Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Didn't say that they weren't, so thanks for the straw,  or that such a thing is mutually exclusive, but AB isn't the subject of the thread.

You said: "I think some people need to deal more directly with AB". People already do - or try to - and the results are here for all to see.

[Nearly Sane]

You said: "I think some people need to deal more directly with AB". People already do - or try to - and the results are here for all to see.

again, didn't say no one did,or that individuals weren't doing both, so I fail to see your point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't read what he writes as if he is saying that, but I cannot rule out that even if he were writing what you say, that he isn't putting a different emphasis, interpretation or misreading on it.

The theory he seeks to dismiss says one thing, he constantly asserts that it says something else in order to dismiss it. That’s not different emphasis etc – it’s misquoting.

To take the specific example, I think he sees/reads/ or interprets 'random' as central to the whole idea. He 'sees' it as synonymous with directionless, and his incredulity at how something as 'marvellous' as us can have come from something directionlesss/random. I think he doesn't make enough effort in his posts to make that clear - now I may be wrong, but that is how it reads to me. Indeed my issue with AB is that he appears to not read things properly but reverts to stock answers, but again he may not be able of properly understanding concepts because a pre believed ones.

Yes, that’s how I think he sees it too. The problem though is that when I explain the reference point error (and for that matter survivor bias too) to him he just ignores that and carries on repeating the same “argument” of incredulity. Again, this isn’t about emphasis etc – it’s about someone coming to a discussion forum with no intention whatever of discussing anything.

That is, he seems to want an audience here solely for the purpose of sharing his faith. If he did that in the faith sharing area it'd be no-one's business but his own. WHen he tries it here though then he must expect to be challenged on it, and moreover expect to be criticised for ignoring those challenges.   

Anyway, I have no idea why you feel the need to try and make me comfortable with your interpretation of AB's motives  here.

You flatter yourself. This discussion came out of your “Just to make a more serious point though, that anyone asks someone a direct question on here should in no way mean the person is obliged to answer it, or that any conclusion can be drawn from the not answering of it.”

Of course no-one is obliged to answer something. When that person refuses even ever to engage with anything though, then he's just a proselytiser.

[SusanDoris]

I repeat the question AB has been asked, I think, twice:


Do these microscopic aliens have souls?


Edited to remove stray letter e

[Maeght]

I think some people need to deal more directly with AB rather than indulging in talking about him as it reads quite unpleasantly.

I do try not to talk about other posters as I think it canbe unfair but also because it can distract from the questions being asked. Not always easy though.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

The theory he seeks to dismiss says one thing, he constantly asserts that it says something else in order to dismiss it. That’s not different emphasis etc – it’s misquoting.

Yes, that’s how I think he sees it too. The problem though is that when I explain the reference point error (and for that matter survivor bias too) to him he just ignores that and carries on repeating the same “argument”. Again, this isn’t about emphasis etc – it’s about someone coming to a discussion forum with no intention whatever of discussing anything.

That is, he seems to want an audience here solely for the purpose of sharing his faith. If he did that in the faith sharing area it'd be no-one's business but his own. WHen he tries it here though then he must expect to be challenged on it, and moreover expect to be criticised for ignoring those challenges.   

You flatter yourself. This discussion came out of your “Just to make a more serious point though, that anyone asks someone a direct question on here should in no way mean the person is obliged to answer it, or that any conclusion can be drawn from the not answering of it.”

Of course no-one is obliged to answer something. When that person refuses even ever to engage with anything though, then he's just a proselytiser.

Yes, I know this repeated discussion which we have had before came out of your non sequitur to that point. And whether it's me, yourself or the Great Psllbump of Arcetania that you are trying to convince about AB's motivations in order to call him a liar, it doesn't seem worth the effort from you.

Anyway,more on AB is just further down this derail where people want to talk about him.

[Nearly Sane]

I repeat the question AB has been asked, I think, twice:


Do these microscopic aliens have souls?


Edited to remove stray letter e

Do imaginary aliens have souls? He used an analogy. The aliens don't exist. It's a mistake in how analogy works to ask this type of question seriously!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just by way of a postscript, perhaps the fault is mine for responding at all to AB. After all the clue was there all along: he's told us that he's "absolutely certain" of his faith beliefs, indeed he seems proud of it. Why then would he have any interest in actually discussing anything? Of course he wouldn't. All he wants to do is to tell us what his beliefs are, and for the rest of us to agree with him. However catastrophic the reasoning that got him to and sustains those beliefs his only purpose is to proselytise for them and never, ever to examine them.

