< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 9 ·
|Dec-01-16|| ||Jay60: <diceman> The word you are floundering about for is "compliment". To "complement" means to "add to" something.|
|Dec-01-16|| ||OhioChessFan: Thoughts:
To <Jonathan Sarfati>, someone can dig through your various writings to find if you've addressed an issue, but that seems a bit much to expect a priori. I suspect I've asked <Ray Keene> questions he's already addressed in his books somewhere and would be surprised to see him react similarly. Your call, but I think you were a bit harsh.
To <Jay60> you misused the term ad hominem. And what scientific analysis of God would you expect? The proof of God is essentially based on historical and philosophical grounds.
<diceman> yes, it's "compliment".
|Dec-01-16|| ||Jay60: <OhioChessFan> I used "ad hominem"as the dictionary defines it "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining". The invective included "puerile" here, and "sounds cute from a 5-year-old in a Sunday school class, but it is ridiculous from grown adults" etc. in the link provided. |
As for scientific analysis of God, my point was a bit different. If you look at my earlier post, the point is that (a sort of pseudo) scientific analysis is used to claim that life could not have originated without "intelligent design". However the existence of God is not subject to scientific analysis. This becomes a case of appealing to scientific analysis when it is convenient and ignoring it when it is not.
I said pseudo scientific analysis as the probability of the origin of life through randomness is the the multiple of two numbers, one very very large and the other very very small. The very very large number is the product of the number of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and other atoms in the universe multiplied by the age of the universe, the very very small number is the probability of conditions that these atoms find themselves in situations (rare earths) where they have the opportunity of forming life multiplied by the probability that these atoms interacting without intelligent design would actually end up combining in a way to form life per unit of time.
Any "scientific analysis" which claims to say that the probability of life appearing in universe approaches zero without actually estimating the above numbers is merely "pseudo scientific analysis".
"Historical grounds" is unconvincing to many. We hear of many miracles happening around the world, the face of Mother Mary appearing on rock faces etc. How are any miracles, historical or modern any different?
"Philosophical grounds" are just poor logic. Usually philosophical arguments for God, like most other philosophical (and liberal arts) arguments suffer from the use of imprecise language. Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. What do the following words mean? "being", "perfectly", "beautiful", "contemplating" etc. Appeal is made to our everyday understanding of these words, but that understanding is fuzzy and imprecise, and building on that understanding leads to unsustainable conclusions.
Pedantic arguments by philosophers like Aristotle, Aquinas etc. sound pretty to students and may even convince them, but are not sufficiently accurate to discover the nature of reality.
Having said all this, I would also think that God is very important for a good life. But God has to be based on ideas that are accurate and humanistic. Otherwise, God just becomes a way for the elites to justify and continues systems that oppress the masses and inevitably lead to wars.
|Dec-01-16|| ||diceman: <<diceman> |
yes, it's "compliment".OhioChessFan:>
I figured since I was making "no sense"
to <Jay60>, I was God like.
|Dec-01-16|| ||OhioChessFan: <Jay: the point is that (a sort of pseudo) scientific analysis is used to claim that life could not have originated without "intelligent design". However the existence of God is not subject to scientific analysis. This becomes a case of appealing to scientific analysis when it is convenient and ignoring it when it is not.>|
Not "convenient", but "appropriate".
<Any "scientific analysis" which claims to say that the probability of life appearing in universe approaches zero without actually estimating the above numbers is merely "pseudo scientific analysis".>
I am not persuaded we need parse out DNA numbers to the nth degree to know it ain't gonna happen.
<"Historical grounds" is unconvincing to many.>
If I happen to turn bad and commit a crime and the only evidence against me is 100 eyewitnesses, I hope to get a jury full of people who share that opinion.
< We hear of many miracles happening around the world, the face of Mother Mary appearing on rock faces etc. How are any miracles, historical or modern any different? >
The resurrection of Jesus is in a different world in that regard, in historicity, in the validity of the eyewitnesses, in the eyewitnesses willingness to die for what they claim, in the impossible task of suggesting an alternative explanation. I abhor the silly claims often proposed as miracles, faces in toast or on land formations or lights in the sky or what have you, and wish my side would stop them.
