A Response to Deconversion Movement’s Response to My Last Post

If you read my last blog, I took the time to examine an argument made by one of my new followers on twitter, Deconversion Movement. He was kind enough to take the time to respond to my response, so I thought I’d respond to his response. What follows is my last response … for now at least ;)

You can read his response here, I suggest doing so as it would help you contextualize the points I am refuting.

1.DCM wrote: “You’re alluding to Plantinga’s EAAN.  I’m already having a discussion concerning that argument.  Thus, I find it useless to begin another discussion concerning EAAN.”

Well, I wasn’t actually alluding to anything. I was just stating what has always seemed ridiculous to me, even when I was an atheist. Truth does not matter in an evolutionists world: Every prospect of every creature is geared toward whatever will help it survive and pass on its DNA. Beliefs & practices also fall under this category; therefore, if Christianity is a crutch for some – meaning that it provides them with a reason to hope, live a helpful life, procreate and fill the earth, and sustain social order – then it is irrational for the evolutionist to want to eradicate it. The question of whether or not the evolutionary product called “the human species” can have any knowledge at all is not really my focus. You misunderstood my argument.

2. DCM: “I do have the authority to make moral judgments.  As a matter of fact, I have authority to make absolute moral judgments without god.  The following is The Argument for Objective Moral Ontology without God:

P1 The qualities that make us normal human beings begin to exist in the brain.

P2 Morality is a quality that makes us normal human beings.

C Therefore, morality begins to exist in the brain.

Only a dualist will deny the truth of P1 — a property dualist to be exact.  Property dualism is effectively addressed by employing Occam’s Razor.  The simplest explanation is to be preferred.  Therefore, it is simpler to conclude that the mind exists in the brain rather than concluding that the mind exists separate from the brain and is a property that acts on the brain.  I sincerely hope you accept the simplicity of my explanation rather than identifying yourself as a property dualist for the sake of disagreeing with me.”

If you are a naturalist, which appears to be the case, then you cannot make absolute moral judgments. Sure, you could irrationally ascribe to yourself the authority to do so. That isn’t what I am talking about. Instead: There is no logical basis for your ever arriving at any absolute, as you are limited to induction. This is the first reason why your moral judgments are necessarily relative and not absolute. However, beyond the fact that induction is always incomplete, i.e. Disregarding the fact that is logically impossible for an inductivist to arrive at a knowledge of absolute morals, it is likewise logically impossible for you to derive an ought from an is, or from an infinity of is’s. You can assert whatever you want, but it isn’t absolute – it is necessarily relative.

Your comments about dualism are, well, silly. I could say the same of physicalism, or epiphenomenalism. You are merely asserting what you believe to be the case. This is good for bugging Christians and rallying up support from those who don’t know any better, but really?

Do I reject your first premise? Yes. It is a universal statement that you cannot justify, on the basis of your own assumed epistemology. In other words, your epistemology never gets off of the ground to (i.)make universal statements as to how all human brains work, and (ii.)to make statements about morality that are absolute.

  1. DCM: “Not only are you dabbing in semantics, you are also guilty of the usual apologetics for genocide.  Moreover, you are guilty of a fallacy in this section, namely appealing to authority.  To quote the Bible as truth, you must first prove that the Bible is true.”

Semantics? Lol No, I’m trying to clearly define terms. There is no appeal to authority in my response either, DCM. I’m interpreting the text in light of what it actually says. You have gathered verses of Scripture in order to substantiate your claims about God’s behavior. I contextualized what you misunderstood. Now, you are free to contest God’s ability to judge children, and anything else you find objectionable. Logically, however, you are wrong. If the text is about God’s judgment of the wicked, and God has judged all men to be worthy of death, and He has the authority to judge mankind, then the text does not present God as commanding the murder of children, and it does not present God as commanding the murder of innocent children.

This is not an appeal to authority. I am clarifying what is happening in the text. Like I said, you can question the motives of God, the actions of God, and whether or not there are innocent children. However, you are blatantly misrepresenting the content of those verses you presented. At least be honest in your assessment of the situation. If you want to identify God’s command to destroy an entire nation as genocide (a term which you are equivocating on, by the way, by conflating the denotative and connotative significations of that term – and therefore arguing fallaciously once more), then you need to do so. To identify the actions of God as murder when the text explains what is occuring is to presume what you wish to prove: that God is acting in a way that is not perfectly good.

