Debating Creationists

[Gottservant]

As if its your right to pass judgment, now that you are ending the conversation.

You still haven't answered the question, is data its own start and end point?

Also have you ever wondered why data preceeds our thoughts about it?

 

[variant]

As if its your right to pass judgment, now that you are ending the conversation.

Why wouldn't I have such a right?

 

[Gottservant]

Why wouldn't I have such a right?

You've got to be kidding, right?

And you're not going to answer my question?

Avoidance.

 

[variant]

You've got to be kidding, right?

And you're not going to answer my question?

Avoidance.

I'm not going to answer it again, if that is what you mean.

 

[Gottservant]

You said

Unsupported. The only observers we know about that observe like us are us, and we definitely observe a world of data.

Data precedes our thoughts about it.

Which dodges the question entirely and then gives a random thought that changes the context.

Answer the question: is data its own start and end point?

You patently know this does not make sense, so you are avoiding it.

 

[variant]

Answer the question: is data its own start and end point?

You patently know this does not make sense, so you are avoiding it.

I already answered that it was the start point and no one said anything about it being the end point.

I'm not going to go round and round on the same issue with you though.

 

[Gottservant]

You hardly addressed it, believe me I have checked.

Now you are saying it is the start point but not the end point, and I am interested to know how you justify that claim.

Stop putting some needless price on your opinion, it's worth almost nothing (even if you're perfect).

 

[variant]

You hardly addressed it, believe me I have checked.

Now you are saying it is the start point but not the end point, and I am interested to know how you justify that claim.

Stop putting some needless price on your opinion, it's worth almost nothing (even if you're perfect).

There is plenty of cost in time and effort associated with engaging people, so while you may not value my time or patience I do.

So, I am going to take my own advice and not engage you further.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Yes but if it's factually wrong, you can't easily affirm it, can you? That's the point. It's evident in principle long before it's evident in fact. As I said, there is far too much data for that on its own to be an answer to anything.

All the data shows the myth of Noah and the flood is factually wrong, yet many people on this forum affirm it.

 

[Damian79]

You said



Which dodges the question entirely and then gives a random thought that changes the context.

Answer the question: is data its own start and end point?

You patently know this does not make sense, so you are avoiding it.

"Data" is its own start point. "Interpretation" is the end point. To say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Gottservant]

"Data" is its own start point. "Interpretation" is the end point. To say otherwise is being intellectually dishonest.

I would argue that data is not its own start point and that interpretation is "an" end, not "the end". So we clearly differ in opinion, which is the point. Variant doesn't seem to grasp the need to state this, despite a vocal belief in fact.

The point is, if data is its own start and end point as Variant is suggesting, then it's resolution is internal to itself and science is not needed, thus principle which requires spirit becomes that which governs the interpretation of what remains (as you may have been alluding to). So whether you like principle or not, it is there whether data is contingent or exclusive, which is my point.

Unfortunately Variant can't handle greater powers existing over anything apparently, so the conversation will be terminated at an embarassing exit stage right - embarassing because to live without principle is at the very least a great embarassment.

 

[variant]

I would argue that data is not its own start point and that interpretation is "an" end, not "the end". So we clearly differ in opinion, which is the point. Variant doesn't seem to grasp the need to state this, despite a vocal belief in fact.

The point is, if data is its own start and end point as Variant is suggesting, then it's resolution is internal to itself and science is not needed, thus principle which requires spirit becomes that which governs the interpretation of what remains (as you may have been alluding to). So whether you like principle or not, it is there whether data is contingent or exclusive, which is my point.

Unfortunately Variant can't handle greater powers existing over anything apparently, so the conversation will be terminated at an embarassing exit stage right - embarassing because to live without principle is at the very least a great embarassment.

Note how in the entire conversation I merely said that data was the starting point and ideas are descriptions of it, and gave no indication of anything of the rest of this gibberish. I like how you continually shift the conversation to different topics when the ones you've chosen don't work out.

I suspect you didn't really spend any time paying much attention to what I was saying and have constructed viewpoints for me in your head.

Well if you can have the entire conversation without me why bother?

My rebuttal:

Walk Cycle - YouTube

 

[Gottservant]

I introduced a concept, you are not answering it.

This is typical of Evolutionists.

When its too hard to be opinionated, you withdraw into your shell and everyone has to cow tow to your wants.

 

[variant]

I introduced a concept, you are not answering it.

This is typical of Evolutionists.

When its too hard to be opinionated, you withdraw into your shell and everyone has to cow tow to your wants.

Hard? What's hard is finding any relevance in your question to our discussion.

We've already established that data precedes principle and that was all I was discussing with you.

Typical of creationists you want to have an entirely new discussion every time the other person doesn't respond in a way you can counter, moving the discussion along and requiring that the other person keeps defending different points.

They call it moving the goal posts.

And I am not interested in your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Gottservant]

You cannot see that I am guiding you into reason with my question? Or you don't want to know?

Intellectual dishonesty? Really? I was going to demonstrate that data cannot be its own start and end point if it attempts to be a part of any kind of meaningful set whatsoever, but you seem to think you know this, and wait, that you already don't need to know.

In other words, you are spoon feeding the conversation from inside a shell you were in from the beginning and now you are hurling insults to prevent yourself from being found out, your baby "data" is therefore acidically prepared as a defence mechanism should anyone try to convince you that science is a doormat to belief in God.

 

[variant]

You cannot see that I am guiding you into reason with my question? Or you don't want to know?

Intellectual dishonesty? Really? I was going to demonstrate that data cannot be its own start and end point if it attempts to be a part of any kind of meaningful set whatsoever, but you seem to think you know this, and wait, that you already don't need to know.