<"Philosophical grounds" are just poor logic. Usually philosophical arguments for God, like most other philosophical (and liberal arts) arguments suffer from the use of imprecise language. Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. What do the following words mean? "being", "perfectly", "beautiful", "contemplating" etc. Appeal is made to our everyday understanding of these words, but that understanding is fuzzy and imprecise, and building on that understanding leads to unsustainable conclusions.>
This isn't definitive enough to respond to, but I think some of the philosophical arguments are lacking, Pascal's Wager drives me crazy it's so weak, but some strike me as extremely strong.
<Pedantic arguments by philosophers like Aristotle, Aquinas etc. sound pretty to students and may even convince them, but are not sufficiently accurate to discover the nature of reality.>
If you want to call it a tie and say "Neither of us can know", fine. The problem is the Science Side with winks and nods and insinuations and implications puts on an act of really knowing their position is right without actually being that definitive. I think it's dishonest, although it works on the average college student.
<Having said all this, I would also think that God is very important for a good life. But God has to be based on ideas that are accurate and humanistic.>
I 100% agree our ideas of God need be accurate. I'm not sure what you mean by humanistic.
< Otherwise, God just becomes a way for the elites to justify and continues systems that oppress the masses and inevitably lead to wars.>
I see a lot of that in the world. False religion abounds.
|Dec-01-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <OhioChessFan:> My page, my rules. If someone wants to engage me on my professional activities on a chess site, then the least they could do is study what I've written. The comparison with GM Keene is not quite right, since his books are all about chess, as is this site.|
|Dec-01-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Jay60:>
"Anyway, though you have a PhD in Chemistry, I don't think you have ever considered the number of galaxies in the universe, the number of stars per galaxy, the number of planets per star, the number of carbon atoms per planet, the number of incidences of chemical reactions per carbon atom etc. etc. before coming up with the claim that random reactions could have produced life."
That's exactly the sort of nonsense I won't tolerate on my chess page. As it happens, I've address all that in "Answering another uninformed atheist: Galileo, Miller–Urey, probability" http://creation.com/answering-anoth...
|Dec-02-16|| ||optimal play: <Jonathan Sarfati> I find some articles on the Creation Ministries website to be interesting and thought-provoking, but I am perplexed by the apparent need to link Christianity with Young-Earth Creationism.|
I wonder if you are familiar with the arguments put forward by the contributing Christian scientists on http://biologos.org/ who have no problem reconciling Christianity and Evolution?
May I ask if you have ever found any evidence in your scientific inquiries which appeared to contradict a literal reading of the Old Testament Book of Genesis?
May I also ask your opinion on what you consider to be the most accurate age of the universe? Would you estimate the universe to be only about 6,000 years old or could it be as old as 10,000 to 11,000 years?
Thanking you in advance for your response.
|Dec-02-16|| ||Jay60: <OhioChessFan> Thanks for your reply. I am currently traveling and will answer when I have time. I will post my answer to your OhioChessFan page rather than here. Be well.|
|Dec-02-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <optimal play> Once again, of course I am familiar with all the old-earth arguments. I wrote a whole book explaining why they are incompatible with Scripture http://creation.com/refuting-compro...|
I also wrote a detailed article detailing the problems with theistic evolution http://creation.com/response-to-the...
Some colleagues have addressed BioLogos http://creation.com/biologos
|Dec-02-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Jay60> That's a better idea. I would prefer that my chess page isn't clogged by debates about my profession.|
|Dec-02-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <optimal play:> About the age, see http://creation.com/6000-years and http://creation.com/6000-years-qa|
|Dec-02-16|| ||optimal play: <Jonathan Sarfati> Thank you for your response.|
As per your request to <Jay60> not to clogg your chess page with debates about your profession, I won't pester you with any further questions.
