durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,574
- 19,255
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Correct. The best genius! A very stable genius!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Correct. The best genius! A very stable genius!That's "UUUBBBEEERRR Genius."
As stable as Wile E. Coyote I suppose.Correct. The best genius! A very stable genius!
lets be careful not to mock other users, as this is a "christian" forum after all. I respect other users, and I pray they respect me, and I would not like some people mocking my avatar name on the thread. Thank you!Correct. The best genius! A very stable genius!
every positive statement need citation. I made positive statements and backed them up with peer review. Some others made positive statements and cited wikipedia. Then asked me to prove them wrong. Which is reversing the burden of proof for his positive statement. It's not that it's convenient, it's simply using logic.How convenient, that you can make whatever claim you want but when people say you’re wrong they must cite sources, and it it better not be Wikipedia!
Wikipedia is not a source in itself, but it is an aggregate of information that often does come from cited sources. Even so, it is perfectly sufficient in response to an unsupported claim, like your initial one that sharing behavior is not observed in nonhuman animals.
Oh I like Uber Genius.lets be careful not to mock other users, as this is a "christian" forum after all. I respect other users, and I pray they respect me, and I would not like some people mocking my avatar name on the thread. Thank you!
please read the several governmental links, and peer reviews I posted. If you can't find them I will try to back read and find them. But you should be able to do that yourself. But yes homosexual males have a 40% higher chance of getting HIV that heterosexual males. (see citation from other posts).Your statement that:
“For example male on male homosexual sex, makes the immune system very weak...”
Is so obviously, ridiculously false I’m surprised that I have to point it out. This nonsense is just making you look even worse than you would have just by posting one of the worst “proofs” for a god’s existence I’ve heard.
So tell me, how does oral sex between two men with no venereal diseases make their immune systems weak?
well, yes I would agree. But lets be careful. It is a fine line laughing with someone and laughing at someone.Oh I like Uber Genius.
And I appreciate his contributions here.
But seriously, if youre going to call yourself "Uber Genius" you have to expect a little silliness in response.
Others made positive statements in response to your positive claim that there were no instances of food sharing behavior in nonhuman animals. It is a positive claim to say that something doesn't happen, even thought the word "not" is in the sentence. If all statements framed negatively were free of the burden of proof, I could just say "there is no god" and be free of any burden of proof. But we all know it doesn't work that way.every positive statement need citation. I made positive statements and backed them up with peer review. Some others made positive statements and cited wikipedia. Then asked me to prove them wrong. Which is reversing the burden of proof for his positive statement. It's not that it's convenient, it's simply using logic.
I didn't take it as such. After all I do have a picture of Wile E. Coyote as my avatar. Clearly, Wile E. is not the most self-aware individual on the planet.lets be careful not to mock other users, as this is a "christian" forum after all. I respect other users, and I pray they respect me, and I would not like some people mocking my avatar name on the thread. Thank you!
Correlation is not causation. So what’s the mechanism for a weak immune system, then?every positive statement need citation. I made positive statements and backed them up with peer review. Some others made positive statements and cited wikipedia. Then asked me to prove them wrong. Which is reversing the burden of proof for his positive statement. It's not that it's convenient, it's simply using logic.
Here again we have a problem in that our evolution based on the idea of a selfish gene or survival doesn't seem to be as intuitively obvious as "Murdering innocent people is wrong," or "It is okay to rape someone as long as the practical benefits outweigh the cost."Moral facts are a part of the battery of myths we have adopted as a society in order to justify cooperation at the cost of individual selfish gain. There are obvious practical benefits to cooperation, and moral behavior is heavily incentivized by our innate sense of empathy, but the myth of moral facts comes in handy when the individual benefits aren’t so obvious.
actually in athiests in the past have used this argument: The statement that God exists is a positive statement and needs proof, however a negative statement like "no He does not." does not need to be proven because you are simply asking for verification of the positive statement. But in general it is good that positive and negative statements be cited with evidence in general. But not if the negative statement is a response to a positive statement or critique. Let me post this again for you:It is a positive claim to say that something doesn't happen,
I explained this above.even thought the word "not" is in the sentence. If all statements framed negatively were free of the burden of proof, I could just say "there is no god" and be free of any burden of proof. But we all know it doesn't work that way.
Further, it is not valid to say that because the source they cited is Wikipedia, your initial claim is not properly refuted. It may or may not be, but it's now your job to research the claims made by Wikipedia just as it was their job to research your claim that certain animal behavior doesn't happen. You're making the positive claim that their information is factually incorrect. You have to demonstrate it now.
