Most frequent responses given by proponents of naturalism in a debate, and how they can improve their debate skills
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills
Question: what are your science qualifications ?
Reply:
First: I have no formal scientific training. I am a layman. The knowledge or undestanding of someone is not measured by the formal science qualifications, degrees or titles. Today, information is ready at hand through books, and in special through the internet.
If someone is willing to get educated, it can be by different means.
Secondly: Someone can be part of the highest ranks of the scientific establishment, and have an enormous wealth of scientific knowledge, but still making unsound inferences based on the evidence. Often
scientists are bad philosophers, and philoophers are bad scientists.
Third: In an origins debate, asking the qualifications of someone is usually a strategy adopted to distract from the real issues in question: How can we best explain our existence ?
What to do:
1. Study if the premises provided and if the demonstrated evidence is real and true. Take the time to actually understand the subject in discussion.
2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists ( can the origin of the phenomena in question be explained convincingly, proposing natural mechanisms? )
3. Analyse if the action of an intelligent, causal agency is not a better explanation
4. If you think, naturalism has better explanatory power, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to their defense, or
5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard of other issues as well.
6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your world view, or on the contrary, if naturalism has an overall more compelling case, keep naturalism as the better world view.
What not to do:
1. attack my knowledge
2. attack my education, ( asking to go back to school etc. )
3. attack my source ( It is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on mainstream scientific papers. What you might disagree with, are the inferences i draw upon the evidence we observe in the 4. natural world. In that case, all you have to do is to provide better explanation of origins of the phenomena described)
5. argue that i copied the argument from somewhere ( its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most arguments are based on 6. the evidence provided by mainstream scientific, often peer-reviewed papers )
7. argue that the argument is from ignorance (it's not )
8. ask for proofs that God exists. There are no proofs, neither that God exists, neither that the natural world is all there is. Ask the right philosophical question: How can we best explain the origin and existence of the physical world ?
9. argue its pseudo science ( my arguments are usually very detailed. Pseudo-science is the opposite )
10. attack the bible ( intelligent design has nothing to do with the bible )
11. make any explitic adhom, calling me names, like troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or accusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. Please remain polite and rational, as i am being with you (besides it adds nothing to your case, nor 12. does it make naturalism become more compelling )
13. acuse me of being biased ( we are all to a certain degree. You too )
14. call my inference magic ( A potent and intelligent cause makes still more sense than everything coming from nothing )
15. suggest to peer review my inferences. The premises upon which i base my inferences are based on science papers published in well known science journals.
16. acuse me or my source of lying ( unless you have proof of it, then point out exactly why its a lie )
I am not always being called a troll. kicked out of a group., being blocked, hear complains that I copy/pasted, or being questioned about my knowledge, or the legitimacy of my source, or called out that I supposedly do not understand what I post, or that my arguments are based on gaps of knowledge, or being called a liar. But when I am, its a good indication, I was right, and they couldn't handle it.
If you argue that macro-evolution and abiogenesis are claims based on faith, and not solid science, based on empirical data, and do it through your own words and write-up, the opponents ask: " Where is the peer review ? ".
If you, however, provide links and data from peer-reviewed science sources and papers, the complaint is: " I'm curious, do you actually engage in discussion or is it always just a massive document dump? "
One thing that I really can't stand, is anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism can take several different forms. Among atheists, the most common tell-tale marks of an anti-intellectual include:
* He is intellectually proud and believes he has nothing to learn from those who disagree with him.
* He is usually ignorant of philosophy, theology, and science (beyond a layman's knowledge).
* He always expects a Christian to reinvent the wheel just for him.
* He says "there's no evidence" when a more refined thinker would say "there is insufficient evidence".
* He repeats all the usual objections, expecting the Christian every time to start from scratch as if these issues have never been dealt with before.
* He makes no effort to inform himself about the pre-existing answers.
* He is lacking in intellectual depth, has only read people on his own side of the discussion, but tries to make up for it with rhetoric and personal slanders.
