--------------4C746F003AB2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry, meant this for the list, and didn't get the address line edited.
--------------4C746F003AB2
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Message-ID: <338F9D52.4D39@cts.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 20:38:58 -0700
From: Michael Fisher <mwfisher@cts.com>
Organization: Some discernable, if you look carefully
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Court <hoover1@NETCOM.CA>
Subject: Re: "DAY" (to Dave(to Ian))
References: <199705310108.VAA11393@tor-srs1.netcom.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
(DAVE 5/30) . . . Although I acknowledge the tremendous discoveries of
science, it is very apparent that science hasn't discovered all there is to
discover (as our daily newspapers and periodicals show us)
MWF
As a matter of fact Dave, for every bit of knowledge about a system
gained, an equal amount is lost, so at some point there is indeed a limit
past which we cannot go.
Whether this has much affect on our ability to find out "the rules"
that make the universe tick, however, is quite another question.
And yet another question is just what we can validly infer from what
we do know--and as usual in matters of science (and philosophy, and history,
and geography etc. etc. ad nauseam), your ignorance is indeed both apparent
and appalling.
(DAVE 5/30)
- so to rely strictly on what science has shown us, may not be the best
course (and I acknowledge you are open to new information).
MWF
"Rely strictly on what science has shown us" for what Dave?
Yet another example of equivocation in action. You make a statement
so vague and general that it means, really, nothing at all. I get a picture
of you sort of (metaphorically speaking) floating around your house and
business, with a dreamy vacant smile, almost like you've overdosed on Prozac
or a sister drug, mouthing vague platitudes which ever leave room for endless
equivocations and other fallacies, thus protecting your core belief by never
actually asserting anything.
And always with that vacant smile.
(DAVE 5/30)
I, personally, don't think science has shown us a very significant portion
of all there is to know of our universe
MWF
Given your track record of proven knowledge on scientific matters,
you'll have to excuse me if I say your opinion on matters scientific (or
philosophical, or historical, etc.) is pretty much worthless.
If you can make an actual argument, if you know how, then go ahead
and do so.
Here's where you can go for some help (which you desperately need):
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
and
http://www.sonoma.edu/cthink/Library/intraits.html
The rest of the critical thinking site is accessible from the
intraits.html page--and you need to print out the logic page, and spend a LOT
of time at the critical thinking site and linked resources.
(DAVE 5/30)
- evolution is, at best, a viable working theory
MWF
Which statement is simply further proof that you have no idea
whatsoever what you are talking about.
The sky is blue. This is a fact, immediately apparent to the senses.
The earth is round. This is a fact, which an individual can prove
through his/her own efforts alone, if they so choose.
The earth is in orbit around the sun. This is a fact. The proof is
indirect, but once you've mastered the necessary fundamentals, utterly
compelling.
An electron can be in two places at the same time. This is a fact. It
takes some sophistication to set up the experiment, but the data, once you
have it, is conclusive.
And life evolved on the planet earth from simple beginning over 3.5
billion years ago. This is a fact. The evidence is more overwhelming than
that of the blue sky, the roundness of the earth, the orbital motion of the
earth, or the odd behavior of the electron. You're just too lazy and too
dense--and too brainwashed, and too ignorant to understand it. The ignorance
is easy to fix--if you get past the other obstacles.
[And yes, I may appear to be violating some of the principles on the
intraits page, but you've pretty well proved yourself worth of about all the
intellectual contempt I have any desire to dish out. You still can't
construct a logical argument, and you continue to make precisely the same
sophomoric reasoning fallacies over and over and over.]
(DAVE 5/30)
and, as far as the age of the universe, it again, has at best, theories
MWF
See above. You are proving yourself to be truly con temptable Dave.
(DAVE 5/30)
- are there other variables out there we have yet to discover?
MWF
Very probably Dave. But even more probably, whatever they may be,
they'll either fit right into the standard models--or produce a yet more
powerful model, which just as relativity and QM absorbed classical mechanics
such that classic mechanics is still the most useful description of the
everyday matter with which we work, any future information will leave
whatever we already know as at worst a special case within a more genera--and
more yet more powerful theory.
But then, it takes some minimal knowledge of science, and the history
of science---both of which you obviously lack--to appreciate that.
(DAVE 5/30)
I have no idea,
MWF
That's just what I've been saying Dave. You have no idea of much of
anything at all, apparently by design.
Makes it possible to maintain your delusional mental state.
