tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4086724804167221865..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolutionists Now Formulating Teaching Standards That States Should Adopt “In Whole, Without Alteration”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger206125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66558556137540068342012-05-20T10:51:01.771-07:002012-05-20T10:51:01.771-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78139217781933101252012-05-20T10:48:46.430-07:002012-05-20T10:48:46.430-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36230593323389365192012-05-20T10:00:32.483-07:002012-05-20T10:00:32.483-07:00Because, unlike all other philosophies, especially...Because, unlike all other philosophies, especially the materialistic/atheistic philosophy that you hold, it is true thru and thru.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81604090623218824512012-05-20T09:29:45.730-07:002012-05-20T09:29:45.730-07:00To put it bluntly, Craig is full of it.
http://do...To put it bluntly, Craig is full of it.<br /><br />http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2011/10/quote-mining-bible.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34520140652716450772012-05-20T05:28:17.033-07:002012-05-20T05:28:17.033-07:00bornagain77: refuted by Dr. Craig... Dr. Craig cal...<b>bornagain77</b>: <i>refuted by Dr. Craig... Dr. Craig calls the refutation a 'knock down argument'.</i><br /><br />'There's glory for you!'<br /><br />'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.<br /><br />Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'<br /><br />'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.<br /><br />'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'<br /><br />'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'<br /><br />'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32401182692857936582012-05-20T04:53:26.844-07:002012-05-20T04:53:26.844-07:00F/N: I have responded at LT's blog, having lea...F/N: I have responded at LT's blog, having learned that there is something to respond to. KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73693604053972146122012-05-20T04:13:34.237-07:002012-05-20T04:13:34.237-07:00F/N: I do not know why you wish to enfold a discus...F/N: I do not know why you wish to enfold a discussion on the premise of causality, that that which has a beginning has a cause and why something like the truth expressed in the symbols 2 + 3 = 5 illustrates something that is necessarily true and per Z-F set theory, independent of materiality. Is it because a proposition is abstract, and indeed mental? suggesting priority of mind over matter as fundamental necessary being that underlies the observed, credibly contingent cosmos we inhabit? do I need to highlight that once something now is, something always has been, as nothing -- utter non-being -- can have no powers to cause and obviously no existence. So if nothing ever was totality, nothing always would obtain. Which obviously is not now the case, as is self-evident. So the root issue is, what is the nature of the necessary and uncaused, not whether such is the case; and finding ourselves as under the inescapable premise of ought, it is reasonable that the foundational IS be of such that that IS grounds OUGHT; ought, per Hume's guillotine (as drawn out by Anscombe and others), cannot <i>thereafter</i> be introduced without question-begging. So, it is reasonable on comparative difficulties to seek a foundation for "the last turtle" that can ground OUGHT, in a worldviews level inference to best explanation. The inherently good creator God who makes certain creatures with the power to love, thus to reason, to judge and to choose, opening the door to a world of higher goods thereby, is an excellent and serious candidate. [Cf <a href="http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu" rel="nofollow">here on</a>.] I need only further point out here that such a view is patently reasonable and does not require me to try to prove beyond the objections of the hyperskeptical. It suffices to highlight that it sits to the table of comparative difficulties as of right, not by sufferance. KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49669015090642459902012-05-20T03:52:23.719-07:002012-05-20T03:52:23.719-07:00LT:
I will make a bit different approach this mo...LT: <br /><br />I will make a bit different approach this morning, just for variety.<br /><br />Kindly cf <a href="http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-mind-man-morals-etc.html#lk_hk_gr" rel="nofollow">here</a> and onwards [as I had linked from the beginning in linking the relevant section], e,g. <a href="http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236" rel="nofollow">here</a>. The difference between the gods that were targetted in the dilemma argument and the inherently good creator God of theism that the argument has been improperly extended to should be obvious, and has long been expressed by the use of capitalisation. The good cannot be separated from its source AND will show itself by its contrast with the fundamental incoherence and chaotic destructiveness of evil; the good is our "reasonable service." <br /><br />For instance, as linked, when Locke set out to ground principles of liberty and justice in Ch 2 sect 5 of his second essay on civil gov't, he cites "the judicious [Anglican Canon, Richard] Hooker:<br />____<br /><br />>> . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . <b>my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection.</b><i> From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant</i> [--> notice, his rooting in our equal moral worth stamped by imago dei and implying reciprocal duties of care; I hardly need to recite the history of imagined superiority of the superman, other than to allude: that cats have no empathy for mice] . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80] >><br /><br />____<br /><br />And, as such a pivotal cite c 1690 from a key work c 1594 shows,this is hardly a novelty, as you suggest by leading questions. <br /><br />KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30336510095428839292012-05-19T13:52:57.883-07:002012-05-19T13:52:57.883-07:00You complain about my mental abilities and yet Sco...You complain about my mental abilities and yet Scott you still believe there are 10^500 versions of yourself. Moreover some of these 10^500 versions of yourself think you are insane for believing in 10^500 versions of yourself. Guess you just can't argue with such sound reasoning as that!bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11888763689205533272012-05-19T12:43:26.192-07:002012-05-19T12:43:26.192-07:00GEM,
It might be instructive if you explained thi...GEM,<br /><br />It might be instructive if you explained this argument, which you make on Uncommon Descent: "the inherently good Creator God is NOT a small-g god, and his character is indeed an objective grounding for morality. The good is not separate from God, and the good is not the arbitrary will of God."<br /><br />Some of the questions on your comment: (1) Is the distinction between big-g and little-g gods rooted in anything specific? (2) Then, how exactly did you establish that his character--however his character is determined by people--is an objective grounding for morality? (3) When you say "an" objective ground, do you mean that his character is one of (possibly) many other objective grounds? What are these other grounds, or did you really mean "the" objective ground of morality? If you mean there is only one objective ground of morality, what is the basis for the claim?<br /><br />I also want to make a comment on worlviews and the foundations of them. On my blog, you and I have together built up a worldview from the principles of right reason, as you called them. My sense of that undertaking was that it was fairly easy to construct a reasonable worldview with no requirement for either a big-g or little-g god. In fact, it seemed that seeking to shoehorn in a big-g god was a source of confusion and logical gymnastics. <br /><br />That discussion, in its last installment, <a href="http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2012/04/reasonable-doubt-on-non-contingency.html" rel="nofollow">was here (and note the comments, also)</a>. I give the link in case you or others want to review that discussion. I imagine that this trhead here may not be the best place to continue discussion on the topic.<br /><br />LarryLarry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30153799405262931562012-05-19T12:33:45.003-07:002012-05-19T12:33:45.003-07:00the 'moral landscape' of humans argument h...the 'moral landscape' of humans argument has already been addressed and refuted by Dr. Craig. In fact the refutation against the argument is SO STRONG that Dr. Craig calls the refutation a 'knock down argument'.<br /><br />The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral landscape argument – William Lane Craig – video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_vAH2NIPcbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56127024497306603802012-05-19T12:25:20.739-07:002012-05-19T12:25:20.739-07:00BA 77: Thanks for watching my 6:00. Your links are...BA 77: Thanks for watching my 6:00. Your links are illuminating. KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1541252099969429642012-05-19T12:12:00.003-07:002012-05-19T12:12:00.003-07:00GEM of The Kairos Initiative May 19, 2012 11:09 A...<i><b>GEM of The Kairos Initiative </b> May 19, 2012 11:09 AM<br /><br />Further record. In effect having conceded the point, the objectors are trying to pretend there is no serious alternative. Fail.</i><br /><br />GEM has chosen to publish a lengthy commentary at <i>Ucommon Descent</i> which I feel calls for an equally detailed response. However, this is Dr Hunter's blog and I would not want to abuse his hospitality by taking up too much space here with my reply. If he prefers I can take it to another forum.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77209783798699396662012-05-19T11:27:18.902-07:002012-05-19T11:27:18.902-07:00bornagain77 May 19, 2012 4:48 AM
[...]