However, may I suggest, in order to prevent any further unwanted intrusions of this nature, you might like to delete the link in your user profile to creation.com
At least then people won't get the wrong idea that you're open to discussions on that topic.
All the best.
|Dec-03-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <optimal play:> I am semi-open to discussions, but would prefer that people use that link so that I don't have to reinvent the wheel.|
|Dec-12-16|| ||Big Pawn: <jonathan>, I was following your discussion with <optimal play> and went to visit creation.com again. I clicked around and ended up at this video of yours https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNG...|
You explained why Europe overtook China in scientific progress. I though you might find it ironic that I was explaining the exact same thing on the <rogoff> page a few years ago.
<Big Pawn: <Appaz: <<Big Pawn> <appaz> You are ignorant.>
Right. Would you care to explain to us ignorants more precisely which part of "Christian worldview" made it into this modern science?>
The topics has been thoroughly discussed just weeks ago: Kenneth Rogoff
A theistic worldview gave rise to the idea that the universe would have order. It was on this assumption that modern science was able to actually be implemented.
The Chinese, on the other hand, were late getting into the game and did not participate in the modern scientific revolution. This is because they did not expect to find order in the universe.
Science still today assumes certain things to be true. You do understand that, right? This is how science works:
1. First we make assumptions.
2. Then we do science
Those assumptions are based on a theistic worldview. It's the implications of a theistic worldview that allowed science to get on its feet in the first place.>
Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #126548)
In fact, you may find the discussion that took place on that link quite amusing, and all too familiar.
It's actually amazing that our explanations are very, very close; very similar, not just a little similar.
Theism brings order into the universe upon which we can base the assumptions necessary for science.
Well how about that!
|Dec-12-16|| ||Richard Taylor: Hi Jonathan do you contest Global Warming? If so, it is indeed one of those things that are not clearly empirically true. But I come at it from a different angle (I think Trump, whether he is right about GW or not is making a big mistake re the general environment and also his other attitudes): my "angle" is more from the problem of knowledge. I keep to a fairly narrow focus on this so that while it looks as though I might be "allied" to, say, postmodernism, it comes instead for me from the general knowledge-truth justification attempts - something has to be true, to be believed to be true, provably so, justified methods and measuring methods etc etc but not from a philosophic viewpoint (which seems like absolute relatavism say of Protagoras who was supposed to have said "Man (Humanan Beings) is the measure of all things." and also to the effect that: "Absolute knowledge can never be known and if it was I couldn't explain it to you." (Something like that...) complex leads me via Wittgenstein to the idea that knowledge is language dependent if not relative. |
That said, again, I know that pollution, over resource use (destruction of native Indian lands by this oil pipe seems quite wrong to me) and so on are big issues throughout the world and other issues (clean water if possible), whether or not GW can be reasonably assumed true.
On Chess, at approaching 69 thinking of giving up active competitions but I am tempted by the Zonal as it is held in Panmure-Mt Wellington not far from where I live.
All the best for Xmas!
|Dec-13-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Big Pawn:> Very good!|
|Dec-13-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <Richard Taylor:> I would like to see market solutions and prioritization on the lines of what Bjørn Lomborg proposes. He doesn't deny AGW but thinks there are far cheaper solutions that will help far more people. https://www.prageru.com/courses/env...|
The zonal should be good fun especially so close. Merry Christmas to you and yours too.
|Dec-14-16|| ||Richard Taylor: Regardless of Climate Change. It was very easy to solve all pollution problems in the Capitalist countries at a cost of about 10% of the GDP in the 70s. However the problems are connected also to not only economic problems but to the problem of knowledge. That is to know something the second criteria you have to believe that thing to be true (it has to be true)...regardless of the truth or not of AGW or even the "truth" of various political solutions, in some cases those and in fact people throughout the world have to believe it. Now this isn't to do with religion or anything. Someone simply has to stop believing something to be true (no reason has to be given or even assumed) and they then don't have knowledge. |
This makes knowledge a social question not simply a scientific or economic or a measurable thing. In the end we have to go by commonsense!