Regarding whether or not I have to prove to you that the Bible is the Word of God, you are wrong for two reasons. (i.)my retort did not in any way appeal to the veracity of Scripture, I was merely highlighting your fallacious argumentation; (ii.)all philosophical systems start with an indemonstrable axiom, mine is simply this: The Bible is the Word of God written. What is yours? There is no God? The universe is all there is, was, and will be? All knowledge is derived via sensation & some undefined process of abstraction? You have one; we all do.

4. “According to the Christian worldview, the Bible is the word of god; my Argument from Distinction proves otherwise:

P1 If any scripture be divine, we should expect it to be distinct from other scriptures.

P2 The Bible does not meet that expectation.

P3/C1 Therefore, the Bible is not divine.

P4 If the Bible is not divine, it could not have been written and/or inspired by a divine source.

P5 The Bible is not divine.

P6/C2 Therefore, the Bible could not have been written and/or inspired by a divine source.

From P6/C2, one can infer that since the Bible isn’t written and/or inspired by a divine source that it isn’t the word of god.”

I know that God’s Word is true. You believe otherwise, and I understand that. Your argument, however, doesn’t prove anything.

Regarding premise (1.): Says who? How is the second clause of this proposition necessarily implied by the first?

But granting that your first premise presents us with two clauses that are necessarily logically inseparable, your second premise is false. As an inductivist you cannot say that you have read every other “holy book” that has been written. Therefore, you do not know if the Bible is not distinct from other Scriptures. You are, again, merely asserting yourself. You are confident, but on some other grounds than your ability to reason correctly. Unless you are omniscient you cannot say P2 is true. Therefore, your argument is false. Your first premise is another non-sequitur, and your second premise is a hasty generalization. Your conclusion, therefore, does not follow.

The rest of the argument is refuted by the incoherency of the first part of the argument.

  1. For the sake of argument though, you are arguing from an unsubstantiated variable, namely sin.  In order for sin to be true, Adam had to exist; Adam is a mythological character and thus, the original sinner didn’t exist and it follows that since there was no original sin, sin did not continue and there is thus no sin.  Perhaps you will argue that the original sin is rooted in Satan’s rebellion; however, Satan is also an unsubstantiated character and thus, you cannot argue from sin.  Sin is simply a thought, word or action that offends god; therefore, it is incumbent on you to prove that god exists, at the very least, in order to base an argument on sin.  Thus, before arguing from sin, you must prove that it exists.  Being that your presupposition is unsubstantiated, this entire section is moot.”

DCM, you pointed to Scripture, identified God’s behavior as murder and identified children as innocent. I am not wrong to point out that the texts you are pointing to do not say what you say that they do. On strictly logical grounds, your argument is a failure. Your argument needs to be supplemented by your reasons as to why you do not think the Bible’s explanation of God’s behavior, as well as the Bible’s identification of all men as fallen sinners are wrong. You simply assumed your point in saying that God’s command to destroy a nation of people was a command to murder a nation of people in which innocent children were murdered. This is fallacious argumentation.

6. “This section has the same issues the first had:  you’re arguing from sin and you’re using the Bible as an authority.  Any being that charges guiltless children and infants isn’t a just judge — regardless of what the Bible says.  I find it appalling that Christians are incapable of sharing that conclusion.”

sigh. I’m not arguing from sin, nor am I explicitly using the Bible as an authority. I was giving an analysis of your argument. You used Scripture, did not define the context, but opined by identifying God as One who commanded the murder of innocent children. I was clearing up what the text actually says. Whether or not you agree with the Bible’s explanation of God’s intentions, thoughts, deeds, etc, moreover, cannot be brushed over by mere assertionism. If your opinions are rationally irrefutable, then perhaps you should argue them instead of saying that Christians are “incapable” of sharing your “conclusion.” You are assuming that children are innocent. Show me that they are, and then show me how they have been charged unjustly with sin. Then you will be arguing your position and not merely asserting it as you have done repeatedly so far.

7.Also, your Merriam-Webster definition describes first degree murder.  It does not define murder in its entirety, but that is beside the point.”

This is a rational response, how? Where is your definition? How can I know what you are even talking about? Lol. How philosophical disputation has fallen upon hard times!

8.“This is a straw man.  In your god’s case, the argument would speak to his moral character and not just his absolute authority to legislate absolute laws.”