Such individuals do not contribute to a constructive dialogue. Jonathan McLatchie
most of the objections made by nonbelievers here, and elsewhere, I have already dealt with. There is no reason for me to write down everything, which I have already investigated, and formulated my views on it. If you come up with something, that i did not investigate yet, then I might make the effort to write a specific response. Otherwise, I see no reason for your complaint. Rather, why do you not give an honest examination of my responses in an unbiased manner, and actually check, if my inferences might not make more sense than explanations based on no intelligent causal agency?
Complaining about copy/paste
First of all, there is no problem to cite, copy/paste external sources in a debate about origins. All inferences at my virtual library, are based on evidence from peer reviewed papers from respected Science journals. When you ask me to write down what I have already researched, I would repeat and waste time rewriting what I have ready at hand. What I copy, is the result of considerable investigation and time spending. If you were arguing that my copy/past does not address the precisely the issue in question, or superficial drivel and nonsense, your complaint would be granted. But I try to respond in an as much as possible specific way, addressing the specific questions, and what I copy, is the BEST and in-depth answer I am able to come up with. If you want to engage, value the time i have spend and which i am using now to provide you relevant information, and take your time and investigate if what I post is sound, reasonable, compelling, and if it makes more sense than anything that philosophical materialism provides. if you comprehend, i appreciate, and i am sure, if you take your time to read my responses, you will see there is some "meat"....
Complaining about an apologetic source
Reasonanscience is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on peer-reviewed science papers and I provide the links to the sources. The premises and evidence are solid science. What can be discussed is if the inferences that are drawn are sound or not. My inference is that we do know how to recognize the action of intelligence, and can, therefore, make solid scientific predictions based on intelligent design, and test if they apply to natural phenomena, and if that is not the case, we can apply the method of Bayesian probability, and figure out what explanation is the most adequate, based on reasonable logical principles.
What to do:
1. Study if the premises provided and if the demonstrated evidence is real and true. Take the time to actually understand the subject in discussion.
2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists ( can the origin of the phenomena in question be explained convincingly, proposing natural mechanisms? )
3. Analyse if the action of an intelligent, causal agency is not a better explanation
4. If you think, naturalism has better explanatory power, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to their defense, or
5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard of other issues as well.
6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your world view, or on the contrary, if naturalism has an overall more compelling case, keep naturalism as the better world view.
If you want to provide better explanations of origins than a proponent of intelligent design like me, here a suggestion :
- Do not : try to attack my knowledge
- Do not : try to attack my education, ( asking to go back to school etc. ) or ask for my credentials
- Do not : try to attack my source ( It is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on mainstream scientific papers. What you might disagree with, are the inferences i draw upon the evidence we observe in the natural world. In that case, all you have to do is to provide better explanation of origins of the phenomena described)
- Do not argue that i copied the argument from somewhere ( its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most arguments are based on the evidence provided by mainstream scientific, often peer-reviewed papers )
- Do not argue that the argument is from ignorance (it's not )
- Do not ask for proofs that God exists. There are no proofs, neither that God exists, neither that the natural world is all there is. Ask the right philosophical question: How can we best explain the origin and existence of the physical world ?