I have not based a truth claim of an argument on the origin of it's claims. I have simply asked you to verify that your source is a valid source. And you haven't.I do not mind that you prefer to debate the logic of other people's positions rather than their factual content, but if you're going to do that, you can't be committing logical fallacies yourself. By attacking the source rather than the information, you are doing exactly that. Again, this is the genetic fallacy. I'll go ahead and copy-paste it for you this time:
Atheists who make the claim that there is no god and then say they don't have to back up that claim are wrong. I do not argue in that manner.actually in athiests in the past have used this argument: The statement that God exists is a positive statement and needs proof, however a negative statement like "no He does not." does not need to be proven because you are simply asking for verification of the positive statement. But in general it is good that positive and negative statements be cited with evidence in general. But not if the negative statement is a response to a positive statement or critique. Let me post this again for you:
Shifting the Burden of Proof
many people shift the burden of proof, even Christians.
that’s why we must all appeal to common logic, and honesty. We don't learn to think rationally by general classwork, we must train our minds to be rational.
It’s a discipline we must undergo.
I cannot prove God exists, but I can make a compelling case for His existence.
But to say, you can't disprove his existence, is simply shifting the burden of proof.
under the refuting arguments section of a (nonpartisan site about logic) it says
"In a formal argument, the primary arguer must establish a ...case (that stands on its own) and thus carries the burden of proof.
The opponent only needs to show that the case is not proven to win the argument"
above quote from:
Refuting the Argument
I have already agreed with you that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. That doesn't mean that the information found in the articles cited are necessarily false. You still have to put in the work to find that out, gradyll. If your claim is that those articles are false, then you have the burden of proof to show that they are, and it does not follow that because Wikipedia has been wrong in the past, it is wrong about this. Once again, that would be the genetic fallacy.This is reversing the burden of proof. "to make me research and find out if your claims on an unofficial website are true." When I have proven before by some studies done that a good percentage of wikipedia pages have error. So I as a general rule don't use wikipedia for debate. Due to the error rate medical professionals and sometimes scientists have refused to use the site.
I wasn't the one using Wikipedia sources, mine were actually from PubMed and various other journals.I have not based a truth claim of an argument on the origin of it's claims. I have simply asked you to verify that your source is a valid source. And you haven't.
And lastly, I am not saying the material is wrong, in the last five posts I have actually been treating it as valid, and have refuted it. So if you have questions on those points I made, go back and reread the previous posts and reply there.
The problem of skepticism is inescapable no matter what you decide ultimately grounds your epistemology, so your objection is a non-issue. You can place God at the base of your epistemology, but then you could never reliably reason about God because God would be the one directing your reasoning. But if your reasoning about God is unreliable, then God has no business at the base of your reasoning. The strength of the evolutionary argument, then, is the fact that whatever it has ultimately enabled us to believe has helped us to survive and shape the future, and if that's not close to the truth then truth is of no practical use.Here again we have a problem in that our evolution based on the idea of a selfish gene or survival doesn't seem to be as intuitively obvious as "Murdering innocent people is wrong," or "It is okay to rape someone as long as the practical benefits outweigh the cost."
It is easy to explain the sort of behavior we see in Nazi Germany as survival of the fittest similar to what we see in the animal kingdom, but it is much less obvious to explain acts of heroism, kindness, mercy, that are the basis of all our great novels and culture heros, especially in the US, as a function of darwinian mechanisms. Where is the survival benefit in mercy?
But what is even more important to recognize is that William Lane Craig is sympathetic to evolution just not naturalism. So he argues that our self-evident intuitions about the origin of moral values is common to all, and that this could be a function of evolution of rational capabilities allowing self-evident objective truths like the law of the non-contradiction, excluded middle term, identity, intuition on axiomatic math principles etc.
So for evolution to serve as a defeater for objective moral values and duties it must be ontic that is say "Here is why they don't exist." It appears that you are just giving an argument for why we don't trust our intuitive knowledge of morals. That in fact that knowledge is most likely illusory due to your evolutionary explanation.
I do think that the evolutionary argument you give has some more serious problems.
Let's grant your evolutionary account. Namely that our intuitions about a set of objective moral values is not self-evidently true as many atheistic moral philosophers have suggested (Bertrand Russell, Ayn Rand). In fact evolution has tricked us into having a false intuition that instead of it being associated with a true feature of the external world is just a false belief resulting from some societal conditions and empathy, etc. But then we have a defeater for not just our intuition of objective moral values being true but other similar intuitions. In fact since the mechanisms of evolution don't operate on accumulation of true beliefs but rather survival of the fittest, where do we stop the damage to our belief, given your thesis.
