tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post7317156693797301102..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Loftus vs. Wood: An Atheist-Theist DebateUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-80823987954458079352010-12-08T22:17:46.863-05:002010-12-08T22:17:46.863-05:00Also, Professor Shallit, I think your reply to Woo...Also, Professor Shallit, I think your reply to Wood in point 8 is unnecessarily sophisticated. The truly ridiculous fallacy occurs right after the statements you quote. Wood goes on to say that logic is eternal and exists only in a mind and therefore there must exist an eternal mind. It's akin to saying that because the statement "2+2=4" is true, and was true before humans existed, and will continue to be true after we've all murdered one another with nuclear weapons, there must therefore exist an eternal, incorporeal abacus in the heavens in order to maintain the truth of that equation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-24986604183706478172010-12-08T21:58:22.229-05:002010-12-08T21:58:22.229-05:00Re "I can have a thought about a grilled chee...Re "I can have a thought about a grilled cheese sandwich - I can't have a pattern of molecules about a grilled cheese sandwich":<br /><br />Seems a bit like arguing that an H2O molecule is not "wet" and therefore water does not consist of H2O molecules.<br /><br />As to Wood's (probably apocryphal) account of revivals from brain-death: assuming the brain has not yet undergone any structural degradation, there would not seem to be any reason such a patient could not be revived. The fact that it can't be done when there is sufficient structural degradation completely refutes Wood's mysticism about independence of mind and brain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-63637388351425501672010-03-27T17:49:34.927-04:002010-03-27T17:49:34.927-04:00@ChristianJR4
You can argue over syntax and seman...@ChristianJR4<br /><br />You can argue over syntax and semantics all you like. I stand by my comments that the likes of Wood, Craig and D’Souza are misappropriating the words of atheist scientists like Hawking to make it appear that they support the religious version of cosmology.<br /><br />Like all those apologists who still keep claiming that Einstein was a theist because he used the word “God” to refer to physics.<br /><br />Rather like Deepak Chopra did last week during the ABC discussion with Sam Harris and Michael Shermer now you come to mention it.<br /><br />End of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-43437545458959922082010-03-27T13:58:23.771-04:002010-03-27T13:58:23.771-04:00yes, but what does "exist" mean?
is that...yes, but what does "exist" mean?<br />is that the real question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-7365693356041688832010-03-27T06:26:55.913-04:002010-03-27T06:26:55.913-04:00I thought you might be interested in this response...I thought you might be interested in this <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/03/doug-kreger-on-my-debate-strategy.html" rel="nofollow">response from Doug Krueger</a>. It's not about this debate per se, only about what I attempted to do.<br /><br />Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-60881191323030305252010-03-22T21:08:49.998-04:002010-03-22T21:08:49.998-04:00Anonymous writes, "The Big Bang has been misa...Anonymous writes, "The Big Bang has been misappropriated by Christian wingnuts. "<br /><br />How?Mirandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-65965497250814713922010-03-21T04:11:47.474-04:002010-03-21T04:11:47.474-04:00Carl, how can you even explain or account for our ...Carl, how can you even explain or account for our ability to *conceive* of necessary truths on the basis of what the evidence shows us to be, finite patterns of physical stuff that arose from nothing but the laws of physics and random initial conditions? We have to hold the line against people who think we have correct conceptions of such things, which are nowhere to be observed in experience.NotNecessarynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-71891002769028540012010-03-19T22:30:59.598-04:002010-03-19T22:30:59.598-04:00Surprise surprise! edthemanicstreetpreacher posts ...Surprise surprise! edthemanicstreetpreacher posts a comment about misrepresentation and yet he AGAIN is the one guilty of it.<br /><br />For the last time ed, apologists aren't quoting Hawking for his beliefs on the Big Bang singularity. They are quoting him for his summation of the consensus position among cosmologists concerning the beginning. Nowhere in this debate did David make the argument that Hawking believes the universe started with a singularity. Apart from a mistaken equivocation of the singularity with beginning in his first rebuttal, he wasn't making that point. His point was simply that the universe had a beginning.<br /><br />And Hawking was not referring to the "lay public's consciousness". He was referring to the position of actual cosmologists. Here's the full quote from Hawking:<br /><br />"So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other <strong>physicists</strong> that there was no singularity at the <strong>beginning</strong>.<br /><br />--Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", p. 67 (illustrated);...emphasis mine<br /><br />It's pretty obvious he's talking about cosmologists here, not your average joe on the street. Indeed, he couldn't possibly be talking about the lay public. Which lay public? Americans? Certainly not. Almost half of them believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. How about the British? A considerable number of them do as well, enough not to make it "nearly everyone" as Hawking says. Moreover, a lot of people couldn't even tell you what the Big Bang is, much less what a singularity is. <br /><br />So once again, stop misrepresenting the picture yourself. Apologists may be wrong in what they think their arguments show, but I see no misrepresentation on their part here. I can't say the same for you.Jay44https://www.blogger.com/profile/09019385490238632365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-1272162817518837862010-03-19T15:54:49.646-04:002010-03-19T15:54:49.646-04:00The Big Bang has been misappropriated by Christia...The Big Bang has been misappropriated by Christian wingnuts. Unfortunately scientists who should know better have never done anything to set the record straight<br /><br />TrutiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-14290395066751970792010-03-18T05:25:53.819-04:002010-03-18T05:25:53.819-04:00@Jeffrey – Do you do public debates? Your blog te...