Post Number:#195 
April 23rd, 2012, 11:09 am
Youngfool/Mr. Human
Youngfool wrote,
“Just blowing off a bit of frustration. Perhaps the question could be clarified: Can you disprove (my understanding of) God? OK, what is your understanding of God?”
No, I cannot disprove it-unless such a definition was logically absurd. At any rate, the onus is on the one making the assertion. Why would I be in any way philosophically responsible FOR your beliefs?
Youngfool wrote,
“Don't we need to establish that first? Otherwise what a fool's mission.”
No-because I profess no specified or propositional attitudes about god’s existence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Human:
It may be that your position is derived from Postmodernism-but your objections are clearly derived from Creationist arguments long ago established. It is quite easy to cite both websites and publications that have long ago framed the very arguments you presented here. I don’t think that you invented them—thou, I could be wrong LOL!
Mr. Human wrote,
“Those who believe in science, plz answer me, in the story of history diffrent philosophy and school of thoghts just come and disapear, so how can I trust to it?? How do you answer postmodern philosophers like Jacques Derrida the deconstructed science??”
Why would I wish to lay out objections to their rich and complex body of thought when others have already done so? If you wish to replicate their arguments, please do and we can discuss them.
Mr. Human wrote,
“By the way, you should notice they are not creationist!!!”
No, they weren’t-but they, at times, made use of certain implications of evolution by natural selection to argue for a more relativistic point of view! In basic, since humans are highly evolved animals that project their own meanings onto the world, these meanings represent no external objectivity nearly as much as they do our own desires for social power or some other personal benefit (obviously I’m generalizing here). SO, why they are skeptics of science per se, they would utilize some of its findings to argue, oddly, for their own version of postmodernity.
Mr. Human wrote,
“What about the idea of POWER and KNOWLEDGE that was decleard by Michel Foucalt?? Only history can show that your nice idea about darwinism is nothig more than a dream!”
I don’t entirely disagree with Foucalt! But I don’t agree with the notion that ‘all such pursuits are mere power entanglements,’ as a good explanation of the history of science for lots of reasons-but maybe you could supply us with those reasons for discussion-instead of making ad hominem attacks about my philosophical sleeping habits lol!
Allow me to give you an example: When Darwin published his theory he supposed that all life sprang from a common ancestor-and that somehow the chemistry of life could eventually confirm this. Ultimately, genetic science tested this claim long after Darwin passed from the pages of history. It seems odd that if there were NO such truth—in any sense of the term—to his observations here, how could it be, then, that these observations could have been so profoundly confirmed by the tedious mathematical precisions found in the calculations of molecular biology? Yes, it could have been coincidence that these two things match up and that we are merely forming a ‘meaning relationship’ between them. But even so, we would still (1) have good reason for such an alignment, and (2) while we-and Darwin-could be wrong-we don’t have any reason to suppose such a thing outside of those postmodernist and creationists who would like us to.
Mr. Human:
I’m uncertain what others have professed about chance events in evolution-but certainly the science itself doesn’t advocate pure chance—this is what the “selection” section of the theory covers as a more determined process. A rudimentary survey of evolution by natural selection will readily reveal this.
Mr. Human wrote,
“Dear edelker The information that I gave you are not misinformation! your information and mine are both science and as true as eachother!!(in the point of view of there supporters)”
No—one view is based on the views of religiously motivated individuals and the other is overwhelmingly the view accepted view of science. Again, this isn’t too difficult to show how both brute creationism and intelligent design tip their hand in favor of some higher-power creator—be it an alien or god!
Eric D.
