Humans vs other species

Originally posted by stocken
Sorry. I only smoke passively.

I know that you dimwit. Get lost!

Originally posted by stocken
I know that you dimwit. Get lost!

Ok. Sorry. Bye.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence -- the good ole argument from ignorance.

First off, Hal, I think you are implying in your posts a distinction between what might be called a “reasonable skeptic” and a “dogmatic skeptic.” I accuse no one here; I do think it’s a valid distinction in the usage of the word “skeptic” (which I i ...[text shortened]... he other scale.

________________________________

Now I’m off to read bit and take a nap...[/b]

As always, a very thoughtful post. I think you highlighted the main problem quite well: physical claims can be rigorously tested (i.e "proven" ); while metaphysical claims can at best only be "consistent" with the given evidence.

My problem lies in the (metaphysical) a priori exclusion of the supernatural from any given system of reality (AFAIK there isn't any metaphysical stance that precludes the supernatural as a logical necessity without committing the fallacy of circular reasoning).

Here lies the dilemma: is the naturalist closed-minded; or the supernaturalist naïve?

I would argue that yes, one has to go where the evidence leads -- but you can't (artificially) restrict the scope of the solution without being intellectually hamstrung. 😀

Originally posted by Starrman
And I disagreed that you presented it correctly that time as well.

There is no proof for the supernatural, if you claim that absence of proof is not proof of absence, then you open yourself up to being unable to hold anything with sureity and also to the possibility of several supernatural entities, the colour skyscraper, behoobers, my third foot etc. S ...[text shortened]... it is far more likely to exist than a supernatural one. The two arguements are not homogenous.

There is no proof for the supernatural, if you claim that absence of proof is not proof of absence, then you open yourself up to being unable to hold anything with sureity and also to the possibility of several supernatural entities, the colour skyscraper, behoobers, my third foot etc.

Point taken, although it is a bit of an appeal to emotion/consequence.

You have the skeptical approach wrong, I am refuting the skeptical approach completely in preference for a common sense and empirically justified existence.

So you would first have to “experience” empirical proof of ET before you would assign them the property of existence?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
The difference is that extra terrestrial life would still have a physical basis - your imaginary friend has none.

Lame strawman argument.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Scotty / Googlefudge; "Oh look, some goal posts".

Halitose; "Excellent. Now, let's move them."



Hal, you are most definately moving the goalposts on this one. Go look up "scientific theory". You'll see that one of the things about a scientific theory is that it should be universal in it's application. The conditions for life are the same e ...[text shortened]... friend, fine, don't let it hinder the grown ups from having a reasoned conversation.]

Hal, you are most definately moving the goalposts on this one.

Heh, to the contrary; I'm questioning whether there is even a playing field.

The conditions for life are the same everywhere, so provided that those conditions are met somewhere in the universe, there is a good chance of life developing.

Begging the question -- spontaneous generation is very much still unproven. Why do think (IIRC) Stephen Gould (or someone of his caliber) proposed Aliens as the source of life on earth?

The conditions for God are met nowhere in the universe. So the chances of God existing are practically zero.

Another strawman: God, by definition doesn't need "conditions" to allow his existence.

You want to believe in your imaginary friend, fine, don't let it hinder the grown ups from having a reasoned conversation.]

Another shameless strawman: I hadn't mentioned the "G" word -- you are the one who brought it up; the existence of the supernatural (observe the lower-case “s&rdquo😉 does not logically necessitate God.

Originally posted by Halitose
As always, a very thoughtful post. I think you highlighted the main problem quite well: physical claims can be rigorously tested (i.e "proven" ); while metaphysical claims can at best only be "consistent" with the given evidence.

My problem lies in the (metaphysical) a priori exclusion of the supernatural from any given system of reality (AFAIK there is ...[text shortened]... rtificially) restrict the scope of the solution without being intellectually hamstrung. 😀

How are you doin’, Hal?

My problem lies in the (metaphysical) a priori exclusion of the supernatural from any given system of reality (AFAIK there isn't any metaphysical stance that precludes the supernatural as a logical necessity without committing the fallacy of circular reasoning).

You might want to take a look a the discussion of the cosmological argument going on in the “But Marge...” thread. (LH got swamped at work, so while I’m awaiting his response, I’m at least having the chance to formulate some counters to what I think his counter might be—kinda like chess!)