@Jeffrey – Do you do public debates? Your blog terrific. I think you’d flattened God squadders like Wood and D’Souza at the lectern.<br /><br />MSPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-28639007572100092842010-03-18T01:03:02.932-04:002010-03-18T01:03:02.932-04:00cody: promoting reason in a public forum would hel...cody: promoting reason in a public forum would help me sleep at night.<br /><br /><br />or drive you insane<br /><br /><br />jahAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-66353502305899064882010-03-17T16:57:05.876-04:002010-03-17T16:57:05.876-04:00Another nice post. I think most of your retorts a...Another nice post. I think most of your retorts are decisive and to the point.<br /><br />However, on a couple, while you make a relevant and accurate point, it seems that there is a stronger position to take against such nonsense. Specifically, concerning the logic example, I don't see why you should get sucked into talking about alternative logics. Modus ponens is not merely a convention. That's just silly. The issue is, who cares if the laws of logic are necessary truths? That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a god exists. Necessary truths like logic can be explained in various ways without any supernatural, magical beings. And, more importantly, supernatural beings cannot make the laws of logic true. God cannot by decree, by fiat, or by wave of god's magic wand make modus ponens a law of logic, and certainly cannot make it hold necessarily. It makes no sense. It has nothing to do with any gods.carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07486441307813866681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-41700179218904260142010-03-17T16:08:25.774-04:002010-03-17T16:08:25.774-04:00Thanks for stopping by, John. I admire your coura...Thanks for stopping by, John. I admire your courage in participating in these public debates, and I'm confident your performance will improve in future debates. Best of luck to you!Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-69904394475559763082010-03-17T15:47:46.638-04:002010-03-17T15:47:46.638-04:003. He gave an argument about fine tuning. "Th...<i>3. He gave an argument about fine tuning. "These numbers [constants of physics] could have had a wide range of values, and yet the values they actually have fall into the extremely narrow range that makes biological life possible."</i><br /><br />From the January 2010 <i>Scientific American</i>:<br /><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=looking-for-life-in-the-multiverse" rel="nofollow">Looking for Life in the Multiverse</a><br />Universes with different physical laws might still be habitable<br />By Alejandro Jenkins and Gilad PerezBayesian Bouffant, FCDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-8970955108169987012010-03-17T15:46:00.804-04:002010-03-17T15:46:00.804-04:005. He claimed that consciousness requires a "...<i>5. He claimed that consciousness requires a "soul". "I can have a thought about a grilled cheese sandwich - I can't have a pattern of molecules about a grilled cheese sandwich".</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/11/mind-reading-brain-scans-thoughts" rel="nofollow">Mind-reading experiment uses brain scans to eavesdrop on thoughts</a><br />Brain scans revealed with reasonable accuracy which short film clip volunteers were thinking about<br />March 11, 2010Bayesian Bouffant, FCDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21628076561202339142010-03-17T15:32:39.229-04:002010-03-17T15:32:39.229-04:00"Which would give you more confidence in a pl..."Which would give you more confidence in a plane never flown in the air before: calculations and simulations by trained engineers, or the blessing of a priest?"<br /><br />This reminds me of Sagan's quote, <br /><br />"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."<br /><br />It is interesting that while most people probably fit well into Sagan's description, most would (I think & HOPE) still side with you on the engineered plane.<br /><br />Is it that people trust the engineers to make the plane work, but don't realize that the way they do so is by skeptically sorting information through repeated rigorous testing, rather than through some magical "...coherence of human reason" or a "...basis for trusting our reasoning ability..."?<br /><br />Do most people not understand that evidence is king? That human reasoning is garbage where ever it disagrees with empirical evidence? Is there a way for me to debate people like Wood? I need a new job, and promoting reason in a public forum would help me sleep at night.codyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11407919985914326282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-39040654383700682192010-03-17T15:25:40.592-04:002010-03-17T15:25:40.592-04:00I think as a scientist you approach things as a sc...I think as a scientist you approach things as a scientist would. I approach things from my perspective. I think the theistic arguments on behalf of God are a <a href="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-to-undercut-christianity-at.html" rel="nofollow">shell game</a>. I try to offer a more fundamental critique of this game of theirs but I learn from people like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-11311275915140043212010-03-17T15:06:49.372-04:002010-03-17T15:06:49.372-04:00Miranda:
Thanks for your comments.