I don't try to prove GW but I don't think the taxes proposed have much effect. They are the least the UN etc can propose.
But in NZ I think it is good we spend money on protecting species, watching the high levels of river pollution from fertiliser (overuse) and the problems of erosion as well as the need for rabbit and other control. In additon I think subsidies in NZ and possibly the US are almost essential in some circumstances for farmers. As to tax it needs to be weighted against the very rich in my view. But obviously at the moment, in theory, it would be foolish to diminish Big Money (corrupt as they are) so paradoxically Trump has a point...he is a kind of latter day Muldoon. But de facto the usual market forces will continue...
That said, the real problem with Trump is the corrupt nature of the individual and the ideas he and his followers spread. He is someone they need to get out of the way quickly.
[BP thinks I mean he should be assassinated!! I can see he talks on here but I have him "switched off" as he is like a worn out record and very unimaginative and rather tedious.]
Unfortunately Trump is encouraging the downgrading of women, black people, immigrants and ethnicities of many kinds and putting the boot into those who are disadvantaged.
But we will see what happens.
|Dec-14-16|| ||Richard Taylor: Re the Chess. I am now approaching 69 so I am not sure. When I think about playing, I know I wont improve, but there is always a sense of "what if"....|
Each chess game is like a journey...the "road not taken" and all that. But reality kicks in. Bruce Watson isn't playing as he does a mowing round and has to keep working and I think he likes to be on holiday....
But it is one week with 2 days of 2 rounds so I am still deliberating. I wont have another chance. I might beat that GM!
because my rating has dropped it is possible that in Rd 1 I will face an IM or a GM. Of course in all likelihood I'll be leveled but I was glad to get the chance to play the various IMs and FMs as well as GM Rasmussen in 2015 which was an exciting game given the time pressure he was under...!! But I cracked first.
Leonard McClaren is going to play I think. He has some chances of getting good rating points. Bruce Watson had a chance although he always seems to go under against Solomon.
Earlier this year I talked with Gary Lane about his book on the Scotch etc and in fact I mentioned I was playing it during the game I was playing (last round) and he gave me the thumbs up. But then I played a move I had always known was dubious and eventually lost. But I still like the opening as well as the Ruy. If I play I am still an 1 e4 player....
Oh well, I will have to balance it up. I can save $160.00 and work on my house (slowly painting it and repairing etc)...or go on a short holiday or...play the terrible addictive game of chess!
All the best again.
|Dec-21-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Sometimes the liberal Catholic arguments of the likes of <optimal play> aren't much different to those of atheists.|
|Dec-23-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: Review of “Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism: A Discussion for Those Who Believe”|
December 22, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Evolutionary theory and its arguably massive negative impact on modern culture has come under closer scrutiny and greater criticism in recent decades. The following detailed, scholarly review of Thomas L. McFadden’s recently published book on the subject would hopefully interest readers in purchasing a copy of the 275-page book. This could help them to better comprehend many of the controversies covered in LifeSite reports. Although the title refers to Catholicism, non-Catholic Christians would also benefit from the book.
Creation, Evolution, and Catholicism: A Discussion for Those Who Believe, by Thomas L. McFadden, North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016.
|Dec-23-16|| ||saffuna: <Evolutionary theory and its arguably massive negative impact on modern culture has come under closer scrutiny and greater criticism in recent decades. >|
The impact of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether it is true.
|Dec-23-16|| ||diceman: <saffuna: <Evolutionary theory and its arguably massive negative impact on modern culture has come under closer scrutiny and greater criticism in recent decades. >|
The impact of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether it is true.>
Is "impact" the same as "negative impact?"
|Dec-23-16|| ||Jonathan Sarfati: <saffuna>, I never claimed otherwise. Similarly, it is possible to deal with both the negative impact and falsity, as per the review cited. Elsewhere, I have pointed out:|
The two main *logically independent* issues that CMI addresses are:
1. Is evolution right?
2. Why does it matter?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 9 ·