So we have an evolutionary argument against rationality of moral intuitions, but also intuitions in general, and rationality in general since the chess club and latin club together would not likely fair well in a darwinian contest against the wrestling or the football team.
I never said the information was false, I said the source was false and in a debate setting, you need good sources. As far as my views....Atheists who make the claim that there is no god and then say they don't have to back up that claim are wrong. I do not argue in that manner.
As your source says, you must establish a case for your claim (that animals do not share food) and this is doubly true in light of the fact that others have contradicted you and cited sources. It is not enough to discredit the source. You must discredit the claims found inside the source.
I have already agreed with you that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. That doesn't mean that the information found in the articles cited are necessarily false. You still have to put in the work to find that out, gradyll. If your claim is that those articles are false, then you have the burden of proof to show that they are, and it does not follow that because Wikipedia has been wrong in the past, it is wrong about this. Once again, that would be the genetic fallacy.
I wasn't the one using Wikipedia sources, mine were actually from PubMed and various other journals.
Yes, you moved the goalposts once it was demonstrated that animals do in fact share food, and then you took the position that food sharing in animals was purely instinctual or incidental, not a sacrificial effort to help other members of the group. You haven't supported this claim, and I hope you aren't asking me to prove you wrong before you prove you're right. Even if you were right, what would that mean? It's clear animals have at least some semblance of a moral system, ours is just more complex. Your argument hinged on animals not having any sense of morality. Because they do, it is not surprising to find that humans universally tend to accept a certain set of moral beliefs, too.
I don’t need to disagree with that point, although I doubt it very seriously. I’m much more interested in why you think that poses a challenge to the belief that morality in humans developed as a result of natural pressures.I never said the information was false, I said the source was false and in a debate setting, you need good sources. As far as my views....
I use logic, there are no animals that I know of that share food in a sacrificial way. And you have not even disagreed with that point. This is common sense. Logic itself is the source of that information.
This, obviously, didn’t answer my question, which is as you’ll recall:please read the several governmental links, and peer reviews I posted. If you can't find them I will try to back read and find them. But you should be able to do that yourself. But yes homosexual males have a 40% higher chance of getting HIV that heterosexual males. (see citation from other posts).
this is the flow of the conversation: I said that man shows love and benevolence to his fellow man and that this was proof of a natural law because animals of similar size brains do not show the same love. then you said cognitive abilities do not rely on the brain alone, which I would disagree with. Then you claimed that the animals posted on wikipedia proved that animals had the same morality as humans. And then I showed that animals don't show self sacrificial love. (my source is logic on this one, because no animal has been seen with those traits that I know of). So basically two species with similar brains, develop different ethics, one follows morals by intuition, and the other follows instinct. so basically there is no proof that humans developed morality as a result of natural pressures, because animals have not developed that feature. And there are no other existing evidences to prove that point. So it naturally fails to persuade. I get this reasoning because human's allegedly evolved from animals. So if they are showing differences on this level, It supports that human morality is absolute. Because as I said in the op, there is no land or culture where selfishness is honored. This proves a supernatural law that crosses, cultural, language barriers and religious or lack of religious barriers. And because there is no proof of the cause of this absolute morality, it is of my opinion that it's source is in God Himself.I don’t need to disagree with that point, although I doubt it very seriously. I’m much more interested in why you think that poses a challenge to the belief that morality in humans developed as a result of natural pressures.
Cool.this is the flow of the conversation: I said that man shows love and benevolence to his fellow man and that this was proof of a natural law because animals of similar size brains do not show the same love. then you said cognitive abilities do not rely on the brain alone, which I would disagree with. Then you claimed that the animals posted on wikipedia proved that animals had the same morality as humans. And then I showed that animals don't show self sacrificial love. (my source is logic on this one, because no animal has been seen with those traits that I know of). So basically two species with similar brains, develop different ethics, one follows morals by intuition, and the other follows instinct. so basically there is no proof that humans developed morality as a result of natural pressures, because animals have not developed that feature. And there are no other existing evidences to prove that point. So it naturally fails to persuade. I get this reasoning because human's allegedly evolved from animals. So if they are showing differences on this level, It supports that human morality is absolute. Because as I said in the op, there is no land or culture where selfishness is honored. This proves a supernatural law that crosses, cultural, language barriers and religious or lack of religious barriers. And because there is no proof of the cause of this absolute morality, it is of my opinion that it's source is in God Himself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?