|
REPLY #98k TO
"RELIGION" This is the last of an eleven-part reply. (R) Carl Sagan failed to meet many of his own proof criterias so quoting him is not very impressive. (MB) Somehow, the notion that you consider your reasoning to be superior to that of Carl Sagan is a rather "extraordinary" claim in and of itself! Perhaps, you should read "The Demon-Haunted World". Or, perhaps, you could detail an example or three of where you feel that you are more informed or make better arguments than Sagan. The supernatural is "extraordinary" since there is exactly *no* evidence which exists for it. Any idea which relies on the supernatural, therefore, is an "extraordinary" claim -- and that is what you are advancing. (R) As stated, the event of a mindless nothingness creating a natural process which creates an entire universe complete with ordered laws, immense complexities and biological life out of absolute nothing is quite an extraordinary claim. Which is what YOU are advancing. (MB) Once again, you resort to putting a false claim into my mouth while totally failing to refute (or even address) my statement about your own claim. Your continued silence concerning your own views speaks volumes about the strength of what you believe. Now, you can stand logic on its head all day and all night and you still can't avoid the necessity of providing the extraordinary proof required to support your extraordinary claim. (R) Either can you, and until you provide this extraordinary evidence for universal materialism, your alleged super-process will be in the same ranks as giant, pink, lunar bunny rabbits. (MB) Same song, umpteenth verse...but now the score is 3-2 in favor of "materialist super-process" over "naturalist". You can throw out all the meaningless insults you wish and nothing will change. You can ramp up the righteous indignation to a level worthy of the Guinness Book of World Records and you'll still bear the burden of proof. You can bitch, moan, whine, challenge, complain, kvetch, and gripe until you suffer a stroke and you'll *still* need to show that God exists before your argument will have a prayer (no pun intended). (R) The task set before me is simply to show the proposition of a trancendental cause for the universe MORE PROBABLE than a blind chance/material cause for the universe. (MB) If so, then you have utterly failed in your task and the debate can safely be concluded. You haven't shown any degree of probability whatsoever for your proposal -- much less showing that it is "more probable" than the theories of science (even though you're still a bit hazy on what exactly they are). Sooner or later, you're going to have to trot out your positive case in support of your own views and subject it to critical analysis. (R) I am not idignant, moaning, bitching, whining, complaining, or any other such nonsense. (MB) What you have *not* been is logical, knowledgeable, specific, detailed or coherent. This comes as a result of concentrating your efforts on arguing over things you don't know. You can change this greatly by shifting your focus to where it should have been right from the start -- showing the positive evidence which supports your views. (R) It would be nice, however, if you provided this "extensive evidence" for the reality of universal materialism and super-processes. (MB) Same song, umpteenth+1 verse...Score now 4-2 for "materialist" vs. "naturalist" super-process. Even if science had *not* advanced any natural explanation for universal origins, that would not make your fairy tales any more credible without objective and empirical evidence to back them up. (R) I haven't postulated any fairy tale but a quite probable cause-proposition. (MB) "Probability" can only be determined by examination of the evidence. Since you have provided none, how can you calculate any meaningful probabilities in favor of your views? (R) The objective, honest, and complete consideration of all the residule evidences of the creation event have trancendental/theistic fingerprints all over them. Its literally staggering. (MB) If so, why have you been completely unable and unwilling to present any of this "staggering" amount of evidence? I submit that none exists. Prove me wrong! Fred's failure to prove that bunnies *don't* live on the far side of the Moon does not give credibility to Bob's claim that they do. Only positive proof of their existence can support Bob's claim. (R) Sorry, but if we went to that moon and discovered giant holes in the ground with giant prints in the sand that were spaced out in a giant hopping pattern, then led to these giant holes in the ground - where prints that comparitively look just like those of a giant rabbit are, and then discover a lock of pink fur in the prints, I'd wager to say that these lunar bunnies *most likely* exist. (MB) Of course! Such findings would constitute evidence, right? But, if no such evidence is found, can't Bob still concoct all sorts of reasons to explain away the failure and continue to state his claim? This was my point! Why can't you address it rather than showing the obvious flip side? Are you going to say that Bob's claim of lunar bunnies is reasonable (even with no supporting evidence) and that Fred bears the burden of disproving them? (R) The same is true for the evidence of the existence of God. (MB) So, where is the equivalent of pink fur and giant holes in the ground to support the existence of God? Or, are you going to continue to say that your claim of God's existence is reasonable (even with no supporting evidence) and that I bear the burden of disproving it? Likewise, the failure or non-acceptance of any scientific theory of the natural origin of the universe does not give credibility to your claim that "God did it". Only positive proof of the existence of God can support your claim. As I asked before, "Are you up to it?". (R) Likewise, any non-acceptance of any theistic hypotheses of the supernatural origin of the universe does not give credibility to your claim that "Materialism did it." (MB) One last evasion, eh? I guess you're NOT up to it. Since you apparently accept the logic of what I said, do you also accept that you have a responsibility to present a positive case in favor of your ideas? If so, I can only wonder why you have failed to even attempt it. (R) Only positive proof of the existence of universal materialism (along with the respective super-processes) can support your athiestic scenario. Are YOU up for supporting it? (MB) Am I up to supporting a case which I am not making? Surely, you jest! For all those keeping score at home, I think we now have a clear winner. "Materialist" has defeated "naturalist" by 5-2 as the preferred qualifier for the improper usage of "super-process". Remember this if any of you try to jump on the fundamentalist bandwagon and attempt a similar argument.
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.5 .......... Last Update: 29 Dec 00
|