06-27-2011, 08:58 PM
(06-27-2011, 07:19 PM)Annuit Coeptis Wrote: Virtual zero means that there is a very minute chance of a certain outcome, so small of a chance that the actual possibility is said to be zero. The problem with differentiating the two is where do you draw the line? What actually has a zero chance of happening? For every outcome of anything I can make up some absurd explanation that has very little chance and little to no evidence. Besides, how does differentiating the difference between virtual zero and actual zero prove any of what I said to be false? It doesn't. It just differentiates the difference between virtual zero and actual zero.
Your attempt at mincing words here is an utter failure. You're basically rounding down to zero, and then predicating the rest of your arguments on a false analogy (i.e., that being close to zero is the same as zero itself).
You want to know where to draw the line? Okay then.
0 = 0
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 > 0
The line is drawn -- mathematically -- when you go from an equal sign to a greater than sign.
Also, your suggestion that you can make more fallacies in your defense (such as reductio ad absurdum, like you stated) is just greater proof that your logic stands on shaky ground, I mean, heck... If we're talking about fantasy here, then your supposition that God can affect the physical universe is undone by the fact that it's fiction.
What's to stop me from making fictions myself, in order to combat yours? I'm sure you've heard of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster before. If your intent was to throw objectivity out the window this entire time then you should've probably stated that in your OP.
God didn't do the impossible; it wasn't impossible to begin with -- just incredibly unlikely. That's my point.
Providence Wrote:I agree with you. I cannot truly grasp the size and complexity of this universe. I never said that this world doesn't operate according to rational laws. I believe that the world adheres to rational laws and that is only the more reason to believe in a rational designer.
That, my friend, is a contradiction of terms, a failure of imagination on your part, and a perfect example of how the human mind is limited when it encounters things outside of its normal experience.
You're trying to inject a human element into the universe in the form of "God". Unfortunately, anthropomorphism of that nature doesn't exist at the cosmic scale. This has more to do with psychological transference of things that are known -- onto things that are unknown -- rather than real, factual science.
Providence Wrote:I also agree with this statement. There are plenty of Darwinists who cannot allow God as an explanation of anything because they have a prior commitment to materialism. This is absurd because they presuppose that God cannot be an explanation and thus choose not to believe what there is evidence for, nor do they want to even begin to review the evidence. This is the willful blindness that I mentioned in previous posts.
No matter how much you may wish it, lies are not the same as truth, and fallacies are not the same as evidence -- though you have much to say, little of it is of interest to me because of your preexisting misconceptions about epistemology.
Willful blindness can be justified when the idea or opinion in question is pointless and/or irrelevant in the first place. Simply yelling and begging that you're right doesn't make it so. You must provide proof.
Quote:I never said that ritual was the etymology of the word religion. Read the post where I said that more carefully and you will see.
Even relating it to religion is inaccurate (in a linguistic sense).
Quote:Origin:
1560–70; < Latin rītuālis, equivalent to rītu-, stem of rītus rite + -ālis -al1
In its modern-day usage, "ritual" appeared about 400 years after "religion" did. Also, the Latin root words are unrelated as well, which I've already shown.
You aren't really fit to be attacking OR defending either side of this argument.