- Do not argue its pseudo science ( my arguments are usually very detailed. Pseudo-science is the opposite )
- Do not : try to attack the bible ( intelligent design has nothing to do with the bible )
- Do not make any explitic adhom, calling me names, like troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or accusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. Please remain polite and rational, as i am being with you (besides it adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism become more compelling )
- Nor acuse me of being biased ( we are all to a certain degree. You too )
- Do not call my inference magic ( A potent and intelligent cause makes still more sense than everything coming from nothing )
- Do not suggest to peer review my point ( the hostility of the scientific establishment towards intelligent design is well known )
- Do not acuse me or my source of lying ( unless you have proof of it, then point out exactly why its a lie )
Namecalling
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills
Resorting to personal attacks or insults is the weakest form of discourse. When engaging in debates or discussions, especially online, one is advised to focus on the merits of the arguments themselves rather than attacking the person presenting them. Ad hominem attacks, which criticize the person rather than their ideas, are fallacious and unproductive. The internet, while a powerful tool for communication and sharing ideas, often reasoned discourse is overshadowed by inflammatory rhetoric. This is a hallmark behavior of those who lack expertise, maturity, or the ability to engage in constructive dialogue. In a debate, when one party begins to use personal insults or question the other's intelligence, education, or moral integrity, it often indicates that they have either exhausted their logical arguments or don't have any related to a specific topic, at all. This approach does not strengthen their position or weaken their opponent's; instead, it only diminishes the quality of the discussion. It's advisable to avoid making assumptions about or attacking an opponent's educational background, intelligence, or credentials. Such tactics do not contribute to the validity of one's position or the overall debate. Instead, focusing on evidence, logic, and reasoned arguments is the only way to foster meaningful dialogue and understanding, and have a productive discourse, and potentially change minds,
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
"Personal insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward." - Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
"Personal insults are the last resort of exhausted minds". - Pat Buchanan
"Insults are the last resort of insecure people trying to appear confident in their weak position." - Pastor Rick Warren
"Insults are the last refuge of the out-argued." - Unknown
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Anonymous
What to do:
1. Thorough Examination of Premises
Begin by carefully studying the presented premise. Take ample time to fully comprehend the information and arguments provided.
2. Evaluation of Naturalistic Explanations
Assess whether a compelling case can be made through naturalistic perspectives. Consider the strength and validity of explanations rooted in natural processes.
3. Consideration of Intelligent Design
Analyze whether intelligent design offers a more comprehensive or convincing explanation for the phenomena in question.
4. Comparative Analysis
If you conclude that naturalism provides superior explanatory power:
- Present reasoned arguments to refute claims made by proponents of intelligent design.
- Engage in active listening to understand their counterarguments and defenses.
5. Reassessment of Position
If intelligent design appears to offer better explanations:
- Acknowledge this finding openly.
- Extend this analytical approach to other relevant issues or phenomena.
6. Potential Paradigm Shift
If multiple issues are found to be more effectively explained through intelligent design:
- Be open to reconsidering your overall worldview.
- Evaluate the implications of these findings on your broader understanding of the subject matter.
This approach emphasizes critical thinking, open-mindedness, and a willingness to revise one's views based on thorough analysis and evidence.
Attacking your character rather than the argument
If they can portray you as mean and evil then they never have to interact with you because, the premise is, you never have to interact with mean and evil people. Avoid toxic relationships. Never give a Nazi air time. So they don't have to make their case- they just have to attack your character. This is the quickest, safest, most effective route for them. And character is easy to attack. For one, everyone is a hypocrite at some level. Everyone is inconsistent on how they live. And who wants to subject themselves to criticism. It's one thing to be shown your views are wrong, but quite another to be told you're evil, despicable, mean, toxic, etc. This mindset starts even with books written for four year olds. Even if you watch presidential debates in the states, you'll see that the focus is normally on character rather than policy. Identity politics exists for a reason- it works. They don't have to prove you're a slime-ball- they just have to make you look like one.
Accusing the opponent of dishonesty & lying.
One thing that I really can't stand is to be called intellectually dishonest, or when I am explicitly out called as a liar, but my opponent uses that tactic just to hide his incompetence to deal with the issues raised in a grown-up manner, as an adult. If my opponent feels I lied, he should first quote the sentence where he feels i was dishonest, and then clearly outline why he felt it was a lie. Unless he does this, i call such accusations coward and anti-intellectual.
Dembsky: We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence. the design inference does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based on our best available knowledge. It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes. The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probability could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a leg or a limb with the right size and form, and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism. Nature would have to arrange almost an infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive arrangement. Since that would become a highly unlikely event, the design is a better explanation.
Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance. To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid” from scattered letter type.1
– A. I. Oparin
- Do not argue that i copied the argument from a " nonscience " site, like reasonandscience forum , or somewhere else. Reasonandscience is for instance my personal virtual library, and its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific or philosophical debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most if not all my arguments and inferences are based on the evidence provided by mainstream scientific , often peer reviewed papers. So if you disagree with my inferences, provide more compelling ones, and we talk......