The comment a...Miranda:<br /><br />Thanks for your comments.<br /><br />The comment about americium was intended to support my first claim (that apparently uncaused events occur) and not the second claim (that "out of nothing, nothing comes" was incorrect).Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61127002465606968432010-03-17T14:05:07.834-04:002010-03-17T14:05:07.834-04:00You raised some good points, Jeffrey. Just one cri...You raised some good points, Jeffrey. Just one critique, and a question for you or your readers.<br /><br />"out of nothing, nothing comes."<br />"When a particular Americium atom decays in your smoke detector, what causes that one to decay rather than some other one?"<br /><br />But still, an Americium atom is <i>something</i>, right?<br /><br />"Some physicists supported a steady-state universe (and some few still do), and some opposed it. But I see no evidence that atheists came down overwhelmingly on one side or the other."<br /><br />Can anyone provide some good history as to the positions of the leading physicists of the time, the time when the Big Bang Theory was gaining momentum?Mirandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-39198036322686401722010-03-17T12:52:33.091-04:002010-03-17T12:52:33.091-04:00Yes, probably Wood was talking about classical log...Yes, probably Wood was talking about classical logic. But the <i>existence</i> of other logics that are used and studied shows that classical logic <i>isn't</i> eternal, immutable, etc. - what we pick to be our basis for logic is more a matter of convention. That's why I spoke of "municipal by-laws of thought", not "laws of thought".Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-51591885925163251362010-03-17T12:46:25.447-04:002010-03-17T12:46:25.447-04:00Ok, thanks for responding. Now for my comment: Don...Ok, thanks for responding. Now for my comment: Don't you think Wood was most likely talking specifically about classical logic, seeing as how that is what people generally mean when they use the word "logic"? Doesn't Wood just mean that there are logical absolutes when it comes to preserving "truth," as opposed to preserving "justification" or any other concepts that various systems of logic have been developed to preserve? For example, the law of noncontradiction is absolute in truth-preserving logic, and forms the basis of all of our science, philosophy, and reasoning that we do in everyday life.<br /><br />Now don't get me wrong - I still disagree with Wood if he is trying to conclude based on the immutability of logical laws that there is a god. That conclusion just doesn't follow. Still, I thought your response didn't really address that issue...Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02460524109125297963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-43697812065740684632010-03-17T12:41:47.392-04:002010-03-17T12:41:47.392-04:00OK, this is just getting silly now. John W says t...OK, this is just getting silly now. John W says that Hawking and Penrose no longer believe in the Big Bang singularity and gives the page number from <em>A Brief History of Time</em> where Hawking recants their earlier thesis.<br /><br />And <em>then</em> in two of his rebuttals, David quote-mines Hawking as accepting that “today, nearly everyone believes that the universe started with the Big Bang”.<br /><br />Hawking was referring to the lasting impact on the lay-public’s consciousness of his and Penrose’s earlier thesis! Hawking makes clear the very next sentence that he no longer supports this thesis, but David stops quoting at that point!<br /><br />It’s like Hawking says he doesn’t believe in the tooth fairy, but still recognises that most people do, and David so has appealed to Hawking’s authority to support his belief in the tooth fairy.<br /><br />DISGRACEFUL!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-19829293437722313362010-03-17T12:25:31.507-04:002010-03-17T12:25:31.507-04:00Timothy:
The claim that there are "laws of l...Timothy:<br /><br />The claim that there are "laws of logic" which are "eternal". But in multi-valued logic, some of Wood's claimed "laws" don't hold.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37097673831284012462010-03-17T11:30:36.370-04:002010-03-17T11:30:36.370-04:00Hello,
Relatively-new reader, first-time commenter...Hello,<br />Relatively-new reader, first-time commenter here. I quite enjoy reading your blog!<br /><br />I have an actual comment regarding your response to Wood on point number 8, but to make sure I understand you I wanted to ask a question first. What parts of Wood's statement are you saying are refuted by the existence of multi-valued logic?Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02460524109125297963noreply@blogger.com