What is the problem with infinite regress anyway?
The secular statists reject the idea of a designed order for the universe but accept it for societies and economies. The libertarian theists reject the idea of a designed order for societies and economies but accept it for the universe. The theist statists accept the premise of a designed order for both the universe and socities and economies. The libertarian atheists tend to reject both views.
The libertarian atheists accept the idea that rules for ordering abstracted sums of conscious activity are applicable to ordering actual physical mechanisms of unconcious physical phenomena.
You are getting tiresome with this comment. I have explained my name two or three times to you, have I not? You can read about the Slutsky Decomposition here: http://www.econ.hku.hk/~wsuen/umicro/slutsky.pdf
When I have personally insulted you? I do not expect you to back up this claim, like your other claim. You really do not understand, the burden of proof you. You are the one making a positive claim. You have failed to prove your claim that there is an Intelligent Designer. I don’t see evidence of an Intelligent supernatural entity. All you are saying that there is some order in biology. This order implies a supernatural entity. This is not verifiable proof. All you are doing is creating a false dragon
If you have verifiable evidence, then perhaps you should think to publish it and become famous.
Are you calling Sagan a “dagger” or your commiting libel with an inflammatory remark? What is the definition of a dirk that you are using?
Abiogensis has not yet been proven. There are different hypotheses. We can discuss them, if you’d like. Are you asking to have a conversation about abiogensis or are you asking another question?
The “big bang theory” doesn’t have that problem; it is not a “cause”, merely an event - nothing necessarily needs to have caused the event; “causeless events” occur all the time (see “vacuum fluctuation”)
So you’re defining the question to force a god…there must be a god because “nature doesn’t behave that way on it’s own”, and whenever you see nature apparently behaving that way on it’s own, it must be because “god did it” because you’ve defined that “nature” can’t have done it…brilliant.
It’s specifically the concept of “the singularity” that I have a problem with.
Ever seen a flock of birds? They have some sort of “society”; are the birds conscious? (If you think they are, what about a flocking simulation on a computer?)
Julian Jaynes suggested that consciousness only arose in humans about 3000 years ago (in mesopotamia; less than that in other groups - e.g., he says that the Inca weren’t conscious when the conquistadors arrived, less than 500 years ago); society - quite complex society - certainly existed…
Ha; great minds … [:)]
Of course, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the culture in which we live? If I’d spent my life in India, I’d probably be thinking of Hindu gods…
Why the underscore, man? You really didn’t mean to have Sluts_ky emphasize the Sluts bit?
It is an insult, as you say. It is not libel, because than I’d have to be lying about him. Merely insulting him is not libel, and I could do it repeatedly without fear of lawsuit. For instance, if I were to say, “IDigSluts_ky is subconsciously trying to cover up his love of sheep with his screen name, and yes, I mean that way”, and it weren’t true, that would be libel. On the other hand, if I just said “IDigSluts_ky is dumb”, that is just an insult.
I still say that atheists have the position that God does not exist. This constitutes an assertion that the universe came in to existence without God. Given that this is contrary to the common-sense conclusions you would draw in examining the world (even famous atheists admit that nature gives the appearance of design), I say it is the atheist on whom rests the burden of proof. Since we disagree on this fairly basic point, and I have given you the basic extent of my arguments (while you have given none), I am forced to merely toss idle mockery in your direction in any future communication on this topic. Dreadful sorry.
Maybe your “great mind” should have read the extant responses to that post before you did your own. It sure would be nice, if people are going to post on a topic, if they read through everything first. I understand this one’s gotten a bit long, though.
Some do, some don’t. I do.
Then you have a basic deficiency in your understanding of logic. There’s not much anyone here can do to help you, I suggest professional help.
Here’s a hint: atheism per se makes no assertions about how the universe and life came into existence, it merely rejects one of the asserted possibilities as being nonsensical and irrational. Science offers other hypotheses, and certainly the burden of proof is on anyone advocating any specific hypothesis. The Big Bang, for instance, is well supported by evidence. Hypotheses abound about what, if anything caused the Big Bang, and the burden of proof is on those advocating any of them in particular. The failure to do so says nothing either way about the ID hypotheses (and I’m being very, very generous in applying that term to it.)
The term “abiogenesis” is not a hypotheses, it is a delineation of the problem space. One answer to the question of the method of abiogenesis is “God did it”. That answer can be rejected even in the complete absence of an alternate hypotheses without committing a logical fallacy or violation of the rules of logic, and without changing the burden of proof. Other hypotheses have been forwarded, a few of which have the benefit of cursory plausibility, but none that rise to the level of defensible theory. The lack of a well supported theory, again, has exactly zero effect on the viability of ID.
For the third of fourth time. It is a play on words. I joined an economics forum. I figured that some people would get the joke. If people don’t like it or find it offensive, then I will change it. No big deal. So far you have only expressed unwarranted hostility against me because of my user name as shown below.
You unjustly defamed a person’s character in a written statement. No you continue in your groove of pervesity and publicly deflaming me. You are falsely accusing me that I love sheep. This is a written, public statement of defaming me. I am going by the Merriam-Webster version; a reputable dictionary.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel
You are being nothing, but an internet troll. I am going to stop feeding you and leave this conversation between us. Despite you false claim a few posts ago. I have never insulted you.
You do not understand that you have the burden of proof. What god are you talking about? Your own version.
IT CONSTITUTES THAT I DO NOT KNOW HOW THE UNIVERVERSE CAME INTO EXISTENCE. THIS IS A TRUTHFUL AND HONEST ANSWER.
Unlike you, I don’t say an undefined, ambigious Intelligent Creator is respsonsible without verifiable evidence. You have no clue what atheism is nor that you have the burden of proof.
This statement is drivel and highlights your misunderstandin of atheism. What famous atheists support Intelligent Design? What famous atheist believe in a supernatural entity? Do you even know what you are saying?
I do not have to disprove your god. You have the burden of proof. I am ending this conversation with you. If you are sure of your verifiable claims about your god, then try to publish them is a scientific journal.
Can someone PM me to who I can address about this unwarranted flaming and personal insults being casted on me?
How about a Forum Message? I think your screen name rocks! Kinda clever if you ask me. Check out my screen name, a play on the birthplace of Austrian Economics, a canned food, and the male genitalia. It’s all done in good fun, as I am sure how you developed you SN.
Or, you could just take it like a man.
Now there are two trolls in the same thread. I did not know it was troll season on Mises.org.
If you think I’m trolling you, you’re a bit too paranoid.
Look, I’m pretty much with you on everything so far, including your screen name. Folsom has been rude, condscending, insupportably arrogant, and, worst of all, logically adrift without the slightest clue where to find solid ground. But what he’s not been is disruptive to the forum or beyond the bounds of civil discource.
Given that, I found the whining unwarranted and unbecoming. So, I would suggest that you suck it up and grow a thicker skin. But you’re a free agent, so do as you please.
Your remark was trollish, not you. I am sure you are intelligent enough to demarcate the difference.
My skin is plenty thick. We just have a different opinion on what civil and tasteful discourse is. As far as I am concern, this conversation and issue is over.