And, you assert this not merely on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, but in -contradiction- to direct empirical evidence.
Yes, all existents are conceptualized. Asserting the concept doesn't exist and therefore neither does its referent, though, just means you failed metaphysics.
No, we can put it down right now. No one has adequately defined "soul," so there is no reason to believe one exists.
Sorry, this assertion is silly. Besides the fact it just was adequately defined, as "state", ability to define no more determines existence here than it does for "love".
Really, since there is no possible rationale by which any effort at all expended replying to you can be rationally cost-justified, I'll be brief.
The first link: The particular perceptions are compatible with a highly-limiting range of religious percepts. Feel free to provide some evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's overall theological framework includes these particular elements, if you are seriously willing to expand on your irrationality. Otherwise, the specific perceptual elements surveyed and found are simply far more indicative of, and supportive of, Judeo-Christianity than pasta.
If you please, let's dispense with your further blatant intellectual dishonesty in this "pyjamas" terminology. If you considered the notions to be equivalent, you would simply use the standard terminology, and trust that saying "God" would be equally rejected on its face--there is no reason not to use the standard terminology. Instead, you rely on your language as being taken as -both the same as- and -not the same as- the theological concept at hand. It needs to be taken as -the same as- for the purposes of your hope I'll draw conceptual equivalence, and -not the same as- for the purposes of your intended denigration relative to the concept of "God". This is not effective, it is simply demonstration that your intellectual dishonesty is so automatic it's ingrained in you down to a habitual verbal level. While sad, it contributes nothing to the discussion, and is wholly invalid on the level of self-contradiction as valid argument.
Link two: No, I do not need to quantify both sides for a clear improbability to be obvious. The relative probability would remain imprecise, but hardly irrelevant an an evidentiary basis. Yes, you know this yourself as you claim otherwise. If I predict that a world-leader will die 500 years by now by descriptive means clearly indicative of a means of death not yet invented, I do not need to know the opposite probability for this to be meaningful, beyond specifying it as LOW. Say otherwise, but you act every single day estimating probabilities of everyday things without being able to, or seriously attempting, such a quantification. What is high-probability, you take as such in risk and personal pursuit, and what is low-probability, you take as such. Simply observing you for a day would reveal your position is, well, directly disingenuous on your claimed criteria.
Link three: Okay, you changing the subject and pretending you haven't is, of course, wholly expected. So that it's stated directly, and in fact we are talking about -relative plausibility-, are you willing to state now that all other forms of martyrdom by other religions are irrelevant to the -question at hand-, evaluation relative to -what was being discussed-, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? That should be checkpointed here and now. Your original position retracted, then, with basic acknowledgment you're changing the subject and pretending the same issue is now being determined, when you know it isn't, much like your self-contradiction on the "pyjamas" thing?
Sure, I know you'll waste endless amounts of my time with redirects to other subjects and points, but indeed, willing martyrdom by Aztecs does indeed lend -plausibility- to that position as a particular point of comparison, relative to beliefs -lacking that-. I'll go ahead and state what you already know as you were suggesting otherwise (read: more indirect lying on your part), given it does indeed lend plausibility to the Inca worldview, I would make such decisions based on multiple factors, naturally, and so your idea I must now accept Inca belief on this one factor and in the face of any other analysis of the worldview, well, you already know how to characterize that non-sequitur insistence.
And, toward the end, yeah, you are making even more obvious your only intent, and the most possible value you can bring to this conversation (all merely negative value, from any valid practical or theoretical perspective) is a dissembling chan
Fair enough.
Let's start the first round of discussion by you proposing your quantifiables on the Flying Spaghetti Monster's stats regarding him specifically being reported as percieved as a structured sensory phenomenon during EEG flatline, as documented in peer-reviewed studies, like the following:
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
Your broad estimates as to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's success at predicting future events (feel free to use some previous incarnation of said pasta to allow for at least one non-trivial "predicted-1-year-ahead" example on your part, and feel free to reduce the proposed improbability estimated by the following link by a millionfold before we begin):
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml
And preferably, a listing of those living first-hand during the formation of the FSM belief, thus having direct testimonial standing, who have been willingly martyred in support of their experience (I'm taking volunteers, BTW):
http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?apostles.htm
Seems like a decent set of criteria to evaluate the relative plausibility by. What say you?