 No, given the construction of your argument, there is no necessary logical link between the moral superiority of the law giver and his authority to give an absolute moral law.

 9. “While it is true that an absolute lawgiver need only have absolute authority, that isn’t true of your god.”

It is logically true of any lawgiver, DCM. Authority and Character are two different categories.

10. “Christians argue that he not only has the authority to hand out absolute laws, but he is also morally perfect to do so.  Therefore, the argument is designed to argue against the Christian god as the absolute lawgiver and as a perfectly good being.  Once again, you’re dabbing in semantics in this section; unfortunately, that is perhaps the weakest reason why your responses failed to address my argument.”

Yes, He has the authority to do so. Yes, He is morally perfect in so doing. But you are missing the point, there is no logical link between authority and character. One may have absolute authority to tell others to do what he knows is morally correct, but himself not do those things. This isn’t semantics, either, DCM. It’s simply applied logic.

11. “Your category error was refuted.  P6 is only a non sequitur given your straw man argument; thus, P6 is not a non sequitur.”

No, my category error still stands. P6 is a nonsequitur. I did not argue a strawman.

12. “Yahweh tells us that no person is righteous.”  Correction:  the Bible tells us that.”

In the Bible, Yahweh tells us that no person is righteous. Like, literally. There are places where Yahweh is speaking and He says that no man is righteous. You don’t like the Bible. I know, but you are merely asserting that such records are false. You aren’t arguing a logically coherent point.

13. “That leads us to the consistent issues present in your responses.  You have argued from three unsubstantiated presuppositions:

1) The Bible is authoritative

2) God exists

3)Sin exists”

I didn’t argue on any of these bases. Lol. I examined your argument. It was bad. It was filled with fallacies and false premises. I believe all three of the propositions you have listed here, but I was simply looking at your argument to see if it was logically coherent. It wasn’t.

14.These presuppositions will remain unsubstantiated and thus, your responses fail.  Therefore, my arguments remain both valid and sound.”

You are wrong, DCM. Let’s have a valid and sound argument.

15. “I’ll take off my philosophical cap for a second.  I continue to expect more than shameless apologetics for genocide.  Most Christians have truly shut the eye of reason.  Rather than attempting (in futility I might add) to absolve god of moral injustices, accept him for what he is:  a character in literature who lives up to his titles, namely the god of war or the god of armies.  Only a truly ignorant person believes that he exists based on a scripture that’s indistinguishable from its contemporaries and scriptures that predated it.

Note to followers:  the individual has been notified of this post.”

DCM, your philosopher cap had blown off some time even before your wrote your response to my post. No offense, but your argumentation is logically invalid and unsound. Instead of proving your points, you have resorted to assuming them. And now you place the ad hominem icing on top of the cake. My contention was not that I have some way of absolving God of guilt, but that your argument was bad. I stand by that contention not to be contentious but to point out to those readers of your blog that if they are looking to your blog in order to find out whether or not they should abandon the Christian faith, they are looking at a bad resource.

Maybe it was the quickness with which you responded that made you argue erroneously again. I don’t know. So I am willing to hear you out again, if you can explain yourself without resorting to the same errors you exhibited here.

-h.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “A Response to Deconversion Movement’s Response to My Last Post

  1. DeconversionMovement (@DeconMov) says:

    Your response will be published at 4pm. By the way, you’re lucky I didn’t see your tags: evolution is false; Christianity pwns Dawkins. 1) Evolution is not false and you cannot prove otherwise; there’s no point in discussion evidence with someone who is ignorant enough to ignore the evidence though it is available to him. You can learn a lot about evolution via my blog in the Evolution tab. Click through if you’re interested and if you want to maintain one iota of respect because I quickly lose respect for people who deny scientific truth due solely to their beliefs. 2) Who mentioned Richard Dawkins; if that’s some kind of ploy to misrepresent me as some “new atheist,” it won’t work.

    I would start prepping bandages; my next response should effectively end this discussion. You have reduced this conversation to appeal to ridicule (your tags make that obvious), baseless accusations and refusal to defend your presuppositions. You’ll see in my response.

    Like

    • hiram says:

      My tags were for fun. If I offended you, I’m sorry. I know you didn’t mention Dawkins. I was joking. Regarding evolution, when I was an atheist I rejected it on purely logical grounds. Evolution is irrational. Ill be waiting for your response :)

      Like

  2. hiram says:

    Science is always false, as it rests upon two foundational logical fallacies: (i.)the fallacy of hasty generalization, and (ii.)the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

    Regarding your statement concerning scientific facts not being subordinates of logic, I need some clarification on this. What do you mean?