So Ian wh...<i><b>bornagain77</b> May 19, 2012 4:48 AM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />So Ian why is your subjective opinion of whether something is morally 'discourteous' suppose to be objectively binding to others who don't find it to be so?</i><br /><br />Where did I ever claim that my personal opinion <i>was</i> objectively binding (whatever that means) on anyone?<br /><br />In case you're interested my view is that morality is based in our common interests as human beings: I don't want to be killed and I'm pretty sure you don't either and neither do most other people so we agree that it's best if we all refrain from going around killing each other. What's to prevent some psychopath from going around raping any woman he chooses? All the women who would prefer not to be raped and all their male relatives and friends who would also take a very dim view of it, that's who.<br /><br />Are you really saying that you would not be able to tell right from wrong yourself, that you only know something is wrong because your God has said so?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49789198006347209692012-05-19T11:09:02.210-07:002012-05-19T11:09:02.210-07:00Further record. In effect having conceded the poin...<a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/enough-is-enough-it-is-time-for-independent-community-based-education-starting-with-independent-education-in-origins-science/#comment-425310" rel="nofollow">Further record</a>. In effect having conceded the point, the objectors are trying to pretend there is no serious alternative. Fail.GEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74407213233679752032012-05-19T08:43:38.963-07:002012-05-19T08:43:38.963-07:00United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010 (Please note...United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in crime rate from the mid 90s until now is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes. (a nip it in the bud policy)<br />http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm<br /><br />What Lies Behind Growing Secularism by William Lane Craig - May 2012 - podcast (steep decline in altruism of young people since early 1960's)<br />http://www.reasonablefaith.org/what-lies-behind-growing-secularism<br /><br />AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray - David Barton - graphs corrected for population growth<br />http://www.whatyouknowmightnotbeso.com/graphs.html<br /><br />The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – video<br />http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930<br /><br />You can see that dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public schools, at this following site;<br /><br />Aliso Viejo Christian School – SAT 10 Comparison Report<br />http://www.alisoviejochristianschool.org/sat_10.html<br /><br />The following video is very suggestive to a 'spiritual link' in man's ability to learn new information in that the video shows that almost every, if not every, founder of each discipline of modern science was a devout Christian:<br /><br />Christianity Gave Birth To Science - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video<br />http://vimeo.com/16523153bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89445670062318825112012-05-19T08:39:46.963-07:002012-05-19T08:39:46.963-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40339009225516635472012-05-19T08:35:29.803-07:002012-05-19T08:35:29.803-07:00The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris...The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral landscape argument – William Lane Craig – video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_vAH2NIPc<br /><br />Richard Dawkins Approves Infanticide, not William Lane Craig! (mirror: drcraigvideos)<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmodkyJvhFo<br /><br />At Emory University, Consternation over Ben Carson, Evolution, and Morality - Richard Weikart - May 10, 2012<br />Excerpt: If Emory University (biology) professors want to argue that evolution has no ethical implications, they are free to make that argument (I wonder how many of them actually believe this). However, if they do, they need to recognize that they are not just arguing against "benighted" anti-evolutionists, but against many of their cherished colleagues in evolutionary biology, including Darwin himself.<br />http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/at_emory_univer_1059491.html<br /><br />This following video humorously reveals the absolute bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground objective beliefs within a materialistic reductionist worldview;<br /><br />John Cleese – The Scientists – humorous video<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXobornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70734589632682011312012-05-19T08:09:51.249-07:002012-05-19T08:09:51.249-07:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkYZachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84120449417375758842012-05-19T07:57:30.950-07:002012-05-19T07:57:30.950-07:00Cruel Logic – short film
https://vimeo.com/5355398...Cruel Logic – short film<br />https://vimeo.com/5355398bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12688975452005776622012-05-19T07:46:55.590-07:002012-05-19T07:46:55.590-07:00bornagain77: So Ian why is your subjective opinion...<b>bornagain77</b>: <i>So Ian why is your subjective opinion of whether something is morally 'discourteous' suppose to be objectively binding to others who don't find it to be so? </i><br /><br />It's rather evident that a subjective standard isn't objectively binding, but an appeal to those who share similar values and similar notions of courtesy.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81070053797434433012012-05-19T04:48:48.640-07:002012-05-19T04:48:48.640-07:00Ian you state;
