Why Do You No Longer Believe in God?

by Tenacious 212 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Caedes

  I read the article on epistemology a while ago. It was outrageously tedious.
  

  Seemingly you didn't understand it.
  

  I fail to see that finding something very tedious means that you don't understand something. I used to find the meetings tedious, that doesn't mean I didn't understand them.

  Someone who is aware that "facts" belong in the category (sic) of "belief", but who continues to say that "you don't have to believe a fact", would be intellectually dishonest.

  Seemingly you don't understand that some people disagree with this point, that is not being intellectually dishonest. Since you have provided no argument to back up your claim then it is hardly appropriate to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty when they ignore it.
• 

  Viviane

  This is fairly easy. You can find many examples of evolving computer program within the field of evolutionary computing. To start you can go to google scholar and search for "genetic algorithm" (1.9mio hits), or if you prefer an ordering by application domain and specific programs check out the list on wikipedia:

  That's not at all what the question was.

  I notice you appended "on it's own" to EOM's statement.

  No, I didn't do that at all. Read more closely.

  This would (strictly speaking!) make your statement true since a computer program "on it's own" presumably would be a computer program without a medium to run it, however this would clearly also be a strawman.

  Of course it isn't. I didn't misrepresent his argument or change it. The question was asked very specifically the way it was do demonstrate the teleological error or saying that because programs today must to designed to evolve, then biology must have been also.

  Far from a strawman, the whole point of that was to compare and contrast computing technology with biology and highlight the dangers of attempting to retroactively assign meaning and make assumptions about past events based on a completely unrelated event today, particularly when the poster has demonstrated a poor understanding of both.

  That could have been a fruitful and engaging discussion has EoM chosen not to abandon it. You simply missed the entire point in your desire to create a "gotcha" moment with me.

  BTW, EoM, this is a GREAT example of me making sure I can back up what I post, despite your thoughts otherwise.
• 

  stuffwotifink

  Nope. Lots of people are no such thing.

  They are, it's why rational people don't walk out of second floor windows. I suggest you look up 'last thursdayism' as I think it applies to anything that comes from a study of epistemology.

  You may want to find out what "Evidentialism" actually is, before stating that "everyone" is an evidentialist, perhaps.
  
  If you think Last Thursdayism applies to "anything that comes from a study of epistemology": It is clear you don't understand epistemology very well.
  (Assuming that you are using "anything", here, as synonymous with "everything", which you seem to be doing, given the context.)
  
  

  I wasn't trying to convince you. Your opinion of epistemology doesn't effect me, one way or the other.

  You bought it up, not me. If you don't want to discuss your own contribution to a discussion forum then why are you here?

  I did mention epistemology, that is very true, have a cookie.
  You then popped up and said that, according to what you see as the "evidence", epistemology has no "predictive power" (I've no idea at all why you think it should have) "or value".
  
  In what way did you think that voicing your opinion of the lack of value in epistemology, was encouraging my further "discussion" of it with you?
  
  An article you may find enlightening, maybe:
  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/#EviWhiJusBel
  
• 

  Caedes

  Stuffwotifink,

  Is it your normal tactic to claim that people who disagree with you don't understand what you are talking about?

  In what way did you think that voicing your opinion of the lack of value in epistemology, was encouraging my further "discussion" of it with you?
  Well I am open to being persuaded by evidence, but since you seem to have no recourse to discussion preferring ad hominen and assumption to colour your 'contribution', then perhaps you have no opinion.
• 

  stuffwotifink

  Is it your normal tactic to claim that people who disagree with you don't understand what you are talking about?

  It is my normal tactic to point out that people who don't seem to know what they are talking about: don't seem to know what they are talking about.

  Am I supposed to think that someone who claims everyone is an evidentialist and thinks that "epistemology isn't about evidence", knows what they are talking about?
  If I honestly think that a person lacks understanding about something, should I hide my opinion?
  

  Well I am open to being persuaded by evidence

  Good for you. I hope you find someone who cares to try and persuade you. That person is not me.
  

  I feel no obligation to a person who pops up (with what seems like a very poor grasp of what epistemology actually is) to say "epistemology has no value" and then demands that I persuade them of its value.
  I have drying paint that needs watching first.
  
• 

  Viviane

  Stuff, what value are you adding? Also, not all facts are beliefs. Why, since you make such a fundamental error, should we think you know what you are talking about?
• 

  cofty

  A fact is a fact even if nobody believes in it.

  Stuff - Do you have anything to add to the topic of this thread?
• 

  Viviane

  Stuff - Do you have anything to add to the topic of this thread?

  I've asked that several times. Stuff won't even response. Apparently his devotion to epistimiology extends to and embraces "Run away! Run away!"
• 

  bohm

  EOM: Computer programs absolutely can evolve!
  VIV: Awesome, name a computer program that evolved on it's own
  BOHM: This is fairly easy. You can find many examples of evolving computer program within the field of evolutionary computing (...)
  VIV: That's not at all what the question was.

  ...evidently...the question is not to name a computer program that can evolve...evidently...
• 

  bohm

  Eric: Machines can fly!
  Vinnie: Awesome, name a machine that can fly on it's own
  Bob: This is fairly easy, there are planes and rockets and..
  Vinnie: That's not at all what the question was.

  I know, I know, this is totally unrelated because reasons...