    I don’t know what a “fact” is; let alone a “substantiated fact.”

    Like

  3. DeconversionMovement (@DeconMov) says:

    “Science is always false.” Congratulations, you have successfully caused me to lose all respect for you. Don’t ignorantly speak about a subject you obviously know nothing about. A fact has the quality of being actual and is indisputably the case; for instance, it is a fact that some woman is my mother and that is indisputably the case. This fact has actual existence. A substantiated fact is one that is supported by independent and corroborative evidence. Evolution, for example, is a substantiated fact as it is supported by biogeographical distribution, genetics, the fossil record, vestigial structures, atavisms, speciation, etc. The theory of evolution is the model that explains the phenomena of evolution; the phenomena of evolution is a substantiated fact, but you obviously believe all science is false based on your fallacious justifications. That which is fact is no longer subordinate to logic; in other words, it doesn’t matter if a fact was arrived at via induction, deduction, abduction or neither. Once a fact is established, logic cannot be applied to disprove it as you attempt to do in the case of evolution and apparently the whole scientific enterprise! Might as well stop using your MAC or PC because they are byproducts of this “false” enterprise you’re so opposed to.

    Like

  4. hiram says:

    Guess I hit a nerve, eh :(

    1. “Congratulations, you have successfully caused me to lose all respect for you.”

    How is this relevant to our discussion? lol

    2. “Don’t ignorantly speak about a subject you obviously know nothing about.”

    I’m not speaking out of ignorance, I’m addressing the fact that induction is always a fallacy. Science is based on induction. Therefore, science is based on a fallacy.

    3. “A fact has the quality of being actual and is indisputably the case; for instance, it is a fact that some woman is my mother and that is indisputably the case. This fact has actual existence.”

    If this arrived at via induction, then it CAN be disputed.

    4. “A substantiated fact is one that is supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”

    Again, if induction then it CAN be disputed. If it can be disputed, it is not a fact. Simply gathering arbitrarily collected data does not prove your conclusion true.

    5. “Evolution, for example, is a substantiated fact as it is supported by biogeographical distribution, genetics, the fossil record, vestigial structures, atavisms, speciation, etc. The theory of evolution is the model that explains the phenomena of evolution; the phenomena of evolution is a substantiated fact, but you obviously believe all science is false based on your fallacious justifications.”

    Evolutionary theory can be disputed by an appeal to data. Happens all the time. Hence, it is not a fact. Nor is it a substantiated fact.

    My reasoning is not fallacious, DCM. You are an inductivist. Therefore, you do not have any logical justification for saying that evolution is a fact, or any phenomenon is a fact for that matter, let alone that these are substantiated facts. This is basic logic. You want to say that “A is A” but you cannot, for your observation of A is always subject to change. What is A? Whose collection and arrangement of data decidedly identifies the essential nature and functionality of A? If A’s identity is disputed on the basis of another’s collection and arrangment of data, then why all of this assumed certainty on your part? You don’t know what A is, you cannot prove what A is either. You can only assert yourself.

    “That which is fact is no longer subordinate to logic; in other words, it doesn’t matter if a fact was arrived at via induction, deduction, abduction or neither. Once a fact is established, logic cannot be applied to disprove it as you attempt to do in the case of evolution and apparently the whole scientific enterprise! Might as well stop using your MAC or PC because they are byproducts of this “false” enterprise you’re so opposed to.”

    If a “fact” is a “fact” then it is implicitly logically coherent. Here is the irony of all this, however, you are denigrating Christians such as myself for being irrational. And yet you are here implying that logic cannot be applied to what has been deemed factual. Well, who deems A to be A? You? And if you deem it to be the case, then I must necessarily submit myself to your idea? lol really?

    How does this not reduce to totalitarianism? ALL of the statements of science that are arrived at via the process of induction and abduction are of a necessity relative, uncertain, and disputable. You do not have truth, you have approximations given the arbitrarily defined parameters of those who have chosen to isolate and observe a limited number of phenomena.

    Regarding my use of a PC, really?

    Does the fact that an idea operates in a way that is favorable to my desired goals proof of it being true?

    If that is so, Christianity is true because it works.

    -h.

