Philosophy Discussion Forums

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 5:55 pm

EricPH wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 11:28 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 8th, 2022, 4:33 pm Darwin's theory of evolution has been proved to be correct hundreds of times, despite a constant attempt to debunk it.

God created everything according to its kind, and they have been left to evolve. I see no problem with this understanding of evolution.

You have no leg to stand on. I am mystified as to why you would risk destroying your faith by tainting it with ridiculous pseudoscience claims. Just accept that your deity is subjective and appreciate the incredible efforts your fellow humans have made in increasing our understanding of biological evolution.

You cannot trace a clear path with real evidence from the life we see today, back to single cell life, using only unguided evolution as the complete answer. Evolutionary evidence is littered with phrases like, could have, possibly, likely to have, believed to be, etc. It seems scientists have a low level of confidence for evolutionary evidence. When scientist use more convincing language, I will take more notice.

The following link shows how Darwin's theory can create new designs, but only when guided by a programmed supercomputer.

Among the new technologies to be tested aboard the ST5 spacecraft is an antenna that was designed by a computer running a simulation of Darwinian evolution. This evolved antenna was discovered by an evolutionary algorithm running for days on a supercomputer.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st5/TECHNO ... tenna.html

Yesterday I was reading up on the evolution of life. Then I thought of the dumb, regressive debates about evolution on the forum, and I felt embarrassed to be associated with it. I look at your post now and see those same tired, recycled arguments - resolved a long time ago - but theism is entirely based on the capacity to ignore inconvenient information.

It's amazes me how you and others truly believe that you can achieve more in seconds than geniuses can achieve in a lifetime of dedication. It's shameless Dunning Kruger effect. I am done with such foolishness. Go ahead with your creationist nonsense, but I will not waste more time on it.

Please don't take this the wrong way SB, but you seem to pontificate a lot. Meaning, your responses always seem to be hyperbolic and emotional. For instance, you use words such as shameless, foolishness, dumb, and so on. Yet when asked to support your assertions you seem to be a deer in headlights.

While using those kinds of words or rhetoric doesn't bother me personally, it tends to distract from the specific arguments. But more importantly it feeds into your misinformation campaign. Have you thought about doing a thesis and actually starting a thread versus trolling other people's?

On the other hand, I'm in the process of doing a little thesis on materialism and the primacy of the Will (part v). As such, I can certainly understand why you would use a word like nonsensical !

Meta, your lack of honesty and credibility shines through with every post.

Did life evolve or was it created by a universal anthropomorphic spirit?

It's a non-issue.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 7:08 pm Meta, your lack of honesty and credibility shines through with every post.

Did life evolve or was it created by a universal anthropomorphic spirit?

It's a non-issue.

Does that response mean you cannot support your assertions? You know, by intentionally distracting from the arguments?

Oh well, no worries, you may want to consider taking the time to do a thesis and a thread that would help alleviate those frustrations, yes?

I want to give you a little credit though, at least you're asking the right questions SB, well, sort of. I mean that's an interesting question but far from novel. You know, didn't I answer that one already? Darwin only hypothesized from an existing ensemble of creatures, not the first one ex nihilo. Deer in headlights, again?

Oh, SB, I love playing around with you but just had a spiritual revelation! And, an idea for your new thread! Is your anthropic spirit like quantum spooky action at a distance? You know , like quantum particles behaving without any direct physical connection or communication, and popping in and out of existence?

You have a choice.

1. Continue making false claims about me, including the insinuation that I stopped due to your superior [x] rather than disgust, or

2. You can address the thread subject matter.

Option #1 leads to a locked thread. Option # 2 keeps it open.

These topics are for philosophical discussion - even absurd topics like this one - not a platform for your constant Facebook-ish stream of implied and explicit ad hominem attacks.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 8:33 pm You have a choice.

1. Continue making false claims about me, including the insinuation that I stopped due to your superior [x] rather than disgust, or

2. You can address the thread subject matter.

Option #1 leads to a locked thread. Option # 2 keeps it open.

These topics are for philosophical discussion - even absurd topics like this one - not a platform for your constant Facebook-ish stream of implied and explicit ad hominem attacks.

Are you threatening us or me? Do you think I should report your behavior to Scott?

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 2:26 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 2:04 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 9:06 am

Belindi wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 6:44 am
I still find your lexicon hard to understand. For instance "one's Will having causal powers in human behavioral systems" I'd express as "A human psyche is oriented towards its future behaviour." You may find my lexicon strange. If I say I am influenced by Satre's existentialism that may make my expression a little clearer.

(Talk of Will especially if capitalised makes me suspect you believe in Free Will).