And that empty vacuous smile.
(DAVE 5/30)
but I wouldn't be surprised if there are.
MWF
Oh my yes. There are very many ideas out there Dave.
You might try acquainting yourself with some.
(DAVE 5/30)
So, no, I don't think any of us have enough to go on as far as tackling,
conclusively, this issue of the age of the universe,
MWF
That's what I've been trying to pound into your awesomely thick skull
for months.
And no data = NO DATA.
And where there is no data--NO CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN--PERIOD.
(DAVE 5/30)
and the possible role of evolution in it.
MWF
Evolution, qua biological evolution, thou thick skulled one, has not
one damn thing to do with the origin of the universe.
(DAVE 5/30)
This is why I really have no definite position on either of these two
issues.
MWF
What you have Dave, is an utter inability to comprehend rational
argument and a bottomless pit of ignorance into which any "ideas" get sucked,
never to be seen again.
(DAVE 5/30) Ian: I don't agree that if god created this universe he HAD to
do it through evolution -
MWF
Only because of that bottomless pit of ignorance you call your mind.
Every scrap of data that exists, that indicates anything at all one way or
another, indicates the universe evolved.
If you think that is mere puffing---find a "contrary" piece of
evidence and try and present it. Just bring along a jar of Vaseline.
(DAVE 5/30)
if God does exist, as an omnipotent being,
MWF
Then he is self contradictory, and therefor really can't exist in the
first place.
Next piece of nonsense
(DAVE 5/30)
evolution wouldn't be required. It could be a method by which he does it
(or parts of it), but it wouldn't be mandatory.
MWF
Incoherent, vague, vacuous, equivocal, rambling nonsense.
If you want to make an argument, make one.
This rambling bull shit is just that, nothing but bull shit.
(DAVE 5/30)
As far as his reasons for revealing himself to us,
MWF
Duh. You have some evidence such a thing has ever happened?
Read chapter ten of Hume's Enquiry recently? Nah, no way, you
couldn't handle Hume in the original. Try and find a commentary written at
about a Jr. High level. Allot plenty of time, find a philosophy teach with a
LOT of patience, and see if you can understand that part.
(DAVE 5/30)
that is a good question,
MWF
No, it is a very STUPID question, absent any evidence capable of
overcoming Hume's objection.
And Hume's objection pretty well destroys any possibility of any such
evidence existing, period.
Which means it is a just a VERY STUPID QUESTION--PERIOD.
(DAVE 5/30)
which backs us up a step:
MWF
Not unless you can revert to being a pair of gametes Dave.
(DAVE 5/30)
if he created us in the first place,
MWF
That is, to understate it slight, a huge, massive, colossal, titanic
if, for which there is not a SINGLE shred of evidence.
If I'm wrong there, please produce this evidence--but be prepared to
present a logical defense. And since this would be your first try at a
logical argument, don't forget the Vaseline this time either, (you'll be
needing it for a long time).
(DAVE 5/30)
it must have been for a reason -
MWF
Dave, answer this: how can an omnimax deity DO anything? How can he
think AT ALL. Can a being with perfect and complete knowledge of its own mind
ever think?
Think about it.
(DAVE 5/30)
his revelation to us would only be the manifestation of that reason.
MWF
Why? Further, why would he reveal himself to us at all?
Why?
(DAVE 5/30)
It makes perfect sense that he reveals himself to us,
MWF
Why? It makes no sense to me at all. Do I "reveal" myself to any of
the projects I construct? I certainly never "revealed" myself to my
sub-woofer, or the jury rigged (albeit effective) crossover.
`Why would omnimax care what some very small toys inside his bigger
toy think?
(DAVE 5/30)
as he made the "effort" to create us.
MWF
How much "effort" can it be for an omnimax to "do" anything?
Why would omnimax have ANY feelings of ANY kind AT ALL? Emotions are
survival traits that us evolved critters have inherited since they tend to
increase reproductive success.
What need does the omnimax Yahoo have of emotions?
(DAVE 5/30)
The real question is "why did he create us?". Do you agree?
MWF
No, the real question is;
"Why do grown, and supposedly educated, men continue to believe in
the sky spook of ignorant desert nomads from the dawn of civilization, here
at the end of the 20th century when a machine has just beaten the world chess
champion and men have walked on the moon?"
Wondering if Dave's brain is connected, I remain;
-- Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student* * * He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. Thomas Paine
--------------4C746F003AB2--