    Like

  5. DeconversionMovement (@DeconMov) says:

    “Guess I hit a nerve, eh :(”

    Ignorance always hits a nerve and so does hyper-enthusiasm. Your hyper-enthusiasm in regards to philosophy makes a discussion with you impossible. You’re starting to sound like someone who would reduce us all to brains in vats.

    “How is this relevant to our discussion? lol”

    It’s a comment; deal with it.

    “I’m not speaking out of ignorance, I’m addressing the fact that induction is always a fallacy. Science is based on induction. Therefore, science is based on a fallacy.”

    That’s a straw man. There is weak and strong induction. The problem of induction is one of epistemology and not one of fallacious reasoning. You’re misrepresenting induction in order to draw a convenient conclusion regarding science. Your anti-science is appalling.

    “If this arrived at via induction, then it CAN be disputed.”

    Just because something can happen doesn’t mean it does happen. Don’t take scientific dispute for “you can’t find truth in science.”

    “Again, if induction then it CAN be disputed. If it can be disputed, it is not a fact. Simply gathering arbitrarily collected data does not prove your conclusion true.”

    “If it can be disputed, it is not a fact.” The fact that x can be disputed doesn’t imply that x isn’t factual. Every scientific fact has been disputed at some point; science hinges on the principle of falsifiability. Models that pass that test are regarded as fact.

    “Evolutionary theory can be disputed by an appeal to data. Happens all the time. Hence, it is not a fact. Nor is it a substantiated fact.”

    Again, the fact that x can be disputed doesn’t imply that x is false. Even that which is arrived at via deduction or in your case, presuppositional apologetics, can be disputed. Therefore, according to your logic, your god isn’t a fact because he has been and is disputed. Evolution is a fact regardless of your predilections.

    “My reasoning is not fallacious, DCM. You are an inductivist. Therefore, you do not have any logical justification for saying that evolution is a fact, or any phenomenon is a fact for that matter, let alone that these are substantiated facts. This is basic logic. You want to say that “A is A” but you cannot, for your observation of A is always subject to change. What is A? Whose collection and arrangement of data decidedly identifies the essential nature and functionality of A? If A’s identity is disputed on the basis of another’s collection and arrangment of data, then why all of this assumed certainty on your part? You don’t know what A is, you cannot prove what A is either. You can only assert yourself.”

    It isn’t basic logic; you are basing your arguments on misrepresentations. The fact that evolution occurs doesn’t change due to the method used in creating the model, namely the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is only a representation of the phenomena of evolution; the theory of evolution was arrived at via induction, but the phenomena of evolution occurred and continues to occur apart from experimentation and observation. Therefore, evolution is an actual fact and an indisputable fact; do not conflate the theory that explains phenomena x with phenomena x. Using your logic, gravity is also wrong! If you trust that induction is fallacious, jump off the nearest roof; don’t worry, induction is a fallacy and thus, gravity is false. No! The theory and the law of gravity are representations of the phenomena gravity. They are not the same. A is A as in a male is a male and a female is a female. This has nothing to do with induction; even induction respects the law of identity. In quantum entanglement, A is A at the same time and in the same respect; however, when A (electron) isn’t observed, A (electron) is no longer A — it is A times 2 or two electrons. Again, verbosity on your part with little substance and little knowledge I might add.

    “If a “fact” is a “fact” then it is implicitly logically coherent. Here is the irony of all this, however, you are denigrating Christians such as myself for being irrational. And yet you are here implying that logic cannot be applied to what has been deemed factual. Well, who deems A to be A? You? And if you deem it to be the case, then I must necessarily submit myself to your idea? lol really?”

    Appealing to ridicule as always; the law of identity is self-evident. The laws of thought are assumed by all of us a priori. You know when A is A and so do I. One doesn’t call a lion an elephant and a crocodile a bird. We both know the difference because we both respect the law of identity. You are irrational because you misrepresent induction and the problem of induction in order to misrepresent science, which you say is false; any science enthusiast will frown on you. I would dare you to bring this up with a science professor. You’ll either be schooled or he/she will shake his/her head and walk away from you. I’m patient and thus, I’m trying to educate you, but obduracy isn’t easily educated. I might as well hit my hard against a brick wall.

    “How does this not reduce to totalitarianism? ALL of the statements of science that are arrived at via the process of induction and abduction are of a necessity relative, uncertain, and disputable. You do not have truth, you have approximations given the arbitrarily defined parameters of those who have chosen to isolate and observe a limited number of phenomena.”