In other words, you are spoon feeding the conversation from inside a shell you were in from the beginning and now you are hurling insults to prevent yourself from being found out, your baby "data" is therefore acidically prepared as a defence mechanism should anyone try to convince you that science is a doormat to belief in God.

And no one ever said data was the end point so you're off on your own little tangent there (note how I have now reminded you of this fact more than once). For it to be "meaningful" to a sentient being would be different than the discussion we were having about how data is the beginning and that meanings rationality, and principles are derived out of the data set.

Yes, that is what we call intellectual dishonesty, it occurs when someone starts changing the terms of the argument to suit themselves. You were about to do exactly what I have accused you of and I merely stopped our discussion the moment the goal posts shifted.

Limit yourself to debating what the other person has actually presented as their argument and you are unlikely to get people to respond in the way I have.

For someone so fond of rhetoric you don't seem to understand the rules.

Cheers.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes but if you arbitrarily introduce the idea that data is its own start point - as you are doing - then what is the difference between that and arbitrarily introducing the idea that data is its own end point also.

So you see, the idea that I am arbitrarily steering the conversation is actually a projection of your own confused imagination about where things begin.

Believe me, if I thought correcting you was my job, you would suffer a great deal more than to answer a simple question (which to my recollection is all I've asked).

Now if you honestly believe that you are going to where you started up (and you're not) because that is where the data all points, then by all means go back there, but don't drag everyone else along and then claim the higher ground on the basis of principle which people were trying to tell you was more important all along... thankyou.

 

[variant]

Yes but if you arbitrarily introduce the idea that data is its own start point - as you are doing - then what is the difference between that and arbitrarily introducing the idea that data is its own end point also.

They are different ideas with different consequences and one doesn't follow from the other.

It would be a bit like me saying your father preceded you, which would in no way imply that he also succeeds you.

What I have been arguing is that data is primary to interpretation for our system of viewing the world.

So you see, the idea that I am arbitrarily steering the conversation is actually a projection of your own confused imagination about where things begin.

It's not arbitrary at all, you are just added a very confused idea as a consequence when it is in no way shape or form a consequence.

And I have corrected you several times now, and, I have no intention of defending an idea that I did not present.

Believe me, if I thought correcting you was my job, you would suffer a great deal more than to answer a simple question (which to my recollection is all I've asked).

Now if you honestly believe that you are going to where you started up (and you're not) because that is where the data all points, then by all means go back there, but don't drag everyone else along and then claim the higher ground on the basis of principle which people were trying to tell you was more important all along... thankyou.

I am not responcable for your sloppy intellectualism, but I do notice how your position only seems to work if you assume a theistic mindset.

Very muddled thinking indeed.

 

[Gottservant]

They are different ideas with different consequences and one doesn't follow from the other.

Yes but for all intents and purposes it is the exact same thing.

It would be a bit like me saying your father preceded you, which would in no way imply that he also succeeds you.

No it is like turning up to a manufacturing plant, walking up to the assembly line and saying "this bottle here was obviously produced by the industrial machine, but that bottle there, definitely not" when they are the same bottle.

You posit my argument "across time" as if somehow what I say is across time when what you say is "in the moment"... it doesn't follow.

What I have been arguing is that data is primary to interpretation for our system of viewing the world.

It's primary to a secondary interpretation that eschews the spirit of principle for the letter of principle, but it cannot exist as a primary interpretation because without an observer that only principle can create, any associations made primarily are meaningless. If you could show that arbitrarily ignoring the meaninglessness of certain associations in the beginning was justified by ignoring equally meaningless associations in the end, then you would have a point...

...but only by first establishing the principle of equanimity.

And I have corrected you several times now, and, I have no intention of defending an idea that I did not present.

No need to track it for me, I am well aware of what you have said. Look back if you want, I had to hammer the point of arbitrariness a number of times before you even realized that was what I was saying.

I am not responcable for your sloppy intellectualism, but I do notice how your position only seems to work if you assume a theistic mindset.

Very muddled thinking indeed.

Congratulations you have come to the realization that there is a God, by observing my adherence to principle. I myself said nothing of the sort, but you are quite correct. I can only conclude that you are complimenting me for maintaining principle through what has clearly been a very slow conversation.

Now I suggest you ask yourself, if I am thinking there is a God now and my data does not suggest that I would, what else am I thinking exists in relation to the principle this person is clearly sticking to? Am I an observer of my own principle? Or do I contend that the basis for my own observation is facile?

 

[variant]

Yes but for all intents and purposes it is the exact same thing.

No, no it isn't. You can just assert this all you like, but I am not interested in your sloppy thinking.

It's primary to a secondary interpretation that eschews the spirit of principle for the letter of principle, but it cannot exist as a primary interpretation because without an observer that only principle can create, any associations made primarily are meaningless. If you could show that arbitrarily ignoring the meaninglessness of certain associations in the beginning was justified by ignoring equally meaningless associations in the end, then you would have a point...

...but only by first establishing the principle of equanimity.

That is another assumption of yours, that the universe requires meaning to exist. Unsupported.

I suggest you think these things through more before you assert them as if they are facts.

Congratulations you have come to the realization that there is a God, by observing my adherence to principle. I myself said nothing of the sort, but you are quite correct. I can only conclude that you are complimenting me for maintaining principle through what has clearly been a very slow conversation.

Now I suggest you ask yourself, if I am thinking there is a God now and my data does not suggest that I would, what else am I thinking exists in relation to the principle this person is clearly sticking to? Am I an observer of my own principle? Or do I contend that the basis for my own observation is facile?

I came to the realization that the assumption of a God is the basis for your argument (and thus it is quite circular), not that your argument is a coherent or good one.

Quite the opposite really. And, it's quite simple really, all this logical dancing you do is trying to hide the fact that you have assumed your conclusion true before you ever started.