|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/24/2010 06:40:56 AM · #1526 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Thanks for taking the time to answer. Of course I don't really agree with you. Too often I've run into people of a similar persuasion and what it boils down to, ultimately, is they just don't want to be told what to do. (I don't know you enough to know if you fit this mold.) It's too bad you have run into such negative religious experiences. Maybe we see what we want, because I tend to see honest people who are making an effort (yet often failing).
But what makes you read threads like this? You don't seem to have the same pathologic compulsion to present your case as the rest of us, so why even bother being here? |
Interesting, and somewhat confrontational response. "Too often"? And what's wrong with not wanting to be told what to do when it makes no sense and has no basis in fact? You have to get it through that mentality that you have that not only is another person's right to think and believe what they want, but it's downright annoying that tone that you take when you speak in this manner.
And guess what? There is one heck of a large percentage of people out here, who without that indoctrination, feel that their religious experiences have been unpleasant. Maybe we see it like it really is instead of what the faithful want us to see. I know that I just plain cannot wrap my head around any supposed "Kind and Loving" God that condemns babies, and aboriginal tribes, or humanitarians simply because they grew up indoctrinated in a different God flavor. It just floors me that you cannot see how senseless that is! I asked this so many posts ago, but what if you have it wrong, and the Hindus have it right? Or the Buddhists? Or the Muslims? Your God has no more veracity than theirs, yet you are so sure.
If you could try to be objective, or at least open to the possibility that you may have it wrong, then what kind of God would it be that would deliberately mislead you? You can't all be right, so who's wrong? And how do you KNOW???? You can't prove who's right, so the major portion of humanity is gonna cook in some flavor of Hell simply because they've been misled. And you wonder why there are so many of us out here that reject this concept???? It's not a case of not liking to be told what to do or think, it's just foolish to many of us!
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 10:00:01 AM · #1527 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I think you want to use "fundamental" in two different ways in your arguments. "How it all began" is a "fundamental" question in that it goes the origins of the system we now live in, but it is not a "fundamental" question in the sense that one cannot describe the system without first answering the question. (Fundamental - of origins vs. Fundamental - of central importance.) You want to say that because "how it all began" is a question about the basic origins of the universe, it must necessarily be of central importance to the way the universe operates now. But, while understanding the origins of something might provide you insight in to how that thing functions, there is no necessary connection between the two. |
Actually I'm using fundamental in both senses. Both of us agree the universe exists. Where we differ is how it functions. You would contend that it functions only through physical processes while I would contend that something outside (figurative) the physical universe can interact with it. Forgetting my portion for now (because we are talking about your side of the fence), it takes rationalization/justification to say this is the way the system works when we cannot account for a way for the system to bring itself about. . . .
So as it stands we have an event that our scientific methods are blind to probe beyond and our mathematical models cannot describe. And you cannot see that this requires some justification/rationalization to hold the position that the Universe functions ONLY through physical processes?
I'm not sure how to make you see it if you don't already. |
I find myself in a similar state of frustration.
I know you were using "fundamental" in both senses, my point was to show you were wrong to do so. What you are arguing is that unless we can know how things were prior to "x" we can't make statements about how things are after "x". I'm sorry, that is flat wrong AND not even logically coherent.
I have already stated that it is possible to construct a conception of "God" that conforms to what we know about the universe. However, any such god will necessarily be of the watchmaker variety and is decidedly not the type of interventionist god/gods to which all of the modern religions ascribe.
All known evidence points to a universe that operates on purely material terms. There is no evidence supporting the presence of non-material forces. And even if the force(s) was not directly detectable, if your claim is that the force interacts with the physical universe then, if they truly exist, the interaction would be detectable and there should at least be circumstantial evidence of non-material forces at work. (If your claim is that these claimed forces have no effect on the physical universe, then well that renders their alleged existence both conveniently non-provable but inconveniently completely pointless.)
Note that, in the early days of scientific inquiry, this was not at all a given. Many of the early scientists believed in "supernatural" phenomenon, which they thought would be confirmed through the scientific process, but for which it turned out there was either no evidence or evidence in contradiction to the existence of such phenomenon. The modern materialist stance is not an ideological position for which data has been accumulated in support, it is a description of the observed state of the universe.
I will also note that your position - because one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of non-material forces existing now or at some point prior to the first moments of the universe - is a fall back position. It's the "God of the gaps." Its the position that people who accept science, but want to continue to believe, take in order to preserve that belief in the face of increasingly narrow realms of true scientific ignorance.