I would argue that yes, one has to go where the evidence leads -- but you can't (artificially) restrict the scope of the solution without being intellectually hamstrung.

I’m still thinking about this. I’m wondering if there is any escape from it. I think that perhaps as soon as we ask a question, we restrict the scope—for example, if I ask “Is there a plausible natural explanation for so-called ‘mystical’ experiences?” Even if I ask, “What are the natural and the supernatural explanations of such experiences, and how do they compare?” I at least have to have some notion of what I mean by those terms; and in defining them, I am delimiting them.

Take polytheism (in no particular form) and monotheism (again, no particular version): Is monotheism really the more reasonable concept, or is it just the desire for some sort of unified metaphysical “ground” for everything that finds that a more satisfactory answer—or, to be fair, since I am a monist: why does that seem more reasonable to me than polytheism?

Another question: Once I admit the supernatural category, have I opened a Pandora’s box of possibilities that cannot be constrained—except, as you say, artificially? It seems to me that a supernatural causal complex can be as infinite as a natural causal complex with nothing but contingent causality, unless there too you simply declare a necessary first cause by fiat. (Again, look at the discussions re the cosmological argument.)

Originally posted by Bromage
Of course no other animal has discovered science. No other species on earth would possible be able to comprehend such concepts as pi. This is simply because they don't have the intellect. Although, apart from the two main issues of intelligence and opposable thumbs, humans are really the same as other animals, which is what I believe the point of this thread ...[text shortened]... e importance on reptiles, canines, felines and amphibians, as what it does on human beings.
B.

You think that is a good thing?
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
actually all the evidence suggests that life is almost certain to form wherever conditions are right.

Can you describe those right conditions?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can you describe those right conditions?
Kelly

the main condition right now is you need a planet or something, and it has to be warm enough to have liquid water. but there are arguments about that because life is being found on earth deep in frozen ice sheets and in the dryest of deaserts (amung other things).
the point is that the conditions needed for earthlike life keep on being reduced, and that is assuming that earth type life is the only type there might be, even if it is, that still leaves a large range of places where we might find life.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just as all the evidence suggests that any one of Shakespeare's sonnets is almost certain to form whenever conditions are right.

STRAWMAN!

And I've explained why to you on many occassions - stop being disingenious Freaky.

Originally posted by Halitose
Lame strawman argument.

Absolutely not. Go away and think seriously about the difference between them. The aliens would actually, physically, exist, God would not. There is a whole world of difference between a hypothetical alien and a hypothetical God, with the former being immensely more likely than the latter.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]Hal, you are most definately moving the goalposts on this one.

Heh, to the contrary; I'm questioning whether there is even a playing field.

The conditions for life are the same everywhere, so provided that those conditions are met somewhere in the universe, there is a good chance of life developing.

Begging the question -- spon ...[text shortened]... nce of the supernatural (observe the lower-case “s&rdquo😉 does not logically necessitate God.[/b]

Pedantics. Smoke and mirrors, nothing more. Tell us exactly what you mean in the future Hal, and quit being obfuscatory.

Originally posted by googlefudge
the main condition right now is you need a planet or something, and it has to be warm enough to have liquid water. but there are arguments about that because life is being found on earth deep in frozen ice sheets and in the dryest of deaserts (amung other things).
the point is that the conditions needed for earthlike life keep on being reduced, and tha ...[text shortened]... ere might be, even if it is, that still leaves a large range of places where we might find life.

Ice fields and desserts became those things over time. Once life had arisen, evolution by natural selection takes care of the rest.

Originally posted by Sambo69
Religion barely differentiates humans from other species.

Wrong, Spam-bo.

I can't really tell if you are claiming that religious doctrine generally does not differentiate between humans and other species; or if you are claiming that the ability of humans to conceive of religious doctrine does not differentiate humans from other species.

Regardless, for practical purposes, either stance is wrong. Concerning the former, religious doctrine is often shamefully and rigorously speciesist. And concerning the latter, while it is true in theory that such ability need not be specific to only humans, it is also true that rationality and the reflective structure of human consciousness (that allows, e.g., normative assessment) do differentiate (sufficiently developed) humans from other known species.