Post by s23b on Dec 21, 2009 14:22:50 GMT
Take it away, old buddy!
0:00
Hi!
0:10
OMG!
0:30
No, we don't. Maybe you've stopped thinking about big questions, but we didn't. This attempt to ridicule people, who don't claim to know the ultimate truth is pretty silly.
0:40
"Since the creation of man" it's not a good start to assume that you're right.
0:50
Non sequitur.
2:45
Straw man. I hope I don't need to explain why
4:00
I actually agree with you. It is silly to assume that somebody believes in a God just because they were told so. That would be a straw man, and what kind of silly person could use such thing to get his point across?
4:00
No, It is the other way around. The Television program is false because there are no monsters under your bed. If someone in the 5th century claimed that he was made of stardust, because he had a dream about it, the belief was true, no matter if how irrational the source was.
4:55
Straw man. Our cognitive functions are based on chemical processes, not accidents.
5:02
Again, no, a belief can be true no matter how rational or irrational the source is.
5:20
Nature does not have a cognitive function? So you're assuming that humans are not part of nature (their cognitive functions being governed by immaterial souls) which is btw the point you are trying to prove? What is circular reasoning, if not this?
5:55
Non sequitur, natural doesn't mean untrustworthy. This argument being highly flawed, the attempt to conclude, that evolutionist couldn't be trusted on being rational falls down to a level of a silly ad hominem attack.
7:00
So you are assuming that your cognitive skills being from immaterial sources are completely trustworthy. This is a huge fallacy, because by this you assume that those who argue against your case have the same perfect cognitive skills. Reductio ad absurdum is your enemy!!!
Also if the natural origin of thoughts makes them untrustworthy, if we assume that your cognitive skills are natural in origin, that would mean that your reasoning is flawed. Two possible scenarios, one leads to absurdity, other to possibility.
Of course this is not a proof for thoughts being natural, because it was based on your false assumption, that natural means untrustworthy and supernatural means trustworthy.
9:10
FINALLY!!! You have raised an interesting point! However determinism isn't in itself absurd, so you cannot disregard it with your personal incredulity.
10:59
If the consciousness was the result of brain activity, we should observe loss of consciousness in case of serious injuries, or we should observe split personality in split brain patients. OH wait! We do!!! (Ho Ho Ho... sarcasm )
Let's illustrate the ridiculousness of the last argument by applying it to something common: electrons cannot create mobile phones. Neutrons can't create mobile phones, neither do any other particles. So combining these particles together we couldn't ever get a mobile phone. So mobile phones are immaterial, and God exists, and our worldview is rubbish.
0:00
Hi!
0:10
OMG!
0:30
No, we don't. Maybe you've stopped thinking about big questions, but we didn't. This attempt to ridicule people, who don't claim to know the ultimate truth is pretty silly.
0:40
"Since the creation of man" it's not a good start to assume that you're right.
0:50
Non sequitur.
2:45
Straw man. I hope I don't need to explain why
4:00
I actually agree with you. It is silly to assume that somebody believes in a God just because they were told so. That would be a straw man, and what kind of silly person could use such thing to get his point across?
4:00
No, It is the other way around. The Television program is false because there are no monsters under your bed. If someone in the 5th century claimed that he was made of stardust, because he had a dream about it, the belief was true, no matter if how irrational the source was.
4:55
Straw man. Our cognitive functions are based on chemical processes, not accidents.
5:02
Again, no, a belief can be true no matter how rational or irrational the source is.
5:20
Nature does not have a cognitive function? So you're assuming that humans are not part of nature (their cognitive functions being governed by immaterial souls) which is btw the point you are trying to prove? What is circular reasoning, if not this?
5:55
Non sequitur, natural doesn't mean untrustworthy. This argument being highly flawed, the attempt to conclude, that evolutionist couldn't be trusted on being rational falls down to a level of a silly ad hominem attack.
7:00
So you are assuming that your cognitive skills being from immaterial sources are completely trustworthy. This is a huge fallacy, because by this you assume that those who argue against your case have the same perfect cognitive skills. Reductio ad absurdum is your enemy!!!
Also if the natural origin of thoughts makes them untrustworthy, if we assume that your cognitive skills are natural in origin, that would mean that your reasoning is flawed. Two possible scenarios, one leads to absurdity, other to possibility.
Of course this is not a proof for thoughts being natural, because it was based on your false assumption, that natural means untrustworthy and supernatural means trustworthy.
9:10
FINALLY!!! You have raised an interesting point! However determinism isn't in itself absurd, so you cannot disregard it with your personal incredulity.
10:59
If the consciousness was the result of brain activity, we should observe loss of consciousness in case of serious injuries, or we should observe split personality in split brain patients. OH wait! We do!!! (Ho Ho Ho... sarcasm )
Let's illustrate the ridiculousness of the last argument by applying it to something common: electrons cannot create mobile phones. Neutrons can't create mobile phones, neither do any other particles. So combining these particles together we couldn't ever get a mobile phone. So mobile phones are immaterial, and God exists, and our worldview is rubbish.