Could the universe have come about on the whim of some cosmic super-entity? YES
Could there be forces at work in the universe outside of the purely material forces? YES
Is there any evidence that either of these two propositions might be true? NO
Is it at all probable that either of these two propositions might be true, given what we do know about the way the universe functions? NO
Is it reasonable to hold a belief in either of the first two positions given three and four? ABSOLUTELY NOT
Message edited by author 2010-02-24 10:47:48.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 11:04:55 AM · #1528 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
You seem to be demanding an explanation for a universe poofing into existence from nothing, but no proposed cosmological model starts with nothing. They each describe a result of existing structures or mechanisms (which need not be supernatural). Religion has exactly the same requirement— minus the physics. |
Every time you say something like this it only proves my point. The grass is no greener on the other side. |
A search for knowledge based upon logic, rational thought and verification, and subject to disproof, is in no way equivalent to a mere assumption of knowledge based upon unassailable bare assertion. The latter represents not only rose-colored glasses, but opaque ones. The concept of a universe that has always existed in some form is not inherently inconsistent with material physics, and posing this question as evidence for a god is the very example of a False Dilemma Fallacy:
(1) Either a Creator brought the universe into existence, or the universe came into existence out of nothing.
(2) The universe didn̢۪t come into existence out of nothing (because nothing comes from nothing).
Therefore:
(3) A Creator brought the universe into existence.
The first premise of this argument presents a false dilemma; it might be thought that the universe neither was brought into existence by a Creator nor came into existence out of nothing, because it existed from eternity.
My challenge still stands..
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I believe that a person can use logic and reason to conclude there is a God and come to have faith. |
Not without resorting to fallacy. I defy anyone to demonstrate otherwise. |
Message edited by author 2010-02-24 11:12:48. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 12:30:59 PM · #1529 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I find myself in a similar state of frustration.
I know you were using "fundamental" in both senses, my point was to show you were wrong to do so. What you are arguing is that unless we can know how things were prior to "x" we can't make statements about how things are after "x". I'm sorry, that is flat wrong AND not even logically coherent.
I have already stated that it is possible to construct a conception of "God" that conforms to what we know about the universe. However, any such god will necessarily be of the watchmaker variety and is decidedly not the type of interventionist god/gods to which all of the modern religions ascribe.
All known evidence points to a universe that operates on purely material terms. There is no evidence supporting the presence of non-material forces. And even if the force(s) was not directly detectable, if your claim is that the force interacts with the physical universe then, if they truly exist, the interaction would be detectable and there should at least be circumstantial evidence of non-material forces at work. (If your claim is that these claimed forces have no effect on the physical universe, then well that renders their alleged existence both conveniently non-provable but inconveniently completely pointless.)
Note that, in the early days of scientific inquiry, this was not at all a given. Many of the early scientists believed in "supernatural" phenomenon, which they thought would be confirmed through the scientific process, but for which it turned out there was either no evidence or evidence in contradiction to the existence of such phenomenon. The modern materialist stance is not an ideological position for which data has been accumulated in support, it is a description of the observed state of the universe.
I will also note that your position - because one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of non-material forces existing now or at some point prior to the first moments of the universe - is a fall back position. It's the "God of the gaps." Its the position that people who accept science, but want to continue to believe, take in order to preserve that belief in the face of increasingly narrow realms of true scientific ignorance.
Could the universe have come about on the whim of some cosmic super-entity? YES
Could there be forces at work in the universe outside of the purely material forces? YES
Is there any evidence that either of these two propositions might be true? NO
Is it at all probable that either of these two propositions might be true, given what we do know about the way the universe functions? NO
Is it reasonable to hold a belief in either of the first two positions given three and four? ABSOLUTELY NOT |
Now, remember, we are talking about your position, not mine. I'm not trying to set up some Either/or dilemma as Shannon thinks, I'm just showing that justifications go on on both sides of the fence (well, acutally I'm just showing they go on on your side. :))
Don't you think that two of your underlined statements are contradictory. First you claim that "all known evidence points" in support of materialism and then you say "The modern materialist stance is not an ideological position for which data has been accumulated in support". I'm not sure why you used both?
"God of the gaps" is a powerless argument. Ultimately it says, "the portions that cannot be explained do not matter". It honestly seems like justification/rationalization to me. So up to now all a God has left to do is...create the universe, kick off life on our planet, operate at levels too small for our observation, and intercede wherever you aren't looking, etc. etc. etc. Ya, he's probably got nothing he can do but twiddle his thumbs these days. ;) The problem is you simply reject the evidence presented. There IS "circumstantial evidence" for non-material forces ranging from claimed miracles to what we've been talking about, the fact that all known evidence points to an origin for our Universe. Fred Hoyle was appreciative of this fact. Materialism would make the most sense in a static universe (previously I may have been incorrectly using the term "steady state" here) and "in the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory." (that's a quote from Wiki which is not presented as an argument that the Big Bang means there is a God, but as an argument that the scientific community appreciated the possible implications of the theory when compared to a static universe).