My worldview is composed on my thoughts, but mostly on outside information. There is no problem to copy past answers , when i have dealt with a specific question previously. I do not have to spend my time to write down when i have an answer ready at hand. Most arguments made by atheists, i have dealt with already. So unless an atheist comes up with a new argument, i see no reason why i should spend efforts and time to re write what i have already ready at hand to anser.
Critizism about the opponent's knowledge
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2114-personal-attacks#3759
Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense, But a man of understanding remains silent.-Proverbs 11:12
Criticizing the opponent's knowledge, intelligence or education is not the best way to establish a point. I hear often critiques like You need a basic understanding of science, you don't understand evolution nor biology, take a science class, where is your published work, we're trying to educate you, you are spouting ignorance of the subject, you refuse to learn, Head well and truly in the sand, willful ignorance is your decision, you don't understand what you're copying and pasting, or go over to explicit insults of various forms and degrees. Mock and ridicule with contempt are not new to me. That are responses put forward frequently by Atheists in the attempt to hide their own ignorance, and avoid providing substance. Rather than address the specific issues in question, and provide compelling scenarios that would underline their own views, they resort to that implicit personal attacks and try to discredit the opponent. Not only does it hide their ignorance on the subject, but they expose also their ignorance of their opponent's knowledge and education, which cannot be known after a few sentences and posts made on a specific topic. Fact is, even IF their opponent were ignorant on the issue, that would not make their views become more credible or correct. That's a logical fallacy. The best way for them to deal with the arguments brought forward by proponents of ID/creationism, is 1. educate themselves about the issue in question, and 2. if they disagree with the inference drawn, provide a better explanation based on their views.
The truth about origins, and about who proposes it
Some of the most common questions of atheists are about the education of the one that makes a case, or if his evidence was peer-reviewed.
The best explanation of the mechanism of origins remains the best explanation, no matter if the proponent is educated in astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, biology if he has a PHD, a doctorate, a formal education of any degree, or no formal degree at all. Anyone, independent of its formal education, can educate himself about science related to origins. Ignorance is a free choice in the age of information. It is easy and freely available on the internet, or books. All someone has to do, is to spend time, and understand the evidence, and draw logical compelling inferences based on the observation.
It's also irrelevant if the source of the information is a peer reviewed scientific article or not. All that is required, is that the premise and the observed evidence in the natural world are correctly described and characterized. Some of the most influential scientific papers were rejected during the peer review process.
Good Science without Peer-Review
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1919-good-science-without-peer-review
Atheists commonly call theists trolls. A troll is someone who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting extraneous, or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement. The Atheists behavior of calling a Theist a troll is not uncommon, and in most cases due to the fact that they cannot refute the theists claim, and as such, sidestep, and in order not to admit defiance, start name calling, amongst which calling the opponent a troll is a preferably used tactic. By doing so, they declare defeat of their world-view, but are unwilling to admit it in a fair manner.
Just postin links:
If you truly want to convince anyone of anything, posting a link with no explanation is not the way to do it. When a person posts a link and refuses to point out the important part of the article, I am forced to assume that person is pretending to know things that they don't know. Gonna post a link to a study but you can't even tell me what the study says? Then I am forced to assume you've never read the study. "Do your own research" is something people say when they have no research of their own to share, but they still want to look like a part of the conversation.
The process of troll evolution:
1) Troll sould immediately begin by mocking intelligence or education of opponent and boldly assert opponent is wrong.
2) If troll is confronted with facts that contradict his or her claim, troll will claim said facts are irrelevant.
3) If troll is reminded of why provided facts are relevant, troll will immediately place a finger in each ear and repeat steps 1 and 2.
A very simplistic process, I know, but trolls are not very complex creatures. Now, let's watch the process at work.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xSTYYHcV0c5wje/giphy.gif
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills
Question: what are your science qualifications ?
Reply:
First: I have no formal scientific training. I am a layman. The knowledge or undestanding of someone is not measured by the formal science qualifications, degrees or titles. Today, information is ready at hand through books, and in special through the internet.
If someone is willing to get educated, it can be by different means.