Let's pretend sarcasm isn't for people who fail philosophy, and go ahead and elaborate on something constructive I can take away from an assertion that a premise is both true and untrue concurrently. I really can't wait to see what you'll say next, as if there were something you logically validly could.
On the other hand, I am often hungry for spaghetti, and I plan on availing myself of all the fun things evolution implies, starting after when you presume your Natural Deselection would be final.
I'll avoid taking time now to argue I think this is indicative of Design, because I expect to see the usual spontaneous compulsory posts insisting it isn't indicative Design, as sufficient psychological indication of it being considered plausibly Design.
Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Loudly.
If you think this off-topic, well, one question. Why would it matter how rare such events are? Just state it in your own words. There, thought so.
I agree. Almost to the point that directly forcefully preventing equivocating "evolutionary processes occur" with "only evolutionary processes occur" and package-dealing an unstated backdoor unscientific non-sequitur should be required. This isn't only a false belief, it is formally logically invalid.
Since I'm busy today, I'll just paste a recent response of mine to the generic stock argument. Might draw negative moderation for the lack of effort, but then I have an inescapable secondary review coming courtesy of Natural Selection.;)
---paste---
No, one can hardly "objectively" dismiss it, because it is simply represented as what it isn't by those who then conclude it "objectively dismissable". ID is not inherently "religious", and this will remain simple fact as you claim otherwise. It will remain simple fact the hundredth time you claim so, as the stock straw-man.
The Irreducible Complexity claim is testable, and will be tested as inevitable fact, when we have the genome mapped sufficiently precisely to evaluate the probability of given proposed IC structures on the level of chemistry. On the other hand, the only sense which you care about "evolution", as a proposed exclusive causal factor, is wholly untestable. Equivocating "evolutionary processes occur", which absolutely no one "in ID" denies (as you claim otherwise simply because you have to, for your "ID versus evolution" false dichotomy) with "only evolutionary processes occur" is a misleading equivocation, intended toward, but failing in, supporting your untestable and unscientific metaphysical inference.
Perhaps you didn't get your requirements document in on time.
Or lacked sufficient organizational authority to get it placed as top priority...
On the upside, I think we've definitively resolved the question of whether once someone brilliant produces Hard AI, whether there'll be a bunch of also-rans complaining, "Well, yeah, but his code sucks..."
Odd, but in six years of following and/or participating religion debates, I've never once heard a theist put Einstein "in their camp", much less "repeatedly".
Have you some particular context in mind where this is the case? Care to specify?
Once again, your beliefs are contradictory - it's the holly trinity of nonsensical statements.
Amusing as this process has been of you telling me what I think, and then telling me that those ideas are self-contradictory, with your assertions of self-contradiction being only applicable to your own statements, really, we have to leave it somewhere. Requires an embarrassing level of philosophical parasitism on your part.
Again, though, it may be that the "perfect plan" includes by necessity the fact that a "perfect plan" requires inclusion of and interaction with the people the "perfect plan" would be for. And, sure, I've been recognized, haven't "begged", and now comfortably know the factuality of my position. But hey, you don't, and so can "go to a place where your skills will be better appreciated" on a pedestrian little financial level, until you inevitably simply can't, whether we look at it from my worldview or yours. Then, I simply win everything--and you not believing it makes no difference at all. Sounds like a good plan to me.
If he had any sort of plan laid out, your request (or lack thereof) would make no difference whatsoever.
No, because the context "the boss" operates under includes you, and the self-definition that occurs from the interaction you dismiss. Even if the boss knows what you want, and when you could receive it, it's still necessary for you to -be that person- of someone pursuing the job. Many, many, such cases of God knowing the outcome beforehand, but involving a person for the purpose of helping define that person, are described by theism's defining documents. So much so you could hardly miss the point--unless you tried very hard to, and in that respect I don't want to dissuade you too much from your Natural Deselection that you want. Short-term, though, I suggest not actually trying it with any managers you may have--"Since you already know how good I am, just put me in the top position now, so I don't have to bother trying in any way, or demonstrating anything skill-wise, or learning the specifics of how to demonstrate anything". Probably wouldn't work particularly well, practically speaking.
As far as the "no internal logic", well, okay, just directly, knowingly lie then. Desperate as it obviously is to dismiss specific, clear, cogent arguments with a universal dismissal of all possible arguments in a domain you don't like, I'll just sign off comfortable that I know you're simply lying, as you're already perfectly clear on yourself.