So in the end I fully expect you to think your side makes more sense (that's why you are there naturally). BUT I would like you to appreciate the gymnastics required to stay there. This is only point one on the list.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 01:27:36 PM · #1530 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now, remember, we are talking about your position, not mine.
. . .
Don't you think that two of your underlined statements are contradictory. First you claim that "all known evidence points" in support of materialism and then you say "The modern materialist stance is not an ideological position for which data has been accumulated in support". I'm not sure why you used both? |
We are necessarily talking about both of our "positions."
The statements are not contradictory, because the materialist stance was not the default position, it is the position that has developed from the evidence. From the perspective of the late 16th century/early 17th century it most certainly could have been the case that non-material forces were at play in the universe. Indeed, this was probably the predominate view of most early scientists. But the evidence has simply not born that out.
You want to credit claimed "miracles" as evidence for the existence of non-material forces, but any honest appraisal of the evidence for such purported miracles leads to two inexorable conclusions: 1) As our understanding of the physical universe has increased, the incidence of claimed miracles decreases proportionately; and 2) no claims for miracles and/or interventionist forces (e.g., prayer) hold up when subjected to scientific scrutiny. As others have already pointed out, if there were interventionist forces, and those forces were aligned with a particular faith or creed, we should be able to see the effects of those forces on those aligned with that faith or creed. We don't.
(I suppose there is a possibility that such interventionist forces interact with the physical universe in completely random ways, which would make them virtually undetectable, but I don't see what this gets the believer as they most definitely do not believe that the intervention is random.)
The fact is that its you who are engaging in gymnastics: you bend over backwards to accommodate even the most glaring flaws and contradictions at the heart of your religious dogma, yet fault us materialists for not having at our fingertips complete and verifiable answers for everything, right now, even though the materialist stance explicitly disclaims any such perfect knowledge.
I think what it really boils down to for you is that you are personally troubled by the implications of the materialist worldview and are baffled that the rest of us are not. Does materialism have disconcerting implications for the idea of Free Will? Yes, although at this point it really only definitively rules out non-causal free will and leaves the door open for causal free will. Does accepting materialism mean accepting that there may be certain question for which we will forever be unable to discover an answer ("what came before the 'beginning' being the only one I can definitely think of right now)? Very likely.
But just because you don't like the implications of the truth, does not mean it is not truth. If it is, it is. The fact that I may not like that it is, doesn't change a damn thing.
Message edited by author 2010-02-24 13:29:35.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 02:05:01 PM · #1531 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't you think that two of your underlined statements are contradictory. First you claim that "all known evidence points" in support of materialism and then you say "The modern materialist stance is not an ideological position for which data has been accumulated in support". |
Nope- both statements address the same thought: Science follows the evidence to find conclusions (and all evidence so far has pointed toward natural processes), as opposed to an ideological position that assumes the conclusions first and then accumulates data to support it.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The problem is you simply reject the evidence presented. There IS "circumstantial evidence" for non-material forces ranging from claimed miracles to what we've been talking about, the fact that all known evidence points to an origin for our Universe. |
There is none. Zip, zero, zilch, nada. Claims of miracles, answered prayers, psychic powers, etc. have never been substantiated, and assuming that an "origin" for the universe must require a god is the aforementioned False Dilemma Fallacy— an error in your reasoning.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"in the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state Universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory." |
This is a fine example of the Historian's Fallacy.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I fully expect you to think your side makes more sense... BUT I would like you to appreciate the gymnastics required to stay there. |
We might appreciate it if you could offer an actual example without resorting to fallacy. You demonstrate the veracity of the position all the time. You don't expect bodies to vanish from tombs or snakes to talk, and I certainly hope you wouldn't prescribe a medication just because some ancient text says it works, but because scientific research has demonstrated efficacy. The church says Daniel can walk safely through a lion's den, yet the Pope travels behind bulletproof glass. If the most devout person you know says he can walk on water, you know darn well he's not going to cross a swimming pool dry. It may be comforting to imagine supernatural beings watching over you, but if a tornado's coming at you I'm quite confident that you wouldn't just stand there and assume you're protected. Faith dares not tread where it can be subject to disproof.
