Saturday, November 22, 2014

Re: [AvC] Schoolboy gives "Proof of God for you, nonbelievers"

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 1:06:21 PM UTC-7, Alan Wostenberg wrote:
> John you say you mean by evolution "the theory of the origin of species through descent with modification by natural selection". On this model, what's doing the evolving?
>
> The species? No, for species does not change. It is what it is.
>
> The individual? No, for an individual is whatever species it is as long as it is.
>
> A multitude? No, for in the multitude there is no substance surviving the change.
>
> So, John, in evolution as you understand it, what thing is evolving?

Species are not fixed, Alan. Evolve means "change with time" and what changes are the genomes of populations. Evolution is the change of allele frequncies with time in a population. (Evolution is a population phenomenon.)

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: argument from desire








On Nov 22, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Amos <gary@placeoftheskull.com> wrote:

Inherently, we only desire justice for ourselves, (survival of the fittest), not for others. External influences are what teach us to desire justice for others.

How do you know that? 

See my addendum to this post.

A child is not born with any desire for justice, but it is something that a child's learns very early in life as a result of social interaction and cooperation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baby-justice/

Interesting idea and it could be true but it hasn't yet been established. It's very hard if not impossible to prove what is a result of social interaction and what is inborn. Even if social interaction is a factor in a desire for justice, the tendency toward it may well be a natural inclination. 

Lois

Re: [AvC] Re: argument from desire








On Nov 22, 2014, at 12:36 PM, "'yarrido@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com> wrote:



On Saturday, November 22, 2014 1:12:40 AM UTC-5, LL wrote:







On Nov 21, 2014, at 4:37 PM, "'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com> wrote:



On Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:19:52 PM UTC-5, LL wrote:







On Nov 20, 2014, at 4:45 PM, "'yar...@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity"<atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com> wrote:

All of your questions have been addressed within the body of the text. Sadly, you missed the subtle explanations. I am sorry that you found them too complicated.

You ask for examples then you become insulting when someone presents them.

   My response was descriptive, not derogatory. If you chose to take it as the later rather than the former, that is your choice. I did nothing to influence it.

It was derogatory. You implied it was "too complicated," cor me instead of responding to my points. 
 
I can only assume that you have no rational response to my examples,

   Not at all, I did respond to specifics, but they somehow got lost in the ether. Not sure what happened on the network. I will give only one example in the lost item that clearly illustrated that no one desires injustice, but we all desire justice. You, yourself, are a clear example as you have championed the cause of justice regarding capitalism, which I certainly applaud you for.

I don't  remember mentioning capitalism in this thread. 


Capitalism is pure filth. But I digress, the fact that no one desires Allah the unjust naturally from within, but is socially derived and it is Islamic cultural pressures that are responsible for its spreading. Thus it has its source from external influences not from our human natures. It is part of the Muslim deception that Allah is the beneficent...when one examines him closely, one will find him to be an unjust one and we all naturally thirst for justice, not injustice.

I didn'tnmention Allah, either. 

Hopefully, this post will make it through the router and out to you.

It made it through but the "reasoning" is as inane and incomprehensible as ever.

  Which confirms what I descriptively said before...that you did not understand it.

Saying your opponent doesn't understand your premise is often used as a stand in for an actual response to the points made by people who cannot support their argumemt rationally. 


So, now you agree with what you thought was an insult. It isn't. There's a whole lot of things that a lot of folks don't understand. That's not an insult...it is just part of human condition.

Then  you obviously don't understand my points. That's not an insult toward you.  After all, there are a whole lot of things that a lot of folks don't understand. That's not an insult...it is just part of human condition.


It is just a shame that you didn't understand what was offered...especially since you are not in a position to critique it because of that. Bob seems to have gotten it though. Oh well.

It's also a shame that you don't understand what I offered, which means you are not in a position to critique my response because of it. You're no better than anyone who contradicts your premise, and you also don't understand rational thought in general. 

LL
 
 
that they effectively negate the  philosophy  you state and you can't defend it. So you dismiss it and accuse me of finding it too complicated. A typical theistic answer, frequently used by theistic apologists when they can't support their contention. I did not find it complicated, I found it irrational. And you obviously have no answer to that charge. 

LL






LL


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: argument from desire



On Saturday, November 22, 2014 7:58:55 PM UTC+1, Alan Wostenberg wrote:
Lois, to premise 1
1) Every innate or natural desire corresponds to some objective state of affairs that fulfills it...

You raise the objection

"I desire to win a big lottery. I'll be darned if I can figure out a way to fulfill that desire. "

Which is an instance of the very objection "wishing does not make it so" Which fr Barron anticipates, and rebuts, here - http://bit.ly/1ux3EBE  . Where do you think he misfires in addressing your objection?

"And thus, precisely in the measure that the desire under consideration is an innate and natural desire, it does indeed prove the existence of its proper object."

Why? Why does it prove anything at all? And where's the evidence that the desire is innate and natural anyway?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] You made us for yourself and our heart is restless until it rests in You

"you arouse [us] to delight in your praise, for you made us for yourself and our heart is restless until it rests in You". -St. Augustine.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: argument from desire



On Saturday, November 22, 2014 2:11:05 PM UTC-8, Alan Wostenberg wrote:

Fr. Barron: Every innate or natural desire corresponds to some objective state of affairs that fulfills it.

Loop: There's no logical necessity for this premise. Objective state of affairs are circumstantial.

Alan: Fr Barron isn't claiming "logical necessity" if by this you mean a necessary truth such as "no bachelors are married". He is arguing from observation. Look around. We notice that no innate desire is in vain.


What part of circumstantial you just don't get? If Barron isn't talking about logical necessity then your premise can only be contingent. Your desires don't necessarily have any objective state of affairs that can fulfill them.  It doesn't matter,  for example,  that some natural desires correlate to what's available in the environment. There's no guarantee that they will be or are. You can't claim that they must exist on the grounds that desire necessarily establishes their existence when it's circumstantially the case that they might be.   Not every conception has an objectively existing referent. Desiring what is ideal is desiring a conception,  not a perception. Only a perception has a direct link to an objective state of affairs.  The ideal is indeterminate,  & self-referential, ever-expanding,  infinitely.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: argument from desire

Fr. Barron: Every innate or natural desire corresponds to some objective state of affairs that fulfills it.

Loop: There's no logical necessity for this premise. Objective state of affairs are circumstantial.

Alan: Fr Barron isn't claiming "logical necessity" if by this you mean a necessary truth such as "no bachelors are married". He is arguing from observation. Look around. We notice that no innate desire is in vain.

The baby innately desires food, well, there is such a thing as food. This does not of course mean he'll be fed -- which I take to be the point of your second sentence.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.