You're simply constructing a supposed dilemma based on a deliberately-incorrect description of theism (okay, perhaps not deliberately, as it looks equally likely you're just directly parroting Dawkins with no individual thought applied at all).
I can believe God is omniscient and omnipotent, and as such responsive to requests as moderated by his greater understanding of all relevant factors. Same basic thing on a much smaller scale as asking your boss for a promotion, which you may or may not get, based on his knowledge of the company's needs and your present and future value to the company. This should not be difficult to understand.
I presumed no such thing - I'm simply reacting to the Christian insinuation that god values life.
The question itself presumes it, and that's what's under discussion. You're context-dropping the issue of "life", evaluating a death by relative comparison to an alternative you don't have. Not stating that doesn't make it less the case.
Is it your contention that god doesn't really give a damn when or how we die?
No, it's my contention you're just asserting an outcome as of a definitive overall positive/negative nature, when you would have no possible way of actually doing that, in that you simply don't know the outcome if we admit the notion of God to evaluate his actions, as you propose. If we stipulate for consideration that God does exist, we have an alternative to the outcome you suggest theism would indicate, that being what theism actually does suggest, and which more than zero members of the religion would consider a natural follow-on premise. In short, if God exists, God could put the dead immediately into a positive existential state after death. This would change the overall qualia of the event of death, and you can't "close the loop" with respect to required information to properly evaluate the event of death, given your own premise presented for consideration.
I neither propose to blame god nor to hold him blameless...
Except for the part where you just directly did, given the scenario at hand for discussion.
I'm simply curious about what sort of mental gymnastics are required in order to reconcile such mutually exclusive beliefs.
No "gymnastics" required at all, if we start with discussing a religion's characteristics by describing characteristics that it actually has, rather than ones it would be convenient to claim it has, such as the nature of "prayer". I would find it very strange to hear of any theist actually praying "No matter what, keep my alive, God, regardless of any wider effects which I acknowledge you see far better than me". It's well-understood that within the theological framework, we would have a positive condition to go to afterward, and thus the overall consideration of "when" tends toward factors that humans lack significant relative capacity to evaluate precisely, such as, effects on others with respect to the timing of this unavoidable event--as theists tend to lack the difficulty you display in grasping the inevitable as the inevitable.
You say "let people die" like you think there's an alternative, other than timing.
I find this form of argument very strange, though very common--making statements which presume ongoing continuity of life, or consciousness, while denying it. Reality is such that by default people don't die, so God should be blamed if they do, or reality is such that people do die by default, and your complaint is about when exactly it happens... which is it?
"The book" doesn't actually specify either is the case, but based on this article I'll be taking the "dividing the waters above the sky" part down a notch on my personal allegory/literal spectrum, anyway.
You didn't answer my question. How many failed attempts to posit an irreducibly complex system should we bother looking into before we start realizing that it's unlikely that any such systems exist?
All proposed ones, whenever proposed, as the processes of science would dictate. Same answer for "how many" times any scientific theory should be tested for proposed atypical contexts.
Should we go through every biological system in existence and posit a theoretical pathway to get there and prove by exhaustion that no such systems exist?
Yes, why not? If nothing else, it would add to our understanding of evolution tremendously. Saying science should only investigate some, for a while, seems ludicrous to me.
Incidentally, there is no "god of the gaps argument", only Dawkins', and your, irrational failure to understand what a false dichotomy fallacy is, as you propose such a characterization as meaningful.
The main tenet of ID is that there is a creator who created life. These people are not concerned about science in the least, the complexity and lack of explanation isn't what bothers them.
Okay, lie.
It is trivial to demonstrate that "these people" are "concerned about science", unless you propose that, say, Behe pursued an advanced degree in Biochemistry and then a professorship for the sole purpose of advocating theism, upon which ID does not rest anyway. For myself, I also understand that theism does not rest on ID, but if in fact there are particular instances of "intervention" into the processes of evolution demonstrable (evolution itself, lending itself to being considered as of theistic origin, regardless), I consider that to be of considerable interest, much as awareness of the phenomenon of Punctuated Equilibrium is, as a basic matter of science, history, and knowledge.
How many IC moles need to be whacked before we conclude that the idea of irreducible complexity is flawed at its outset?