Secondly: Someone can be part of the highest ranks of the scientific establishment, and have an enormous wealth of scientific knowledge, but still making unsound inferences based on the evidence. Often
scientists are bad philosophers, and philoophers are bad scientists.
Third: In an origins debate, asking the qualifications of someone is usually a strategy adopted to distract from the real issues in question: How can we best explain our existence ?
What to do:
1. Study if the premises provided and if the demonstrated evidence is real and true. Take the time to actually understand the subject in discussion.
2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists ( can the origin of the phenomena in question be explained convincingly, proposing natural mechanisms? )
3. Analyse if the action of an intelligent, causal agency is not a better explanation
4. If you think, naturalism has better explanatory power, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to their defense, or
5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard of other issues as well.
6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your world view, or on the contrary, if naturalism has an overall more compelling case, keep naturalism as the better world view.
What not to do:
1. attack my knowledge
2. attack my education, ( asking to go back to school etc. )
3. attack my source ( It is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on mainstream scientific papers. What you might disagree with, are the inferences i draw upon the evidence we observe in the 4. natural world. In that case, all you have to do is to provide better explanation of origins of the phenomena described)
5. argue that i copied the argument from somewhere ( its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most arguments are based on 6. the evidence provided by mainstream scientific, often peer-reviewed papers )
7. argue that the argument is from ignorance (it's not )
8. ask for proofs that God exists. There are no proofs, neither that God exists, neither that the natural world is all there is. Ask the right philosophical question: How can we best explain the origin and existence of the physical world ?
9. argue its pseudo science ( my arguments are usually very detailed. Pseudo-science is the opposite )
10. attack the bible ( intelligent design has nothing to do with the bible )
11. make any explitic adhom, calling me names, like troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or accusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. Please remain polite and rational, as i am being with you (besides it adds nothing to your case, nor 12. does it make naturalism become more compelling )
13. acuse me of being biased ( we are all to a certain degree. You too )
14. call my inference magic ( A potent and intelligent cause makes still more sense than everything coming from nothing )
15. suggest to peer review my inferences. The premises upon which i base my inferences are based on science papers published in well known science journals.
16. acuse me or my source of lying ( unless you have proof of it, then point out exactly why its a lie )
I am not always being called a troll. kicked out of a group., being blocked, hear complains that I copy/pasted, or being questioned about my knowledge, or the legitimacy of my source, or called out that I supposedly do not understand what I post, or that my arguments are based on gaps of knowledge, or being called a liar. But when I am, its a good indication, I was right, and they couldn't handle it.
If you argue that macro-evolution and abiogenesis are claims based on faith, and not solid science, based on empirical data, and do it through your own words and write-up, the opponents ask: " Where is the peer review ? ".
If you, however, provide links and data from peer-reviewed science sources and papers, the complaint is: " I'm curious, do you actually engage in discussion or is it always just a massive document dump? "
One thing that I really can't stand, is anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism can take several different forms. Among atheists, the most common tell-tale marks of an anti-intellectual include:
* He is intellectually proud and believes he has nothing to learn from those who disagree with him.
* He is usually ignorant of philosophy, theology, and science (beyond a layman's knowledge).
* He always expects a Christian to reinvent the wheel just for him.
* He says "there's no evidence" when a more refined thinker would say "there is insufficient evidence".
* He repeats all the usual objections, expecting the Christian every time to start from scratch as if these issues have never been dealt with before.
* He makes no effort to inform himself about the pre-existing answers.
* He is lacking in intellectual depth, has only read people on his own side of the discussion, but tries to make up for it with rhetoric and personal slanders.
Such individuals do not contribute to a constructive dialogue. Jonathan McLatchie
most of the objections made by nonbelievers here, and elsewhere, I have already dealt with. There is no reason for me to write down everything, which I have already investigated, and formulated my views on it. If you come up with something, that i did not investigate yet, then I might make the effort to write a specific response. Otherwise, I see no reason for your complaint. Rather, why do you not give an honest examination of my responses in an unbiased manner, and actually check, if my inferences might not make more sense than explanations based on no intelligent causal agency?
