better yet, start a
>> whole new topic, and leave everybody else behind with their
>> discredited and simplistic concepts.
>>
>
>
>That's not an idea, it's a whine.

Nope. Here's a whine:

"But somehow I think the closed minded that dominate

this ng would find it soffensive [sic] and maybe turn me in
to the FBI."

You're welcome.

>Here's an idea, how about for once responding
>to the ideas put forward in the post?

What irony. That's exactly what I ask of you. You should try it, if
only for the novelty of the experience.

>Even if it doesn't happen to fit squarely
>into the topic you've decided the post
>is precisely and forever limited to?

Nope. The reality is quite the opposite, where no matter what the
original topic happens to be, you jump the tracks to *your* singular
issues.