Well, yeah, presuming your conclusion is neat and all... and true, we usually call a moratorium on testing theories in science after about a dozen tries, but perhaps in this particular case we can make an exception.
ID falsification: Refute all proposed irreducibly complex structures, once they are enumerated.
Seems straightforward enough to me. This isn't new as a proposal, nor is the mere endlessly-repeated claim that no form of falsification is ever offered, in the face of plain reality.
As for your "theoretical falsification", I'm not clear on how you're suggesting that would be the case, as whatever happens, I can ascribe it to "evolution" with the caveat that any given transition would be, at worst, merely incredibly, astoundingly improbable. I assure you no probability whatsoever will dissuade an individual predisposed to see evolutionary mechanism as the sole causal factor in play.
In the abstract, it's unfalsifiable, e.g. genetic change from simpler to more complex organisms.
In terms of specifics, it's continually falsified, or, "revised" in terms of the structure of the "tree" of the specific transitions proposed at a given time.
Did you want to comment on some particular level, in a non-handwaving way?
Not really, in terms of how evolution is typically presented in debate. Typically, you'll hear a round of mocking the "creationist" distinction of "macroevolution" versus "microevolution", with assertion that they are "the same thing". And they are, with the sole exception of relative probability of the required degree of modification to the genome. Absent acknowledgement of probability, there is no reason that, say, a dog could not mutate into your pegasus in a single generation, or for that matter any given possible permutation of the genome into any other one, immediately. Given that criteria for evaluation, there is no possible way any proposed evolutionary progression could be falsified.
Nope, reread it. There's a direct requirement for statement 5 for specific logical inference--that is, you need to show "euphoria" not as a generalized associated phenomenon in a particular brain (correlational effects equally applicable with to N mental entities), but the -specific- content of "euphoria" as distinct from any other mental referent, e.g. "joy", and precise differentiation of such across all brains, to the level of a neuron. Correlation of given brain phenomena with mental entities is wholly insufficient, akin to saying the conceptual content of "fear" is fully captured by an individual running away from something.
While I wouldn't object if you solved the Mind-Body Problem right here and now, personally outperforming the whole of Western Philosophy, I'd still have to object to your sheer unbacked assertion that any level of biological resolution would cause such a bridge--you're simply hoping such is the case. There are direct reasons to think not, e.g. as called out by this paper (apparently by a rather strident atheist Professor of Philosophy, if it helps assuage a perception of bias with respect to the core issue):
"New discoveries in physics and biology are not helping - merely adding more detail to physical descriptions does not bring us any closer to being able to derive mental statements from them, and I can see no significant progress over the past 300 years."
Thing is, materialist reduction of consciousness results in paradoxes which have remained unsolved throughout this history of Western Philosophy, such as the Mind-Body Problem.
Given that history, one might plausibly conclude that such materialist reduction is insufficient.
No. If our behavior is deterministic, God would know the outcome of our decisions. If it is not, He would not have to in order to have "omniscience", as "the future" is purely an abstraction--knowing it is not a precondition to knowing "all". There would be no future existents or attributes of those existents which, well, exist to know. If it is not deterministic, God would know the accurate fact that is is not deterministic, not the error that it is. Certainly, theists fall in both camps regarding predestination, but it would be inaccurate to say that only one position is held within monotheistic religions.
You're actually making a statement as to the nature of reality (deterministic or not), and implicitly asserting that as impinging on God's knowledge. Usually, this is done for some fairly stock atheistic arguments (and is really begging-the-question), but apart from that, it leaves behind general confusion anyway (as stances which would have no value even if accepted in full tend to do). So, to cast this into a generalized philosophical context, toward the relationship of free-will/determinism and knowledge, here's a thought experiment:
In 1000 years, technology advances to the point where one can directly connect their consciousness to a supercomputer which "knows all" (or, can calculate all), rendering complete knowledge of everyone's behavior insofar as it is possible. At this point in history, would the nature of everyone's will be instantaneously transformed? Or, might we fairly say, that whether someone knows what you will choose or not, you still chose it?
Slashdot Mirror
And outside this particular garden was the rest of the Earth, surrounded by the people and animals who pre-existed the ones in said garden.
If you were from Kansas, you'd have read what it says.
Well, maybe not Kansas, but certainly Alexandria.