Complaining about copy/paste
First of all, there is no problem to cite, copy/paste external sources in a debate about origins. All inferences at my virtual library, are based on evidence from peer reviewed papers from respected Science journals. When you ask me to write down what I have already researched, I would repeat and waste time rewriting what I have ready at hand. What I copy, is the result of considerable investigation and time spending. If you were arguing that my copy/past does not address the precisely the issue in question, or superficial drivel and nonsense, your complaint would be granted. But I try to respond in an as much as possible specific way, addressing the specific questions, and what I copy, is the BEST and in-depth answer I am able to come up with. If you want to engage, value the time i have spend and which i am using now to provide you relevant information, and take your time and investigate if what I post is sound, reasonable, compelling, and if it makes more sense than anything that philosophical materialism provides. if you comprehend, i appreciate, and i am sure, if you take your time to read my responses, you will see there is some "meat"....
Complaining about an apologetic source
Reasonanscience is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on peer-reviewed science papers and I provide the links to the sources. The premises and evidence are solid science. What can be discussed is if the inferences that are drawn are sound or not. My inference is that we do know how to recognize the action of intelligence, and can, therefore, make solid scientific predictions based on intelligent design, and test if they apply to natural phenomena, and if that is not the case, we can apply the method of Bayesian probability, and figure out what explanation is the most adequate, based on reasonable logical principles.
What to do:
1. Study if the premises provided and if the demonstrated evidence is real and true. Take the time to actually understand the subject in discussion.
2. Analyse if a compelling case through naturalism exists ( can the origin of the phenomena in question be explained convincingly, proposing natural mechanisms? )
3. Analyse if the action of an intelligent, causal agency is not a better explanation
4. If you think, naturalism has better explanatory power, refute claims of ID proponents, and listen to their defense, or
5. Admit ID has the better explanatory power, and check if that is the case in regard of other issues as well.
6. If various issues are better explained through ID, change your world view, or on the contrary, if naturalism has an overall more compelling case, keep naturalism as the better world view.
If you want to provide better explanations of origins than a proponent of intelligent design like me, here a suggestion :
- Do not : try to attack my knowledge
- Do not : try to attack my education, ( asking to go back to school etc. ) or ask for my credentials
- Do not : try to attack my source ( It is my personal virtual library. Almost all my arguments and premises are based on mainstream scientific papers. What you might disagree with, are the inferences i draw upon the evidence we observe in the natural world. In that case, all you have to do is to provide better explanation of origins of the phenomena described)
- Do not argue that i copied the argument from somewhere ( its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most arguments are based on the evidence provided by mainstream scientific, often peer-reviewed papers )
- Do not argue that the argument is from ignorance (it's not )
- Do not ask for proofs that God exists. There are no proofs, neither that God exists, neither that the natural world is all there is. Ask the right philosophical question: How can we best explain the origin and existence of the physical world ?