Fair enough. Why he's here and not exclusively in the faith sharing area is a matter for the Mods, but for my part it's lesson learned time. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Do imaginary aliens have souls? He used an analogy.

Yes he tried to, but the question was legitimate nonetheless because it identified a fault in his thought experiment - ie, that his aliens too would suffer from the infinite regress problem.

The aliens don't exist. It's a mistake in how analogy works to ask this type of question seriously!

Yes we know, but the bigger mistake was in thinking a car plant working to a design was analogous to the way evolution works. I explained this to him but, as ever, he just ignored the explanation.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes he tried to, but the question was legitimate nonetheless because it identified a fault in his thought experiment - ie, that his aliens too would suffer from the infinite regress problem.

Yes we know, but the bigger mistake was in thinking a car plant working to a design was analogous to the way evolution works. I explained this to him but, as ever, he just ignored the explanation.

Nice tu quoque there. Someone else's mistake is irrelevant to using an analogy in the wrong way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Nice tu quoque there. Someone else's mistake is irrelevant to using an analogy in the wrong way.

It's not a tu quoque. The question about AB's aliens having souls went to the legitimacy of one part of his his attempted analogy. That the analogy also failed for another reason in any case is a separate matter.

[Nearly Sane]

Just by way of a postscript, perhaps the fault is mine for responding at all to AB. After all the clue was there all along: he's told us that he's "absolutely certain" of his faith beliefs, indeed he seems proud of it. Why then would he have any interest in actually discussing anything? Of course he wouldn't. All he wants to do is to tell us what his beliefs are, and for the rest of us to agree with him. However catastrophic the reasoning that got him to and sustains those beliefs his only purpose is to proselytise for them and never, ever to examine them.

Fair enough. Why he's here and not exclusively in the faith sharing area is a matter for the Mods, but for my part it's lesson learned time.

Moderator To clarify the FSA is for threads at the choice of the original poster of the thread. It is not for individual posts , or posters to be moved there. Hope that helps any confusion

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It's not a tu quoque. The question about AB's aliens having souls went to the legitimacy of one part of his his attempted analogy. That the analogy also failed for another reason in any case is a separate matter.

You already admitted that is was a misuse of analogy, that AB may have misused analogy or done it badly is an irrelevant tu quoque to that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You already admitted that is was a misuse of analogy, that AB may have misused analogy or done it badly is an irrelevant tu quoque to that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

You did read the See also Two Wrongs Don't make a Right reference in the link?

Asking seriously if the aliens have souls, is an abuse of analogy. If AB has created a bad analogy, that doesn't make the abuse any better.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You did read the See also Two Wrongs Don't make a Right reference in the link?

Yes, but that's still not what happened.

Asking seriously if the aliens have souls, is an abuse of analogy. If AB has created a bad analogy, that doesn't make the abuse any better.

You're missing it still. No-one was asking seriously whether aliens have souls. Rather within the constaints of his attempted thought experiment they were asking whether the aliens he posited would have souls.

Incidentally, given how often a Mod will move a discussion around this site I'm a bit surprised at your comment re the FSA. Does that mean that if I do nothing but post sermons here you'll leave them here rather than move them to the FSA as a mater of course?   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, but that's still not what happened.

You're missing it still. No-one was asking seriously whether aliens have souls. Rather within the constaints of his attempted thought experiment they were asking whether the aliens he posited would have souls.

Incidentally, given how often a Mod will move a discussion around this site I'm a bit surprised at your comment re the FSA. Does that mean that if I do nothing but post sermons here you'll leave them here rather than move them to the FSA as a mater of course?

Moderator Use of boards should be raised via PM

[Alan Burns]

NS,

Doesn’t wash. If someone has some command of language and is capable of grasping logical concepts in other areas of his life, what then should we make of it when the same language and the same use of logic to reach a conclusion he doesn’t like is just ignored? To take AB’s “totally random” nonsense for example, when it’s explained to him why that’s wrong he could readily attempt to counter argue but instead he just keep repeating “totally random” as a mantra as if the correction had never been made.

It’s not that it’s impossible for him “to see the point” (unless his use of language and basic logic has temporarily abandoned him) but rather that at some level he’s choosing to ignore it.       

Just to clarify, my use of the expression "totally random" referred to the production of genetic mutations - not to the TOE as a whole.  I do understand how natural selection works.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to clarify, my use of the expression "totally random" referred to the production of genetic mutations - not to the TOE as a whole.  I do understand how natural selection works.