And, you assert this not merely on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, but in -contradiction- to direct empirical evidence.
Yes, all existents are conceptualized. Asserting the concept doesn't exist and therefore neither does its referent, though, just means you failed metaphysics.
No, we can put it down right now. No one has adequately defined "soul," so there is no reason to believe one exists.
Sorry, this assertion is silly. Besides the fact it just was adequately defined, as "state", ability to define no more determines existence here than it does for "love".
Really, since there is no possible rationale by which any effort at all expended replying to you can be rationally cost-justified, I'll be brief.
The first link: The particular perceptions are compatible with a highly-limiting range of religious percepts. Feel free to provide some evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster's overall theological framework includes these particular elements, if you are seriously willing to expand on your irrationality. Otherwise, the specific perceptual elements surveyed and found are simply far more indicative of, and supportive of, Judeo-Christianity than pasta.
If you please, let's dispense with your further blatant intellectual dishonesty in this "pyjamas" terminology. If you considered the notions to be equivalent, you would simply use the standard terminology, and trust that saying "God" would be equally rejected on its face--there is no reason not to use the standard terminology. Instead, you rely on your language as being taken as -both the same as- and -not the same as- the theological concept at hand. It needs to be taken as -the same as- for the purposes of your hope I'll draw conceptual equivalence, and -not the same as- for the purposes of your intended denigration relative to the concept of "God". This is not effective, it is simply demonstration that your intellectual dishonesty is so automatic it's ingrained in you down to a habitual verbal level. While sad, it contributes nothing to the discussion, and is wholly invalid on the level of self-contradiction as valid argument.
Link two: No, I do not need to quantify both sides for a clear improbability to be obvious. The relative probability would remain imprecise, but hardly irrelevant an an evidentiary basis. Yes, you know this yourself as you claim otherwise. If I predict that a world-leader will die 500 years by now by descriptive means clearly indicative of a means of death not yet invented, I do not need to know the opposite probability for this to be meaningful, beyond specifying it as LOW. Say otherwise, but you act every single day estimating probabilities of everyday things without being able to, or seriously attempting, such a quantification. What is high-probability, you take as such in risk and personal pursuit, and what is low-probability, you take as such. Simply observing you for a day would reveal your position is, well, directly disingenuous on your claimed criteria.
Link three: Okay, you changing the subject and pretending you haven't is, of course, wholly expected. So that it's stated directly, and in fact we are talking about -relative plausibility-, are you willing to state now that all other forms of martyrdom by other religions are irrelevant to the -question at hand-, evaluation relative to -what was being discussed-, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? That should be checkpointed here and now. Your original position retracted, then, with basic acknowledgment you're changing the subject and pretending the same issue is now being determined, when you know it isn't, much like your self-contradiction on the "pyjamas" thing?
Sure, I know you'll waste endless amounts of my time with redirects to other subjects and points, but indeed, willing martyrdom by Aztecs does indeed lend -plausibility- to that position as a particular point of comparison, relative to beliefs -lacking that-. I'll go ahead and state what you already know as you were suggesting otherwise (read: more indirect lying on your part), given it does indeed lend plausibility to the Inca worldview, I would make such decisions based on multiple factors, naturally, and so your idea I must now accept Inca belief on this one factor and in the face of any other analysis of the worldview, well, you already know how to characterize that non-sequitur insistence.
And, toward the end, yeah, you are making even more obvious your only intent, and the most possible value you can bring to this conversation (all merely negative value, from any valid practical or theoretical perspective) is a dissembling chan
Fair enough. Let's start the first round of discussion by you proposing your quantifiables on the Flying Spaghetti Monster's stats regarding him specifically being reported as percieved as a structured sensory phenomenon during EEG flatline, as documented in peer-reviewed studies, like the following: http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm Your broad estimates as to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's success at predicting future events (feel free to use some previous incarnation of said pasta to allow for at least one non-trivial "predicted-1-year-ahead" example on your part, and feel free to reduce the proposed improbability estimated by the following link by a millionfold before we begin): http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml And preferably, a listing of those living first-hand during the formation of the FSM belief, thus having direct testimonial standing, who have been willingly martyred in support of their experience (I'm taking volunteers, BTW): http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?apostles.htm Seems like a decent set of criteria to evaluate the relative plausibility by. What say you?
FSM? Did you... think of this all by yourself?