There's a difference between the Existentialism of Ecclesiastes, Kierkegaard and even Maslow (yes, believe it or not, some consider him a cognitive Existentialist), v. Satre. Your lexicon is too vague. Try to focus more on the concepts of cause and effect. It will take you places you've never dreamed of... !! In other words, your derivation excludes all entities with causational properties and powers

Causal determinism is indeed interesting.
BTW what do you mean by "your derivation"? What has my derivation to do with any philosophical conversation?

Because you were hung-up on delivery and not substance?

You have this habit of editing your sentences until they require more concentrated effort to understand than is worth the effort. Why not write plain English not excluding appropriate use of philosophical jargon ?

Do you not see that "your derivation" would normally pertain to country or race of origin?

Belindi wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 8:53 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 2:26 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 2:04 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 9:06 am

There's a difference between the Existentialism of Ecclesiastes, Kierkegaard and even Maslow (yes, believe it or not, some consider him a cognitive Existentialist), v. Satre. Your lexicon is too vague. Try to focus more on the concepts of cause and effect. It will take you places you've never dreamed of... !! In other words, your derivation excludes all entities with causational properties and powers

Causal determinism is indeed interesting.
BTW what do you mean by "your derivation"? What has my derivation to do with any philosophical conversation?

Because you were hung-up on delivery and not substance?

You have this habit of editing your sentences until they require more concentrated effort to understand than is worth the effort. Why not write plain English not excluding appropriate use of philosophical jargon ?

Do you not see that "your derivation" would normally pertain to country or race of origin?

Okay. I love philosophy as I'm sure you do. What is it about my statement, that I just made, that is not discernible?

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 9:01 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 8:53 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 2:26 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 2:04 pm
Causal determinism is indeed interesting.
BTW what do you mean by "your derivation"? What has my derivation to do with any philosophical conversation?

Because you were hung-up on delivery and not substance?

You have this habit of editing your sentences until they require more concentrated effort to understand than is worth the effort. Why not write plain English not excluding appropriate use of philosophical jargon ?

Do you not see that "your derivation" would normally pertain to country or race of origin?

Okay. I love philosophy as I'm sure you do. What is it about my statement, that I just made, that is not discernible?

"Where did you get your ideas?" and "What don't you understand?"
Try to keep your language as simple as possible.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 2:26 pm



There's a difference between the Existentialism of Ecclesiastes, Kierkegaard and even Maslow (yes, believe it or not, some consider him a cognitive Existentialist), v. Satre. Your lexicon is too vague. Try to focus more on the concepts of cause and effect. It will take you places you've never dreamed of... !! In other words, your derivation excludes all entities with causational properties and powers

When a confused idea meets the Thesaurus, what we witness is the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Belindi wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 5:57 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 9:01 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 8:53 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 2:26 pm

Because you were hung-up on delivery and not substance?

You have this habit of editing your sentences until they require more concentrated effort to understand than is worth the effort. Why not write plain English not excluding appropriate use of philosophical jargon ?

Do you not see that "your derivation" would normally pertain to country or race of origin?

Okay. I love philosophy as I'm sure you do. What is it about my statement, that I just made, that is not discernible?

"Where did you get your ideas?" and "What don't you understand?"
Try to keep your language as simple as possible.

By simple, what exactly do you mean here?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 6:25 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 2:26 pm



There's a difference between the Existentialism of Ecclesiastes, Kierkegaard and even Maslow (yes, believe it or not, some consider him a cognitive Existentialist), v. Satre. Your lexicon is too vague. Try to focus more on the concepts of cause and effect. It will take you places you've never dreamed of... !! In other words, your derivation excludes all entities with causational properties and powers

When a confused idea meets the Thesaurus, what we witness is the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Is that like gaslighting?

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 8:56 am

Belindi wrote: ↑November 10th, 2022, 5:57 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 9:01 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑November 9th, 2022, 8:53 pm

You have this habit of editing your sentences until they require more concentrated effort to understand than is worth the effort. Why not write plain English not excluding appropriate use of philosophical jargon ?

Do you not see that "your derivation" would normally pertain to country or race of origin?

Okay. I love philosophy as I'm sure you do. What is it about my statement, that I just made, that is not discernible?

"Where did you get your ideas?" and "What don't you understand?"
Try to keep your language as simple as possible.

By simple, what exactly do you mean here?

Like you are trying to explain it to a child of ten.

This thread should be called the MEGA God of the Gaps Fallacy thread. If there's something missing, then God. Ironically, a mystery in itself, open to all kinds of speculations.

The arrogance of atheism is that it's companion, scientism, can, or someday will, find in science an explanation for everything, so that there are no gaps left to fill with God as the explanation.

(1) This assumption is not science or philosophy. This is a religious faith in the omnipotence of the human mind and totally without proof.

(2) As science advances, with every new discovery more and more gaps are opened up, so that many scientists are baffled by the inability to fill these gaps. This suggests that if God is playing chess with humans, he will checkmate in every game.

My point just proven.