Bloody Libertarians, Imagine the Mess if they Ran Government

Andy_L

treliac wrote: »

Long live librarianism. :T

"You can prise my library card from my cold dead hand"

lemonjelly

tomterm8 wrote: »

Frankly, Degenerate, I find the entire question both dishonest and pure idiocy. Describing Intelligent Design in the context of science as a theory is dishonest; it comes down the definition of theory. At best Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. In order for something to be described as a theory, it must have been tested in very many repeatable scientific experiments, where all alternative hypothesis have been disproved. Very few things reach the height of "theory".

Can you tell me a single scientific experiment that has been offered in order to disprove the hypothesis of God ? I don't know of one.

In short, it doesn't fall into science, it can't be tested, it is not a theory, and to teach it as science is pure idiocy and dishonest. If they can come up with actual experiments to disprove their intelligent designor, I'll start listening. Until that point, I'll put it into the wibble wobble category of nonsence that doesn't, in any way, expand our knowledge of the universe.

Not quite a scientific experiment, but didn't Godel use modular logic to prove the existence of God? (Even though Godel himself didn't believe in God).

Sir_Humphrey

Actually, "ID" is a version of the "irreducible complexity" argument for God, making it theological in nature.

Therefore it belongs in the RE class.

tomterm8

lemonjelly wrote: »

Not quite a scientific experiment, but didn't Godel use modular logic to prove the existence of God? (Even though Godel himself didn't believe in God).

Godel proved that if god exists, then most certainly god exists. This is not rocket science. I much prefer Decartes Ontological Proof of God, it is the same argument, but without all the annoying maths.

lostinrates

with age I increasing find the rigid classification of what is what ...confusing, less reassuring than it used to be. Art,science, philosophy or lunacy....I'm not at all sure they are discrete.

Sir_Humphrey

tomterm8 wrote: »

Godel proved that if god exists, then most certainly god exists. This is not rocket science. I much prefer Decartes Ontological Proof of God, it is the same argument, but without all the annoying maths.

The ontological argument is a circular argument. It argues that a property of a perfect being is existence, God is perfect, therefore God exists.

One of the tasks of first year philosophy students is pointing out why the ontological argument doesn't work (along with Descarte's other arguments - even "I think therefore I exist" is questioned by logical positivists).

Descartes is only taught as a starting point because he asks so many questions. His actual answers are a load of dingo's kidneys.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

Libertarianism, which I am fully aware is either distrusted or despised by the majority, isn't about people going round doing whatever the hell they want.

I still believe in laws and justice and all that stuff. I just think that Governments are very good at what they do and are, by definition, corrupt and inefficient so it is desirable to have as little of it as possible.

what is it then.

if you want laws, who makes them? if you want justice, who decides what that is?

it seems to me libertarians generally want to do what they want and it's only when something effects them negatively they call for laws, justice etc.

for example, the typical libertarian calls for a free market and doesn't have a problem with global corporations. but as soon as you suggest maybe you should open the global labour market up they complain that we can't just have mass migration. double standards.

tomterm8

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The ontological argument is a circular argument. It argues that a property of a perfect being is existence, God is perfect, therefore God exists.

One of the tasks of first year philosophy students is pointing out why the ontological argument doesn't work (along with Descarte's other arguments - even "I think therefore I exist" is questioned by logical positivists).

Descartes is only taught as a starting point because he asks so many questions. His actual answers are a load of dingo's kidneys.

Yes, I know. My point was that it's the same argument as Godels proof, the difference is that Godel put the argument into funky mathematics.

Sir_Humphrey

tomterm8 wrote: »

Yes, I know. My point was that it's the same argument as Godels proof, the difference is that Godel put the argument into funky mathematics.

Sorry, I got the wrong end of the stick.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

for example, the typical libertarian calls for a free market and doesn't have a problem with global corporations. but as soon as you suggest maybe you should open the global labour market up they complain that we can't just have mass migration. double standards.

I don't and won't speak for others but personally, I don't have a problem with immigration.

I think perhaps you are confusing the terms 'Libertarian' and 'Member of the Republican Party'. They are very different things IMO.