Let's pretend sarcasm isn't for people who fail philosophy, and go ahead and elaborate on something constructive I can take away from an assertion that a premise is both true and untrue concurrently. I really can't wait to see what you'll say next, as if there were something you logically validly could.
On the other hand, I am often hungry for spaghetti, and I plan on availing myself of all the fun things evolution implies, starting after when you presume your Natural Deselection would be final.
There are a multitude of reasons the formation of our habitable environment, and its intelligent habitation, are dependent on a finely-tuned universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
I'll avoid taking time now to argue I think this is indicative of Design, because I expect to see the usual spontaneous compulsory posts insisting it isn't indicative Design, as sufficient psychological indication of it being considered plausibly Design.
Methinks Thou Doth Protest Too Loudly.
If you think this off-topic, well, one question. Why would it matter how rare such events are? Just state it in your own words. There, thought so.
I agree. Almost to the point that directly forcefully preventing equivocating "evolutionary processes occur" with "only evolutionary processes occur" and package-dealing an unstated backdoor unscientific non-sequitur should be required. This isn't only a false belief, it is formally logically invalid.
Since I'm busy today, I'll just paste a recent response of mine to the generic stock argument. Might draw negative moderation for the lack of effort, but then I have an inescapable secondary review coming courtesy of Natural Selection. ;)
---paste---
No, one can hardly "objectively" dismiss it, because it is simply represented as what it isn't by those who then conclude it "objectively dismissable". ID is not inherently "religious", and this will remain simple fact as you claim otherwise. It will remain simple fact the hundredth time you claim so, as the stock straw-man.
The Irreducible Complexity claim is testable, and will be tested as inevitable fact, when we have the genome mapped sufficiently precisely to evaluate the probability of given proposed IC structures on the level of chemistry. On the other hand, the only sense which you care about "evolution", as a proposed exclusive causal factor, is wholly untestable. Equivocating "evolutionary processes occur", which absolutely no one "in ID" denies (as you claim otherwise simply because you have to, for your "ID versus evolution" false dichotomy) with "only evolutionary processes occur" is a misleading equivocation, intended toward, but failing in, supporting your untestable and unscientific metaphysical inference.
Perhaps you didn't get your requirements document in on time.
Or lacked sufficient organizational authority to get it placed as top priority...
On the upside, I think we've definitively resolved the question of whether once someone brilliant produces Hard AI, whether there'll be a bunch of also-rans complaining, "Well, yeah, but his code sucks..."
Odd, but in six years of following and/or participating religion debates, I've never once heard a theist put Einstein "in their camp", much less "repeatedly".
Have you some particular context in mind where this is the case? Care to specify?
Once again, your beliefs are contradictory - it's the holly trinity of nonsensical statements.
Amusing as this process has been of you telling me what I think, and then telling me that those ideas are self-contradictory, with your assertions of self-contradiction being only applicable to your own statements, really, we have to leave it somewhere. Requires an embarrassing level of philosophical parasitism on your part.
Again, though, it may be that the "perfect plan" includes by necessity the fact that a "perfect plan" requires inclusion of and interaction with the people the "perfect plan" would be for. And, sure, I've been recognized, haven't "begged", and now comfortably know the factuality of my position. But hey, you don't, and so can "go to a place where your skills will be better appreciated" on a pedestrian little financial level, until you inevitably simply can't, whether we look at it from my worldview or yours. Then, I simply win everything--and you not believing it makes no difference at all. Sounds like a good plan to me.
If he had any sort of plan laid out, your request (or lack thereof) would make no difference whatsoever.
No, because the context "the boss" operates under includes you, and the self-definition that occurs from the interaction you dismiss. Even if the boss knows what you want, and when you could receive it, it's still necessary for you to -be that person- of someone pursuing the job. Many, many, such cases of God knowing the outcome beforehand, but involving a person for the purpose of helping define that person, are described by theism's defining documents. So much so you could hardly miss the point--unless you tried very hard to, and in that respect I don't want to dissuade you too much from your Natural Deselection that you want. Short-term, though, I suggest not actually trying it with any managers you may have--"Since you already know how good I am, just put me in the top position now, so I don't have to bother trying in any way, or demonstrating anything skill-wise, or learning the specifics of how to demonstrate anything". Probably wouldn't work particularly well, practically speaking.
