MushiMage

No Evidence, No Point!
-
IF X cannot be shown to exist, then any claim entailing the existence of X has no merit until such time (if ever) X is shown to exist.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@darwintojesus Arguments for a God are unsound. Why?

P1: IF X cannot be shown to be existent, then X has no rational linkage to anything.
P2: God cannot be shown to be existent.
C: God claims cannot rationally be linked to anything.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@DarkMatter2525 @duffpappy The statement also appealed to bigotry and/or the idea that "they" are a problem and need to be addressed. However, the idea of "they" is a very flexible term which effectively becomes whatever an individual conjures in their mind when they don't understand the coded language.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@DarkMatter2525 @duffpappy So, when Trump was saying "they're eating the cats and dogs" there was a percentage of people who were energized by the entertainment value without a shred of understanding of what it could mean for a madman to run the country - they have no idea about how the country runs.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@chkrosp @HugoZheyX @darwintojesus The fact that the idea is in conflict with what is known (due to intelligence being developmental) is what makes the idea rationally a falsehood.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@chkrosp @HugoZheyX @darwintojesus God is denoted as a thing and thus subject to the demand that such be shown. The fact that there is nothing sustaining God claims as being an aspect of reality is what makes such claims fictional (unsubstantiated).

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@chkrosp @HugoZheyX @darwintojesus IF whatever X can be shown to exist, then I will accept such as being the case.

Theism is a psychological/sociological fiction (ideas that lack substantiation/reference in the context of reality). Believers accept such notions based on claims as opposed to reality.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@chkrosp @HugoZheyX @darwintojesus My position is NOT as demanding as science, since I only require that whatever is being claimed can be shown to the case without conflict with what is known. This requires no presupposition, since it is only about what is shown or determined BASED on what is shown.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@chkrosp @HugoZheyX @darwintojesus It should also be noted that science operates by methodological naturalism, since, science presumes that a demonstrable cause/effect linkage can be found either directly or indirectly via extrapolation/regression.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@chkrosp @HugoZheyX @darwintojesus It seems that all words as commonly used are interpretative and thus necessarily subjective.

It would seem that formalized languages (and thus the words in that particular usage) have objective (consistent independent adjudication) meaning.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@Cervus2Leo @darwintojesus You have made declaration, but you have not explained what is the supposed logical fallacy.

So, let's get specific.

Do you reject the idea of intelligence being contingent? IF so, explain. The issue being that we observe intelligence to be contingent upon processes.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@Cervus2Leo @darwintojesus The claim of a PERFECT creator is dismissed with EVERY instance of imperfection. The idea of a creator is dismissed due to intelligence being contingent and thus NOT an option for anything denoted as foundational.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@Cervus2Leo @darwintojesus Abiogenesis is a point of research attempting to discover HOW life emerged, since we know that life did emerge, the question is how.

Granted, we may never discover how, but it would be irrational to claim intelligence given that we know intelligence is emergent.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@Cervus2Leo @darwintojesus The map (information) is our understanding, but is NEVER the territory with regard to ANY state of reality.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@Cervus2Leo @darwintojesus Conflating the map with the territory is fallacious reasoning which is what you are doing when you conflate information as being the same as DNA structures.

Information is OUR map (a descriptive) of a territory such as a DNA.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@Cervus2Leo @darwintojesus The change of DNA is a product of evolution whether the chain gets long or shorter or simply changes in some fashion. Which also entails the formation of functional and non-functional proteins.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@Cervus2Leo @darwintojesus Information is a concept that is NOT an aspect of reality, but rather a product of OUR cognitive considerations such that such cannot rationally be claimed as being an aspect of reality, but rather a point of OUR understanding.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@Cervus2Leo @darwintojesus We know that cells emerged while not knowing how. We also know that proteins but function and non-functional emerge as a byproduct of evolution.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@Cervus2Leo @darwintojesus You are presenting a falsehood given that evolution explains the complexity of DNA. You are also presenting a fallacious analogy given that biological systems do not behave in the same fashion as the digital systems we have created.

[MushiMage @MushiMageMC]

@Cervus2Leo @darwintojesus I prefer a direct address of issue, since analogies rarely focus on the actual point of issue and are thus often strawmen of various sorts with regard to the issue being referenced.