- Do not argue its pseudo science ( my arguments are usually very detailed. Pseudo-science is the opposite )
- Do not : try to attack the bible ( intelligent design has nothing to do with the bible )
- Do not make any explitic adhom, calling me names, like troll, stupid, idiot etc. , or accusing me of not thinking, or not using my brain. Please remain polite and rational, as i am being with you (besides it adds nothing to your case, nor does it make naturalism become more compelling )
- Nor acuse me of being biased ( we are all to a certain degree. You too )
- Do not call my inference magic ( A potent and intelligent cause makes still more sense than everything coming from nothing )
- Do not suggest to peer review my point ( the hostility of the scientific establishment towards intelligent design is well known )
- Do not acuse me or my source of lying ( unless you have proof of it, then point out exactly why its a lie )
Namecalling
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2288-most-frequent-responses-given-by-proponents-of-naturalism-in-a-debate-and-how-they-can-improve-their-debate-skills
Resorting to personal attacks or insults is the weakest form of discourse. When engaging in debates or discussions, especially online, one is advised to focus on the merits of the arguments themselves rather than attacking the person presenting them. Ad hominem attacks, which criticize the person rather than their ideas, are fallacious and unproductive. The internet, while a powerful tool for communication and sharing ideas, often reasoned discourse is overshadowed by inflammatory rhetoric. This is a hallmark behavior of those who lack expertise, maturity, or the ability to engage in constructive dialogue. In a debate, when one party begins to use personal insults or question the other's intelligence, education, or moral integrity, it often indicates that they have either exhausted their logical arguments or don't have any related to a specific topic, at all. This approach does not strengthen their position or weaken their opponent's; instead, it only diminishes the quality of the discussion. It's advisable to avoid making assumptions about or attacking an opponent's educational background, intelligence, or credentials. Such tactics do not contribute to the validity of one's position or the overall debate. Instead, focusing on evidence, logic, and reasoned arguments is the only way to foster meaningful dialogue and understanding, and have a productive discourse, and potentially change minds,
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
"Personal insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward." - Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
"Personal insults are the last resort of exhausted minds". - Pat Buchanan
"Insults are the last resort of insecure people trying to appear confident in their weak position." - Pastor Rick Warren
"Insults are the last refuge of the out-argued." - Unknown
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Anonymous
What to do:
1. Thorough Examination of Premises
Begin by carefully studying the presented premise. Take ample time to fully comprehend the information and arguments provided.
2. Evaluation of Naturalistic Explanations
Assess whether a compelling case can be made through naturalistic perspectives. Consider the strength and validity of explanations rooted in natural processes.
3. Consideration of Intelligent Design
Analyze whether intelligent design offers a more comprehensive or convincing explanation for the phenomena in question.
4. Comparative Analysis
If you conclude that naturalism provides superior explanatory power:
- Present reasoned arguments to refute claims made by proponents of intelligent design.
- Engage in active listening to understand their counterarguments and defenses.
5. Reassessment of Position
If intelligent design appears to offer better explanations:
- Acknowledge this finding openly.
- Extend this analytical approach to other relevant issues or phenomena.
6. Potential Paradigm Shift
If multiple issues are found to be more effectively explained through intelligent design:
- Be open to reconsidering your overall worldview.
- Evaluate the implications of these findings on your broader understanding of the subject matter.
This approach emphasizes critical thinking, open-mindedness, and a willingness to revise one's views based on thorough analysis and evidence.
Attacking your character rather than the argument
If they can portray you as mean and evil then they never have to interact with you because, the premise is, you never have to interact with mean and evil people. Avoid toxic relationships. Never give a Nazi air time. So they don't have to make their case- they just have to attack your character. This is the quickest, safest, most effective route for them. And character is easy to attack. For one, everyone is a hypocrite at some level. Everyone is inconsistent on how they live. And who wants to subject themselves to criticism. It's one thing to be shown your views are wrong, but quite another to be told you're evil, despicable, mean, toxic, etc. This mindset starts even with books written for four year olds. Even if you watch presidential debates in the states, you'll see that the focus is normally on character rather than policy. Identity politics exists for a reason- it works. They don't have to prove you're a slime-ball- they just have to make you look like one.
Accusing the opponent of dishonesty & lying.
One thing that I really can't stand is to be called intellectually dishonest, or when I am explicitly out called as a liar, but my opponent uses that tactic just to hide his incompetence to deal with the issues raised in a grown-up manner, as an adult. If my opponent feels I lied, he should first quote the sentence where he feels i was dishonest, and then clearly outline why he felt it was a lie. Unless he does this, i call such accusations coward and anti-intellectual.
Dembsky: We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new instructing complex information, namely, intelligence. the design inference does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based on our best available knowledge. It asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes. The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection or luck/chance/probability could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a leg or a limb with the right size and form, and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism. Nature would have to arrange almost an infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive arrangement. Since that would become a highly unlikely event, the design is a better explanation.
Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance. To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid” from scattered letter type.1
– A. I. Oparin
- Do not argue that i copied the argument from a " nonscience " site, like reasonandscience forum , or somewhere else. Reasonandscience is for instance my personal virtual library, and its perfectly valid to present external sources in a scientific or philosophical debate. In my case, i take frequently reference to my personal virtual library, where most if not all my arguments and inferences are based on the evidence provided by mainstream scientific , often peer reviewed papers. So if you disagree with my inferences, provide more compelling ones, and we talk......