As far as the "no internal logic", well, okay, just directly, knowingly lie then. Desperate as it obviously is to dismiss specific, clear, cogent arguments with a universal dismissal of all possible arguments in a domain you don't like, I'll just sign off comfortable that I know you're simply lying, as you're already perfectly clear on yourself.
You're simply constructing a supposed dilemma based on a deliberately-incorrect description of theism (okay, perhaps not deliberately, as it looks equally likely you're just directly parroting Dawkins with no individual thought applied at all).
I can believe God is omniscient and omnipotent, and as such responsive to requests as moderated by his greater understanding of all relevant factors. Same basic thing on a much smaller scale as asking your boss for a promotion, which you may or may not get, based on his knowledge of the company's needs and your present and future value to the company. This should not be difficult to understand.
I presumed no such thing - I'm simply reacting to the Christian insinuation that god values life.
The question itself presumes it, and that's what's under discussion. You're context-dropping the issue of "life", evaluating a death by relative comparison to an alternative you don't have. Not stating that doesn't make it less the case.
Is it your contention that god doesn't really give a damn when or how we die?
No, it's my contention you're just asserting an outcome as of a definitive overall positive/negative nature, when you would have no possible way of actually doing that, in that you simply don't know the outcome if we admit the notion of God to evaluate his actions, as you propose. If we stipulate for consideration that God does exist, we have an alternative to the outcome you suggest theism would indicate, that being what theism actually does suggest, and which more than zero members of the religion would consider a natural follow-on premise. In short, if God exists, God could put the dead immediately into a positive existential state after death. This would change the overall qualia of the event of death, and you can't "close the loop" with respect to required information to properly evaluate the event of death, given your own premise presented for consideration.
I neither propose to blame god nor to hold him blameless...
Except for the part where you just directly did, given the scenario at hand for discussion.
I'm simply curious about what sort of mental gymnastics are required in order to reconcile such mutually exclusive beliefs.
No "gymnastics" required at all, if we start with discussing a religion's characteristics by describing characteristics that it actually has, rather than ones it would be convenient to claim it has, such as the nature of "prayer". I would find it very strange to hear of any theist actually praying "No matter what, keep my alive, God, regardless of any wider effects which I acknowledge you see far better than me". It's well-understood that within the theological framework, we would have a positive condition to go to afterward, and thus the overall consideration of "when" tends toward factors that humans lack significant relative capacity to evaluate precisely, such as, effects on others with respect to the timing of this unavoidable event--as theists tend to lack the difficulty you display in grasping the inevitable as the inevitable.
You say "let people die" like you think there's an alternative, other than timing.
I find this form of argument very strange, though very common--making statements which presume ongoing continuity of life, or consciousness, while denying it. Reality is such that by default people don't die, so God should be blamed if they do, or reality is such that people do die by default, and your complaint is about when exactly it happens... which is it?
"The book" doesn't actually specify either is the case, but based on this article I'll be taking the "dividing the waters above the sky" part down a notch on my personal allegory/literal spectrum, anyway.
You didn't answer my question. How many failed attempts to posit an irreducibly complex system should we bother looking into before we start realizing that it's unlikely that any such systems exist?
All proposed ones, whenever proposed, as the processes of science would dictate. Same answer for "how many" times any scientific theory should be tested for proposed atypical contexts.
Should we go through every biological system in existence and posit a theoretical pathway to get there and prove by exhaustion that no such systems exist?
Yes, why not? If nothing else, it would add to our understanding of evolution tremendously. Saying science should only investigate some, for a while, seems ludicrous to me.
Incidentally, there is no "god of the gaps argument", only Dawkins', and your, irrational failure to understand what a false dichotomy fallacy is, as you propose such a characterization as meaningful.
The main tenet of ID is that there is a creator who created life. These people are not concerned about science in the least, the complexity and lack of explanation isn't what bothers them.
Okay, lie.
It is trivial to demonstrate that "these people" are "concerned about science", unless you propose that, say, Behe pursued an advanced degree in Biochemistry and then a professorship for the sole purpose of advocating theism, upon which ID does not rest anyway. For myself, I also understand that theism does not rest on ID, but if in fact there are particular instances of "intervention" into the processes of evolution demonstrable (evolution itself, lending itself to being considered as of theistic origin, regardless), I consider that to be of considerable interest, much as awareness of the phenomenon of Punctuated Equilibrium is, as a basic matter of science, history, and knowledge.