'I call it to the attention of...Ian you state;<br /><br />'I call it to the attention of any onlookers that <b>it is discourteous</b>, to say the least,'<br /><br />and then you state;<br /><br />'Moral judgments are necessarily subjective'<br /><br />So Ian why is your subjective opinion of whether something is morally 'discourteous' suppose to be objectively binding to others who don't find it to be so?bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28126466172427102382012-05-18T22:38:41.193-07:002012-05-18T22:38:41.193-07:00I call it to the attention of any onlookers that i...I call it to the attention of any onlookers that it is discourteous, to say the least, to post a lengthy contribution to a debate being conducted in one forum to a different one from which, as you well know, many of your opponents are banned. I am not the first person to point this out either.<br /><br />On the question of the IS-OUGHT gap, I freely concede that there is no way to ground 'ought' in 'is'. Moral judgments are necessarily subjective and that would include those of any putative deity. Claims for an objective morality are incoherent on my understanding of 'objective' and smack too much of an attempt to claim unwarranted authority for the moral prescriptions of one faith over all others. <br /><br />As for "morsl government", which is usually a euphemism for some form of theocracy, we have too many examples from history of what follows when one religion gains control of the organs of political power to want to repeat those experiments. That is, after all, why the Founding Fathers insisted on the separation of church and state.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83299563196613536032012-05-18T04:13:58.915-07:002012-05-18T04:13:58.915-07:00F/R: Onlookers, I have had opportunity to pass bac...F/R: Onlookers, I have had opportunity to pass back this morning. No great surprise to bsee the trifecta distract, distort and polarise tactics in full swing. I have responded specifically, called attention to the underlying issues and highlighted what failure to address evo mat's IS-OUGHT gap entails, <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/enough-is-enough-it-is-time-for-independent-community-based-education-starting-with-independent-education-in-origins-science/#comment-425262" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Along the way, since it is connected to the pivotal issues raised by CH in the OP above and in <a href="http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/enough-is-enough-it-is-time-for-independent-community-based-education-starting-with-independent-education-in-origins-science/" rel="nofollow">my own response at UD</a>, I have also paused to address the significance of cosmological fine tuning and our finding ourselves inescapably under moral government, for the issue Sc raised when he said: >> Do you tentatively accept the idea that consciousness precedes all of material reality? . . . what well defined criteria is your acceptance based on?>> KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49344359867155443462012-05-17T21:39:40.983-07:002012-05-17T21:39:40.983-07:00BA: One humongous problem, Scott, with all you con...BA: One humongous problem, Scott, with all you conjecture as to how we discover truth ('create knowledge' in your view), you still believe that there are 10^500 versions of yourself. <br /><br />Again, I tentatively accept this as the best explanation. And the problem with this is? Please be specific. <br /><br />See the criteria I'm using, which you didn't include in your quote and keep ignoring. <br /><br />BA: Shoot you even fervently believe you have irrefutable mathematical proof that proves there is 10^500 versions of yourself. <br /><br />Are you really hungry? I'm asking because you keep firmly planing your own foot in your mouth. <br /><br />Except, I'm a critical rationalist, which means I do not think it's possible to positively prove anything is true in the sense you're implying.<br /><br />See the excerpt from the Beginning of Infinity as found <a href="http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/08/18/david-deutsch" rel="nofollow">here</a>, which Deutsch outlines the problem with empiricism. <br /><br />From the end of the excerpt ...<br /><br /><i>But no one has ever managed to formulate a ‘principle of induction’ that is usable in practice for obtaining scientific theories from experiences. Historically, criticism of inductivism has focused on that failure, and on the logical gap that cannot be bridged. But that lets inductivism off far too lightly. For it concedes inductivism’s two most serious misconceptions.<br /><br />First, inductivism purports to explain how science obtains predictions about experiences. But most of our theoretical knowledge simply does not take that form. Scientific explanations are about reality, most of which does not consist of anyone’s experiences. Astrophysics is not primarily about us (what we shall see if we look at the sky), but about what stars are: their composition and what makes them shine, and how they formed, and the universal laws of physics under which that happened. Most of that has never been observed: no one has experienced a billion years, or a light year; no one could have been present at the Big Bang; no one will ever touch a law of physics - except in their minds, through theory. All our predictions of how things will look are deduced from such explanations of how things are. So inductivism fails even to address how we can know about stars and the universe, as distinct from just dots in the sky.<br /><br />The second fundamental misconception in inductivism is that scientific theories predict that ‘the future will resemble the past’, and that ‘the unseen resembles the seen’ and so on. (Or that it ‘probably’ will.) But in reality the future is unlike the past, the unseen very different from the seen. Science often predicts - and brings about - phenomena spectacularly different from anything that has been experienced before. For millennia people dreamed about flying, but they experienced only falling. Then they discovered good explanatory theories about flying, and then they flew - in that order. Before 1945, no human being had ever observed a nuclear-fission (atomic-bomb) explosion; there may never have been one in the history of the universe. Yet the first such explosion, and the conditions under which it would occur, had been accurately predicted - but not from the assumption that the future would be like the past. Even sunrise - that favourite example of inductivists - is not always observed every twenty-four hours: when viewed from orbit it may happen every ninety minutes, or not at all. And that was known from theory long before anyone had ever orbited the Earth.</i><br /><br />Why do you keep making the same mistake, over and over again, despite being corrected, over and over again? <br /><br />Do you have problems forming short term memories? What other conclusion do you expect us to reach?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.com