My worldview is composed on my thoughts, but mostly on outside information. There is no problem to copy past answers , when i have dealt with a specific question previously. I do not have to spend my time to write down when i have an answer ready at hand. Most arguments made by atheists, i have dealt with already. So unless an atheist comes up with a new argument, i see no reason why i should spend efforts and time to re write what i have already ready at hand to anser.
Critizism about the opponent's knowledge
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2114-personal-attacks#3759
Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense, But a man of understanding remains silent.-Proverbs 11:12
Criticizing the opponent's knowledge, intelligence or education is not the best way to establish a point. I hear often critiques like You need a basic understanding of science, you don't understand evolution nor biology, take a science class, where is your published work, we're trying to educate you, you are spouting ignorance of the subject, you refuse to learn, Head well and truly in the sand, willful ignorance is your decision, you don't understand what you're copying and pasting, or go over to explicit insults of various forms and degrees. Mock and ridicule with contempt are not new to me. That are responses put forward frequently by Atheists in the attempt to hide their own ignorance, and avoid providing substance. Rather than address the specific issues in question, and provide compelling scenarios that would underline their own views, they resort to that implicit personal attacks and try to discredit the opponent. Not only does it hide their ignorance on the subject, but they expose also their ignorance of their opponent's knowledge and education, which cannot be known after a few sentences and posts made on a specific topic. Fact is, even IF their opponent were ignorant on the issue, that would not make their views become more credible or correct. That's a logical fallacy. The best way for them to deal with the arguments brought forward by proponents of ID/creationism, is 1. educate themselves about the issue in question, and 2. if they disagree with the inference drawn, provide a better explanation based on their views.
The truth about origins, and about who proposes it
Some of the most common questions of atheists are about the education of the one that makes a case, or if his evidence was peer-reviewed.
The best explanation of the mechanism of origins remains the best explanation, no matter if the proponent is educated in astrophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, biology if he has a PHD, a doctorate, a formal education of any degree, or no formal degree at all. Anyone, independent of its formal education, can educate himself about science related to origins. Ignorance is a free choice in the age of information. It is easy and freely available on the internet, or books. All someone has to do, is to spend time, and understand the evidence, and draw logical compelling inferences based on the observation.
It's also irrelevant if the source of the information is a peer reviewed scientific article or not. All that is required, is that the premise and the observed evidence in the natural world are correctly described and characterized. Some of the most influential scientific papers were rejected during the peer review process.
Good Science without Peer-Review
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1919-good-science-without-peer-review
Atheists commonly call theists trolls. A troll is someone who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting extraneous, or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement. The Atheists behavior of calling a Theist a troll is not uncommon, and in most cases due to the fact that they cannot refute the theists claim, and as such, sidestep, and in order not to admit defiance, start name calling, amongst which calling the opponent a troll is a preferably used tactic. By doing so, they declare defeat of their world-view, but are unwilling to admit it in a fair manner.
Just postin links:
If you truly want to convince anyone of anything, posting a link with no explanation is not the way to do it. When a person posts a link and refuses to point out the important part of the article, I am forced to assume that person is pretending to know things that they don't know. Gonna post a link to a study but you can't even tell me what the study says? Then I am forced to assume you've never read the study. "Do your own research" is something people say when they have no research of their own to share, but they still want to look like a part of the conversation.
The process of troll evolution:
1) Troll sould immediately begin by mocking intelligence or education of opponent and boldly assert opponent is wrong.
2) If troll is confronted with facts that contradict his or her claim, troll will claim said facts are irrelevant.
3) If troll is reminded of why provided facts are relevant, troll will immediately place a finger in each ear and repeat steps 1 and 2.
A very simplistic process, I know, but trolls are not very complex creatures. Now, let's watch the process at work.
https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xSTYYHcV0c5wje/giphy.gif
Last edited by Otangelo on Sat 3 Aug 2024 - 13:21; edited 96 times in total