How many IC moles need to be whacked before we conclude that the idea of irreducible complexity is flawed at its outset?
Well, yeah, presuming your conclusion is neat and all... and true, we usually call a moratorium on testing theories in science after about a dozen tries, but perhaps in this particular case we can make an exception.
Okay...
ID falsification: Refute all proposed irreducibly complex structures, once they are enumerated.
Seems straightforward enough to me. This isn't new as a proposal, nor is the mere endlessly-repeated claim that no form of falsification is ever offered, in the face of plain reality.
As for your "theoretical falsification", I'm not clear on how you're suggesting that would be the case, as whatever happens, I can ascribe it to "evolution" with the caveat that any given transition would be, at worst, merely incredibly, astoundingly improbable. I assure you no probability whatsoever will dissuade an individual predisposed to see evolutionary mechanism as the sole causal factor in play.
Feel free to provide some content with that.
In the abstract, it's unfalsifiable, e.g. genetic change from simpler to more complex organisms.
In terms of specifics, it's continually falsified, or, "revised" in terms of the structure of the "tree" of the specific transitions proposed at a given time.
Did you want to comment on some particular level, in a non-handwaving way?
Evolution can be falsified.
Not really, in terms of how evolution is typically presented in debate. Typically, you'll hear a round of mocking the "creationist" distinction of "macroevolution" versus "microevolution", with assertion that they are "the same thing". And they are, with the sole exception of relative probability of the required degree of modification to the genome. Absent acknowledgement of probability, there is no reason that, say, a dog could not mutate into your pegasus in a single generation, or for that matter any given possible permutation of the genome into any other one, immediately. Given that criteria for evaluation, there is no possible way any proposed evolutionary progression could be falsified.
Nope, reread it. There's a direct requirement for statement 5 for specific logical inference--that is, you need to show "euphoria" not as a generalized associated phenomenon in a particular brain (correlational effects equally applicable with to N mental entities), but the -specific- content of "euphoria" as distinct from any other mental referent, e.g. "joy", and precise differentiation of such across all brains, to the level of a neuron. Correlation of given brain phenomena with mental entities is wholly insufficient, akin to saying the conceptual content of "fear" is fully captured by an individual running away from something.
While I wouldn't object if you solved the Mind-Body Problem right here and now, personally outperforming the whole of Western Philosophy, I'd still have to object to your sheer unbacked assertion that any level of biological resolution would cause such a bridge--you're simply hoping such is the case. There are direct reasons to think not, e.g. as called out by this paper (apparently by a rather strident atheist Professor of Philosophy, if it helps assuage a perception of bias with respect to the core issue):
"New discoveries in physics and biology are not helping - merely adding more detail to physical descriptions does not bring us any closer to being able to derive mental statements from them, and I can see no significant progress over the past 300 years."
Thing is, materialist reduction of consciousness results in paradoxes which have remained unsolved throughout this history of Western Philosophy, such as the Mind-Body Problem.
Given that history, one might plausibly conclude that such materialist reduction is insufficient.
No. If our behavior is deterministic, God would know the outcome of our decisions. If it is not, He would not have to in order to have "omniscience", as "the future" is purely an abstraction--knowing it is not a precondition to knowing "all". There would be no future existents or attributes of those existents which, well, exist to know. If it is not deterministic, God would know the accurate fact that is is not deterministic, not the error that it is. Certainly, theists fall in both camps regarding predestination, but it would be inaccurate to say that only one position is held within monotheistic religions.
You're actually making a statement as to the nature of reality (deterministic or not), and implicitly asserting that as impinging on God's knowledge. Usually, this is done for some fairly stock atheistic arguments (and is really begging-the-question), but apart from that, it leaves behind general confusion anyway (as stances which would have no value even if accepted in full tend to do). So, to cast this into a generalized philosophical context, toward the relationship of free-will/determinism and knowledge, here's a thought experiment:
In 1000 years, technology advances to the point where one can directly connect their consciousness to a supercomputer which "knows all" (or, can calculate all), rendering complete knowledge of everyone's behavior insofar as it is possible. At this point in history, would the nature of everyone's will be instantaneously transformed? Or, might we fairly say, that whether someone knows what you will choose or not, you still chose it?