Then why if that is the case did you post at 20746:

“I would say that any evolutionary process relying entirely on random events to drive it has absolute zero probability of producing anything as intelligent as an earthworm.”?

If you want to reverse ferret to genetic mutation only that’s fine, but no-one argues for “evolutionary process relying entirely on random events” (my emphasis) at all.

You’ve made this mistake countless times by the way – I cited just one example for convenience.

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

Then why if that is the case did you post at 20746:

“I would say that any evolutionary process relying entirely on random events to drive it has absolute zero probability of producing anything as intelligent as an earthworm.”?

If you want to reverse ferret to genetic mutation only that’s fine, but no-one argues for “evolutionary process relying entirely on random events” (my emphasis) at all.

You’ve made this mistake countless times by the way – I cited just one example for convenience.

Again I think this reads in AB's shorthand that evolution as we know it is driven by mutation, and this is random. He's writing on a message board and  he's clarified the position. It's still based in his incredulity and I think a lack of appreciation of the power of natural selection but surely continuing to point that put is the way to go? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Again I think this reads in AB's shorthand that evolution as we know it is driven by mutation, and this is random. He's writing on a message board and  he's clarified the position. It's still based in his incredulity and I think a lack of appreciation of the power of natural selection but surely continuing to point that put is the way to go?

His error is deeper than that – essentially it’s just Paley’s watch re-stated: “How could this really complex thing be if everything necessary to cause it occurred randomly?” He's framed his argument this way many times so the example I cited wasn't just a slip of the tongue on his part.

It’s baby steps though. If he now grasps that it’s the relationship between the random and the non-random that’s critical to the ToE we could move on to the other various issues that confuse him. We might for example explain that evolution is incremental – it need only produce each tiny step one at a time, so looking at a person or a raccoon or an earthworm and asking “what are the chances?” is misplaced, or we might look at the maths of huge numbers operating over huge periods of time, or we might rebut the false logic of survivor bias and the reference point error.

I have to say that I have very little confidence that he’d engage with any of it rather than continue with the Theresa May style mantra approach (“There is no magic money tree”, “There is no magic money tree” etc) of personal incredulity but you never know – maybe he’ll surprise us yet.   

[floo]

Just to clarify, my use of the expression "totally random" referred to the production of genetic mutations - not to the TOE as a whole.  I do understand how natural selection works.

You certainly don't seem to understand it if your posts are anything to go by.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Then why if that is the case did you post at 20746:

“I would say that any evolutionary process relying entirely on random events to drive it has absolute zero probability of producing anything as intelligent as an earthworm.”?

If you want to reverse ferret to genetic mutation only that’s fine, but no-one argues for “evolutionary process relying entirely on random events” (my emphasis) at all.

You’ve made this mistake countless times by the way – I cited just one example for convenience.

Genetic mutations are the driving force - without them there would be no natural selection.  The main point I have tried to make is that truly beneficial mutations will be extremely rare if all mutations are randomly generated.  Yet the TOE seems to presume that there will always be sufficient beneficial mutations to drive the natural selection process to build up highly complex organs using thousands of incremental steps, each of which has to have substantial survival benefit in its own right.  You claim the end product is just pure chance, because the TOE has no underlying aims or goals apart from survival.  But can you not see divine purpose in the awesome attributes you have acquired?

[Gordon]

Genetic mutations are the driving force - without them there would be no natural selection.  The main point I have tried to make is that truly beneficial mutations will be extremely rare if all mutations are randomly generated.  Yet the TOE seems to presume that there will always be sufficient beneficial mutations to drive the natural selection process to build up highly complex organs in incremental steps, each of which has to have substantial survival benefits.  You claim the end goal is just pure chance, because the TOE has no underlying aims apart from survival.  But can you not see divine purpose in the awesome attributes you have acquired?

Nope: none whatsoever.

[torridon]

Genetic mutations are the driving force - without them there would be no natural selection.  The main point I have tried to make is that truly beneficial mutations will be extremely rare if all mutations are randomly generated.  Yet the TOE seems to presume that there will always be sufficient beneficial mutations to drive the natural selection process to build up highly complex organs using thousands of incremental steps, each of which has to have substantial survival benefit in its own right.  You claim the end product is just pure chance, because the TOE has no underlying aims or goals apart from survival.  But can you not see divine purpose in the awesome attributes you have acquired?

Leaving aside the issue of the attributes that are less than awesome, how would anyone recognise divine purpose in an attribute ?