-->
@RoderickSpode
I'll take your word for it.
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
Posts
Total:
526
-->
@RoderickSpode
Actually I try to avoid blanket statements like that. Allow me to amend my statement more in keeping with my epistemological limits. Many people wonder and they are still wondering because there is no sufficient evidence.Saying everyone is actually quite an acknowledgment.
I'm strictly referring to an ant's perspective. Of course we know, but what about the ant? Did that ant just feel with his antennae evidence of the creator of that farm?
This is the watchmaker argument the thrust of which is that even a primitive tribesman who had never before seen a watch would still recognize a watch as being made by a human. The trouble with this examp is that the only reason the primitive tribesman would recognize a watch as being manufactured is that it is clearly not a naturally occurring object. Since naturally occurring objects do not contrast from naturally occurring objects in this way we cannot surmise that natural objects are manufactured. The very reason the analogy is applied to the universe is also the reason that the argument cannot be applied to the universe.
So the ant has only found evidence of a creator of ant farms if it understands the concept of manufacturing and if it only recognizes the ant farm as an artificial structure because it differs from a natural structure then natural structures are not evidence of any creator.
-->
@ludofl3x
The Orthodox Church certainly sees itself as The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We are the Christian Church.Careful what you're getting into there, dude, this guy's first language is jibberish. His username should be No True Scotsman
That being the case, it isn't a fallacy to say that nominal Christians outside The Church do not represent us, The Christian Church. It also isn't a fallacy to say that Orthodox who go against what The Church teaches do not represent our teachings.
But I as for your charge that I only speak jibberish, perhaps this is less an evidence that I am speaking jibberish and moreso an evidence that you have comprehension issues.
-->
@Mopac
The Orthodox Church certainly sees itself as The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
So what? People and organizations often view themselves in unrealistic ways.
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not asking if an ant is aware that what he is touching is evidence of the creator (manufacturer). I'm just simply asking if his antennae came in contact with evidence (whether it's realized or not).So the ant has only found evidence of a creator of ant farms if it understands the concept of manufacturing and if it only recognizes the ant farm as an artificial structure because it differs from a natural structure then natural structures are not evidence of any creator.
You can name any type of physical object we might call evidence, a fossil, or artifact, etc. And if an animal grabbed it and ran off, we wouldn't be out of line by stating "an animal just ran off with the evidence". Or do you think we would be out of line? Would we have to say, "the animal couldn't have run off with the evidence because the animal doesn't understand the concept of evidence"?
-->
@RoderickSpode
You specifically said I was to view this from an ants perspective. Now you wish me to tell you if an ant is touching something that is evidence from a human perspective.
Which perspective are we actually adopting for this thought experiment?
-->
@secularmerlin
It makes a better case at proving it than anyone else, which is one reason I am Orthodox to begin with.
It is the ancient church.
And every other nominal Christian church looks unenlightened by comparison when you compare them. Well, at least it is plain to me. Orthodoxy has the Mystagogical aspect of the faith down. Something that acts as further proof, for me certainly.
To you it is all the same. You would probably prefer it if the most superstitious, gibberish speaking, emotionally manipulative, maybe even hateful church was Christianity. It isn't though, there is a real church. And we know where every other church came from. They can all be traced.back to their deviation from Orthodoxy or a schism from orthodoxy.
Original church.
-->
@Mopac
If the case made by your church is anything like the case that you have to date offered me then I have to say that I am genuinely unimpressed and if the case you have offered is not representative of the case made by this church perhaps you could examine what you are doing differently and try again. If that is you are suddenly interested in making good cases for your arguments.It makes a better case at proving
-->
@secularmerlin
You specifically said I was to view this from an ants perspective. Now you wish me to tell you if an ant is touching something that is evidence from a human perspective.Which perspective are we actually adopting for this thought experiment?
All I asked was when an ant touches the glass boundary of an ant farm, is the ant touching evidence of a creator of that ant farm. Initially nothing about perspective.
All I asked was when an ant touches the glass boundary of an ant farm, is the ant touching evidence of a creator of that ant farm. Initially nothing about perspective.
So the whole reason that an ant farm is evidence of a creator is because we know humans manufacture them. In that case it is a poor analogy since we are unaware of any manufacturers of universes.
-->
@secularmerlin
You aren't actially interested in what we believe.
-->
@Mopac
I have no idea what you believe as you refuse to give any definite answers and retreat to vague circular definitions whenever pressed for details
-->
@secularmerlin
So the whole reason that an ant farm is evidence of a creator is because we know humans manufacture them. In that case it is a poor analogy since we are unaware of any manufacturers of universes.
Well at least here, like in another post, you acknowledge that it is evidence. An ant's lack of ability to comprehend a manufactured environment is irrelevant.
If a tribesman found an ant farm, he may not know what it was, but like you stated earlier, he'd be able to identify a created object versus natural. He would for instance be able to perceive the carving of the wood. So the tribesman acknowledges that his find was created by human hands. How does he know exactly who the person(s) is who created the ant farm?
-->
@RoderickSpode
Unless there is something about this thought experiment that you are not telling me there is no way he can know who made the watch... I mean ant farm.
And as I said this gives us zero reason the think that the universe was similarly manufactured.
-->
@secularmerlin
I have no idea what you believe as you refuse to give any definite answers and retreat to vague circular definitions whenever pressed for details
Exactly the kind of response I would expect from a nihilist.
-->
@Mopac
Ok well have a nice day then.
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no such thing as "nice", how meaningless.
-->
@Mopac
Ok have a productive day then. Go proclaim or something. The name of this site is DEBATE art. If you have no interest in debate you are in the wrong place.
-->
@Mopac
Why don't you head on down to Twitter. Now that is a place for proclaiming stuff. You need no evidence whatsoever to post something on Twitter you'll love it.
-->
@secularmerlin
Productive? You can't prove that this is anything other than subjective non reality bunk.
Meaningless!
Look at you saying I am in the wrong place as if there is a right place. Everything you say is meaningless.
-->
@Mopac
This place has a stated purpose (to provide a safe space online for the purposes of debate) a purpose which you claimed recently to disdain. I didn't have to say you are in the wrong place. You said it.
-->
@secularmerlin
First you say you don't know what I believe, now you say you do.
Obviously you aren't a reliable source of information.
-->
@secularmerlin
I like your watch better. Less letters.
Sure he can know. If the person who made the watch shows up at his hut, and identifies himself as the watchmaker, the tribesman now knows who created the watch. The creator of the watch has to come in from the outside to reveal who he is. If he didn't do that, you're right, there's no way the tribesman could know.
Same concept with God.
The ant did in fact bump his antennae into evidence of a creator of the ant farm. He wasn't able to recognize it, just as a human may not recognize evidence if he's looking right at it. It takes an outside agent (the creator) to reveal himself to an individual in order for the individual to realize he's looking at evidence right in front of him.
-->
@Mopac
I only can know what you tell me. Most of it is contradicted by other stuff you told me.
-->
@RoderickSpode
What is the functional observable difference between evidence that is not recognized as evidence and no evidence at all?
-->
@secularmerlin
I only can know what you tell me.
I have no idea what you believe
I telll you nothing!
Or you hear nothing.
-->
@Mopac
Probably the former.I telll you nothing!Or you hear nothing.
-->
@secularmerlin
I telll you nothing!Or you hear nothing.Probably the former.
The fact that we communicate through text proves conclusively it is the later.
-->
@Mopac
How pedantic of you. <appluase>
-->
@secularmerlin
More meaningless and unsubstantiated babble.
You can't prove anything.