Oh boy! I get to copy my own comment from the last Sye TenB post:
Sye TenB is trying to show that the problem of induction is "solved" by appealing to God.
The only problem is, like every other problem that positing God supposedly "solves", it doesn't really solve anything. It just appeals to the brute fact argument "Goddidit" as the supposed answer.
P.S. I like this quote from wiktionary referencing the term "Godditit", so I thought I'd add it here:
"It explains everything, but predicts nothing, and is therefore is a totally content-free statement."
6/13/2008 7:31:12 AM
This argument does have one very strong appeal: an uncontested "magic man done it" would make any tough philosophy course much easier to pass.
But then, an uncontested anything would make it pointless...
6/13/2008 7:48:14 AM
Oh yeah, well, your god is going to turn into a dodo in two seconds! Therefore I'm right!
6/13/2008 7:55:51 AM
I despair of people so lacking in intellectual curiosity that they are sated by "magic man done it" as the stock answer to any perplexing mystery of life.
I couldn't live as a fundy. To have nothing be truly mysterious would be boring in the extreme. Most fundys couldn't imagine this, but I'm happy with the fact that I'll die a lone spec in a vast and mysterious universe about which I have many questions and almost no certain answers.
6/13/2008 8:33:30 AM
Problem is, you have exactly zero foundation for assuming that the ‘nature’ of the earth and sun will not change 5 seconds from now.
How can you even continue to function if you believe shit like that? Every second of your existence that you rely on any knowledge you have ever gained, every time you typed a character of your post and expected the same character you pressed on the keyboard to appear on the screen, every second you even expected your computer to continue to be a computer and not, say, metamorphosise into an angry hippo and bite you, you implicitly reject such an insane notion as the one you just typed.
6/13/2008 8:42:45 AM
His worldview? The one that says that apparently at some arbitrary point in the future the universe will end? Hardly more confident than immutability.
6/13/2008 10:36:23 AM
6/13/2008 10:51:56 AM
This is just so much blather attempting to counter logical and scientific thinking processes. Failing to provide proof of God's existence, the fundie instead tries to show that nothing at all, whatsoever, can be proven, and therefore the statement "You cannot prove God's existence" is no different than "You can't prove you won't turn into a gerbil in two seconds."
6/13/2008 10:56:17 AM
@Qwerthy, I am so with you on that goddidit thing.
6/13/2008 11:30:55 AM
You got shit for brains.
6/13/2008 11:35:00 AM
6/13/2008 1:17:08 PM
Indeed. Explaining everything with 'Goddidit' explains exactly nothing.
6/13/2008 1:43:10 PM
How can you even continue to function if you believe shit like that?
I have no idea. A universe with intermittent (macroscopic) causality would be a truly terrifying place.
6/13/2008 3:13:26 PM
Then again there's the ccmx<kjf20///98 7ub89trse
Oops! Sorry - I was suddenly a gerbil there for a bit...
Whoa - didn't see THAT one coming...
I'll try this again tomorrow, after the penguin rises
6/13/2008 3:39:10 PM
No, it's fairly rational to say that given the nature of the Sun and of other stars, that it will not be turning into a peguin any time soon.
6/13/2008 3:58:03 PM
Problem is, SyeTenB put the words "zero" and "foundation" together, and thinks he is astoundingly clever.
6/13/2008 4:02:05 PM
Your Bible, and presumably, your "worldview" are very inconsistent on this topic. Examples:
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever."
2 Peter 3:10:
"... the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
Which one represents your "worldview" and that of your holy book?
6/13/2008 5:01:53 PM
Gah! I hate to resort to pure ad hominem, but DAMN!
You are of the stupid.
Actually, both of you are. All experiential predictions are inductive, and as such rely on the assumption of a consistent system. This is an assumption that we must make in order to function. It no more requires a deity than it requires I kick your asses for being retarded.
6/13/2008 5:38:34 PM
He actually thinks this is a sophisticated philosophical position.
6/13/2008 10:30:59 PM