Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:10:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net>, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020913093425.K22737-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <3D812D58.D30609F1@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > [ ... ] > > > Would you quit pulling the word "random" out of your butt? > > > Thanks. > > > > You are the one who tried to justify human reason by introducing > > randomness. If you are dropping that belief, I won't talk about > > it anymore. > > On the contrary; you are using your own assumptions to justify your > own conclusions. > > The first use of the word "random" in this thread was in your > posting of 29 August 2002, as an adjective to describe your > *opinion* of a universe which did not attribute a continuing > requirement for uniformity (a requirement which you also pulled > out of thin air) to a creator. > > Here is the reference: > > <http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=478412+0+archive/2002/freebsd-chat/20020901.freebsd-chat>; Who used the word first is irrelevent. I made an assumption that you believe in a random chance universe. You confirmed that assumption when you said, and I quote: > So randomness is supernatural? You conclusion is invalid, if > naturalistic principles permit randomness. The reference where *you* made this appeal is: <http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=375501+0+/usr/local/www/db/text/2002/freebsd-chat/20020908.freebsd-chat>; And now you are denying that you believe in a random chance universe. So which is it? And if you don't, why did you make an appeal to it in order to save rationality? > [ ... ] > > Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You haven't > > done anything to show that my reasoning is fallacious other than > > lots of assertions and impugning my understanding. Impugning > > someone's understanding is not a valid argument. Until you can > > show that my reasoning is fallacious there is no basis for > > impugning my understanding at all. > > You have appealed to authority. Et tu! *Everybody* reasons that way. You have, time and again appealed to authorities which agree with you. So what? At least I'm being honest when I make my appeals to authority. *My* appeals to authority are to an authority that is the transcendental preconditions of rationality. *Your* appeals to authority are totally arbitrary, to people who just happen to agree with you. Unless you can show that *your* appeals to authority are not arbitrary and actually prove something, they are not relevent. > You have appealed to a common > belief. Actually I've challenged you to give an account for the beliefs you just take for granted, like your assumption that nature will remain uniform. Every attempt you have made to justify that assumption has begged the question. > You have appealed to common practice. What do you mean by this? You mean that I have questioned people's justification for taking certain things for granted even though their worldview provides no such justification? I'm not appealing to it, I'm questioning whether they have a right to take it for granted given their stated presuppositions. > You have appealed > to indirect consequences. It's called "reducing to absurdity". Anytime you can show that your opponent's position leads to internal contradictions or to intolerable consequences, that position has been refuted. > You've argued from the specific to the > general. No I haven't. > You've generalized. No I haven't. > You've demonstrated circular > reasoning. *All* epistemelogical views are ultimately circular. So what? You've been doing the very same thing in every case where you have attempted to justify your belief that nature is uniform. You've done so when you've appealed to the "emergent" properties of matter. You've arbitrarily assumed that "expedience" is a valid justification for assuming all of these things. *All* reasoning is ultimately circular. > You've proposed false dilemmas. If I have, you have not demonstrated this to be the case. I have no idea to what you are even referring. Please at least give an example, and don't forget to show what options I have excluded. > You've attempted to > create a burden of disproof. No I haven't. > You've engaged in post hoc reasoning. Example? > All in all, you've committed most of the possible logical fallacies > in your arguments. Give me a break, Terry. Unless you can show this to be the case, your assertions are completely without merit. > Mostly, your appeals have been to a common belief which is not, in > fact, shared by everyone else, which you then justify by appealing > to Biblical authority, which you justify by appealing to Divine > authority, which you justify by appealing to Biblical authority. Which belief is that? Free will? It *is* a common belief that people have. Is there some third option that differs from free will and determinism that would show that it is a false dilemma? False dilemmas are only false dilemmas if there is some third option. If there is, what is it? As for Biblical authority, of course my epistemelogical views are circular, as are yours. You can't have a higher authority than your highest authority. The difference between yours and mine is that I have a justification for holding to mine, while you do not. Yours are completely arbitrary. In the nature of the case, a person's presuppositions *must* be self-authenticating, or they are not presuppositions. Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020913093425.K22737-100000>