    Verbosity with little substance. You’re just piling up the misrepresentations. Scientific laws and theories are separate from the observed phenomena; scientists admit that there’s an issue with induction. However, that doesn’t cancel out the actual fundamental forces of nature; that doesn’t cancel out the motion of the planets or the fact that life evolved. It doesn’t cancel out the evolution of stars or galaxies. These are actual phenomena in nature and though models are built on induction, the phenomena do not become disputable even if the model is disputable. The facts remain.

    “Regarding my use of a PC, really? Does the fact that an idea operates in a way that is favorable to my desired goals proof of it being true?”

    The fact that all technology is based on science and mathematics points to the efficacy of both enterprises. If they were false, their byproducts would reveal that; in other words, if our models weren’t suffice, we wouldn’t be able to build based on those models. According to you, algorithms are false because they are inductive in nature; well, algorithms have a lot to do with your PC. They are a series of calculations that govern computers per se. If our algorithmic models were false, these falsehoods would reek havoc on our technology. Thankfully, are models are suffice and effective and thus, that isn’t the case.

    “If that is so, Christianity is true because it works.”

    It works in a dissociative simulacrum like the one you live in. You have created your own reality — so much so that you attempt to undermine the enterprise of science. Christianity doesn’t work in the real world; miracles don’t work in the real world. Bodies resurrecting after 3 days (?)* don’t work in the real world.

    *Every Gospel account states that Christ died Friday afternoon and every account says that he resurrected Sunday morning. Doesn’t sound like 72 hours to me. Food for thought. Not so infallible all of a sudden.

    Like

  6. hiram says:

    This is tiring, DCM. So this is my last response to you on this matter. We’ve been sidetracked, btw, from the original issue – which was your original argument against God’s perfect goodness and His being the absolute lawgiver. My response now will be very selective.

    Firstly, I don’t accept the distinction between strong and weak induction because it presupposes that complete induction is possible. If one’s induction can be strong or weak, it can be closer to or farther from the truth. However, this presupposes that the truth is discoverable via induction such that one’s induction may be a closer approximation than another’s. This is not the case. A complete induction requires omniscience.

    What you have are approximations given within arbitrarily constructed parameters. Now if the parameters are not arbitrarily constructed, then they are necessarily existent. But if they are necessarily existent, then you must prove this by means of a complete induction. And you can’t do that.

    I hold to a different view of science than you. You view it as true; I view it as false. I am opposed to your unfounded certainty in what you think you know because it is irrational.I am not anti-scientific.

    But regarding your retort about the possibility of something happening not proving that something does happen, this is irrelevant. Because it is disputable, it does not meet your qualifications for what a fact is. You explained that “A fact has the quality of being actual and is indisputably the case.” There is nothing to which you can point and say “This is indisputably the case” if you have arrived at that via induction.

    I’m just using your explanation of what a fact has: actuality and indisputability. And yet you tell me later on that “The fact that x can be disputed doesn’t imply that x isn’t factual.”

    Well, either a fact is indisputable or it is not. If something is factual, then does this not imply, according to your own explanation of what a fact has, that it has the quality of being indisputable? If it doesn’t, then I am curious as to what you mean when you use the word “factual.”

    What’s worse is that you go on to say that “Every scientific fact has been disputed at some point; science hinges on the principle of falsifiability. Models that pass that test are regarded as fact.” By this you only further substantiate my position. Who determines where the line in the sand is drawn, DCM? This parameter is arbitrary and begs the question. What if the line is changed in the future? Then do today’s facts cease to be facts tomorrow? Or were they never facts to begin with?

    You go on to say that “the fact that x can be disputed doesn’t imply that x is false.” No, it doesn’t. But if “x” is disputable, then it is not a fact, according to you. Even granting falsifiability (which is itself not a fact as it is disputable given other lines of argumentation), what you claim are facts are not facts – they cannot meet your criteria. Period. And if you cannot have facts, then you cannot have substantiated facts. Therefore, evolution is neither a fact nor a substantiated fact on your own account. And your assertion that it is a substantiated fact is false.

    You don’t seem to be following my argument against your view. I’m assuming your position is true for the sake of showing that it is irrational.

    Now when you say that “Even that which is arrived at via deduction or in your case, presuppositional apologetics, can be disputed. Therefore, according to your logic, your god isn’t a fact because he has been and is disputed. Evolution is a fact regardless of your predilections,” you are missing the point.

