The whole idea is about trying to know the meaning of human existence. With human reasoning and logic (consciousness), people can have a better basis for knowing and living. IOW, we are not biological robots mindlessly living our short lives here on earth.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Yifu" <yifuxero@> wrote: > > > > From Wiki, "Cosmological Argument": > > > > "However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning > > is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with > > the general conclusion being that neither is prominent. > > Even this seems to miss the point IMO. Who CARES > which theory of debate is more "prominent?" Only > those who feel that they have something to "prove" > in a debate and whose egos are all identified with > the idea they wish to "prove." > > > "Even though causality applies to the known world, it does > > not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other > > words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation > > of causality beyond experience." > > Unwise, schmise. It's just a waste of time. Unless > you get off on wastes of time, and then it might be > fun for you. :-) > > What could not have been more *obvious* from the > start of this whole kerfluffle was its INTENT. > It was like JohnR erected a big neon sign over > his original post saying, "Listen up, unbelievers. > I'm going to prove that God exists. So there." :-) > > That's a True Believer pastime, and IMO an ego- > bound pastime. As Curtis pointed out, the argument > proposed as some kind of "proof" is really nothing > more than a set of beliefs, declared as truths. > Nothing wrong with beliefs, per se...everybody's > got some, just like everybody's got an asshole. > > It's just that I think that some like to *hide* > the fact that what they're spouting is nothing > but beliefs, and pretend that they're spouting > logic. That's what I think this whole argument > is about, and always has been about. Seems kinda > cowardly to me...why not just cut right to the > INTENT and say, "I believe that God exists and > created the universe." That's at least honest, > and it doesn't attempt to preach or convert. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > *My* point was that at least one of the detailed > > > > > > supportive arguments for the syllogism starts with the > > > > > > same example John used about procreation, but it doesn't > > > > > > just jump to the universal; it involves a complicated > > > > > > logical/mathematical discussion of infinities (too > > > > > > complex for me to reproduce). You didn't know at that > > > > > > point that he wasn't going to go in that direction, > > > > > > which is most certainly not simply "fallacious inductive > > > > > > reasoning." > > > > > > > > > > The post I responded to used fallacious inductive reasoning, > > > > > I can't imagine how you are missing that. > > > > > > > > *He didn't get that far*. You *guessed* that he was > > > > going to use fallacious inductive reasoning, > > > > > > He used it in the post. He tried to support a universal assertion > > > with a specific example of procreation as if the inductive logic proved > > > his point. > > > > > > and you > > > > were ultimately correct, but at that point it was > > > > only a guess, not anything he had said up to that > > > > point. > > > > > > I was correct in that post as a stand alone. Ultimately I could have > > > been wrong. I was inviting him to prove me wrong by responding. > > > I could have been wrong later on when he fleshed out the argument but > > > in that post that is what it was, pure and simple. > > > > > > This may be one > > > of those moments we get to where we just shake our head and say "Wow > > > I don't understand this person." > > > > > > Inductive reasoning goes from > > > specific to general. He used it. I noticed it. You should notice > > > it now that I am drawing your attention to it. If you don't OK. lets > > > move on. At this I should let it go. But of course I will not. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was not responding to some articles you read elsewhere. > > > > > > > > Of course you weren't. Totally irrelevant to my point. > > > > > > Yeah I was getting a little bitchy. I can't imagine why you think it is > > > a difficult thing for a philosophy major to spot an obvious case of > > > inductive reasoning. > > > > > > Lets map it out from the original post: > > > > > > > > >John: The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > >Barry > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > >John: > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree that you were born > > > through your mother who conceived you with your father? As such, you as a > > > physical being had a CAUSE. Correct? > > > > > > Me: > > > Specific example. A single instance of a cause and effect relationship is > > > being offered. Why? Let's see. > > > > > > > > > John: > > > If yes, then you would agree with the > > > first premise.> > > > > > > Me: What was the first premise that John has used a single example to > > > support? Here it is: > > > > > > John quoting Craig: > > > > > > "1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. " > > > > > > Me: The tip-off for inductive logic was the use of the word "Whatever." > > > This is a universal statement and indicates that the single example given > > > to support it was being used in an inductive manor from a single instance > > > to a universal principle. > > > > > > > > > Me: Stating the obvious: > > > > > > <Fallacy of inductive reasoning.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