    Again, given your definition of what a fact is, you can never have a fact. And since you can never have a fact, you can never have a substantiated fact. And if you cannot have either, then you cannot claim evolution is a fact, let alone a substantiated fact. Perhaps you should change your definition of fact to something that better suits your argument.

    Moreover, you say that “the theory of evolution is only a representation of the phenomena of evolution; the theory of evolution was arrived at via induction, but the phenomena of evolution occurred and continues to occur apart from experimentation and observation.” Again, I point to your inability to ever arrive at a single fact. Your assertion here is not factual (by which I mean it doesn’t have the qualities of actuality and indisputability).

    Your inductivism, I should add, is what is causing you trouble, not me ;)

    You want to say that evolution is a substantiated fact.

    You then explain that a fact has the qualities of actuality and indisputability.

    Then you go on to say that I am conflating evolution and evolutionary theory.

    I’m not.

    Evolution is a theory regarding allegedly observed phenomena. Those phenomena, unless you are again begging the question, are not properly speaking identifiable as “evolution.”

    I am not conflating anything, DCM. You are begging the question by assuming that evolution occurs and, on that basis, differentiating it from the theory of evolution.

    You then make the claim that by “Using your logic, gravity is also wrong!” If you mean by this that I assert that the laws of gravity are not absolute and universal, I agree. They aren’t. And by you saying “If you trust that induction is fallacious, jump off the nearest roof; don’t worry, induction is a fallacy and thus, gravity is false,” you are appealing to ridicule. How is this dealing with my position? You are merely asserting the same thing again.

    Now, I would not jump off of the nearest roof precisely because I don’t know if I will not fall to the ground and die. I don’t know what will happen if I jump off of the nearest roof, but why should that lead me to jump off of it? This is a non-sequitur.

    You go on to say that “A is A as in a male is a male and a female is a female. This has nothing to do with induction; even induction respects the law of identity.” Well, a male is a male for a particular reason or cluster of reasons. You as an inductivist must prove that you can arrive at a conception of maleness that is universal via induction. Microcosmically, you must prove that you can arrive at a conception of any singular constituent of reality by means of induction. You cannot do this. You don’t know what a male is or what a female is, DCM. Gender Identity crises show the plasticity of any definition of gender supervenient upon any observable bases, further showing the inconsistency of your view of things.

    A is A is an a priori law of logic that cannot be inferred from observed phenomena. That is the point here. It has everything to do with induction for this very reason: Your position requires you to prove that the law of identity is indeed arrived at via induction.

    You cannot do this.

    Whatever anyone thinks of me is of little consequence, so the hypothetical science enthusiast’s opinion of me is irrelevant. Likewise, being a science professor doesn’t make one immune from being a fool. Look at Richard Dawkins, the man couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag.

    How long should this conversation go on when you cannot see the irrationality of saying things like this:

    “Scientific laws and theories are separate from the observed phenomena; scientists admit that there’s an issue with induction. However, that doesn’t cancel out the actual fundamental forces of nature; that doesn’t cancel out the motion of the planets or the fact that life evolved. It doesn’t cancel out the evolution of stars or galaxies. These are actual phenomena in nature and though models are built on induction, the phenomena do not become disputable even if the model is disputable. The facts remain.”?

    You separate scientific laws and theories from observed phenomena. You then go on to say that scientists admit that there is “an” issue with induction. And then you go on to say that the problem of induction doesn’t cancel out the motion of the planets, etc.

    This is called question begging.

    If there is a problem with induction, then there is a problem with justifying statements like “the phenomena do not become disputable even if the model is disputable.”

    If the phenomena are indisputable, then there is no problem of induction.

    There is a problem of induction, however, and so your assertion that the phenomena are indisputable is literally a form of question begging.

    Lastly, the idea of totalitarianism is one that comes up frequently in philosophy for this very reason. If induction affords us no certainty in (a.)establishing that there are certain phenomena, (b.)that those phenomena have certain unique qualities that make them what they are, and (c.)a theory that draws valid conclusions from sound premises, then whether one’s worldview is shamanistic or post-neo-darwinian, there is no difference: All you are left with is the will to power.

    This is one of the reasons why I appreciate Nietzsche’s writing: He was honest enough to admit that truth was a prospect for theologians and metaphysicians, not scientists.

    -h.

    Like

involve yourself

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s