For every "gap" you propose in scientific knowledge, you demand evidence to weigh the truth of the claim. Hello? We're using scientific principles of logic and evidence to dispute the assertions of faith, and you're trying to use scientific principles of logic and evidence to dispute the validity of conclusions drawn from scientific principles of logic and evidence?!?! Mental gymnastics indeed. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 02:05:43 PM · #1532 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
It's funny, but most of the people I have met that I would consider to be spiritual are those people who have managed to become comfortable with themselves. I don't think that there necessarily has to be a religion involved so much as a deep and abiding appreciation of life and a respect for your fellow man, coupled with a genuine ability to like people as well, warts and all. To be able to accept them as they are, love them, and genuinely be interested in who they are are also things that I see in the people whom I consider spiritual. For me, spirituality comes from within, not from outside influences, and there's no telling in whom you'll see it.
|
I like this. I just always wonder what god people are referring to when they say they are not Christian but believe in God. Of course, you can only answer as to what you mean, and I think you stated it well. That would pretty much sum up how I feel.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 02:29:34 PM · #1533 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Now, remember, we are talking about your position, not mine.
. . .
Don't you think that two of your underlined statements are contradictory. First you claim that "all known evidence points" in support of materialism and then you say "The modern materialist stance is not an ideological position for which data has been accumulated in support". I'm not sure why you used both? |
We are necessarily talking about both of our "positions."
The statements are not contradictory, because the materialist stance was not the default position, it is the position that has developed from the evidence. From the perspective of the late 16th century/early 17th century it most certainly could have been the case that non-material forces were at play in the universe. Indeed, this was probably the predominate view of most early scientists. But the evidence has simply not born that out.
You want to credit claimed "miracles" as evidence for the existence of non-material forces, but any honest appraisal of the evidence for such purported miracles leads to two inexorable conclusions: 1) As our understanding of the physical universe has increased, the incidence of claimed miracles decreases proportionately; and 2) no claims for miracles and/or interventionist forces (e.g., prayer) hold up when subjected to scientific scrutiny. As others have already pointed out, if there were interventionist forces, and those forces were aligned with a particular faith or creed, we should be able to see the effects of those forces on those aligned with that faith or creed. We don't.
(I suppose there is a possibility that such interventionist forces interact with the physical universe in completely random ways, which would make them virtually undetectable, but I don't see what this gets the believer as they most definitely do not believe that the intervention is random.)
The fact is that its you who are engaging in gymnastics: you bend over backwards to accommodate even the most glaring flaws and contradictions at the heart of your religious dogma, yet fault us materialists for not having at our fingertips complete and verifiable answers for everything, right now, even though the materialist stance explicitly disclaims any such perfect knowledge.
I think what it really boils down to for you is that you are personally troubled by the implications of the materialist worldview and are baffled that the rest of us are not. Does materialism have disconcerting implications for the idea of Free Will? Yes, although at this point it really only definitively rules out non-causal free will and leaves the door open for causal free will. Does accepting materialism mean accepting that there may be certain question for which we will forever be unable to discover an answer ("what came before the 'beginning' being the only one I can definitely think of right now)? Very likely.
But just because you don't like the implications of the truth, does not mean it is not truth. If it is, it is. The fact that I may not like that it is, doesn't change a damn thing. |
I only brought up miracles because you were looking for "circumstantial evidence". Your claim that no miracles has withstood scientific scrutiny is untrue. If I stand up and claim that the Universe was created ex nihilo by God, there is no scientific evidence to say this is untrue. It has so far withstood "scientific scrutiny". In fact, within the last 100 years we generally considered the universe to be eternal (static). BUT, lo and behold, the evidence emerged to support an origin. Now the evidence only goes so far in support of an idea, but certainly the previous static model was put on its ear.
You see, here is what I don't get. You are happy to tromp out examples of how this miracle and that miracle did not stand up to investigation, but when some of the BIG miracles of the universe are mentioned, you can only exhibit confidence we will eventually answer it. How does that impress me any more than I fail to impress you? We have no scientific explanation for our origin. We have no scientific explanation for the fine-tuned universe. We have no scientific explanation for abiogenesis. This is big stuff. It isn't whether the grilled cheese sandwich actually is a picture of the Virgin Mary or whether Matilda's bunions were miraculously healed.
Again, the point of this conversation is not to get you to somehow admit to a illogical position. The point is to show that I could not simply switch sides in an attempt to avoid hard, unanswerable questions. They exist on all sides. Rationalization/justification exists everywhere. That's all I'm saying.
Maybe it's fruitful to ask you how exactly your position is different than a Deist (the watchmaker God)? What separates you from a Deist philosophy?
Message edited by author 2010-02-24 14:31:17.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 02:56:29 PM · #1534 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I stand up and claim that the Universe was created ex nihilo by God, there is no scientific evidence to say this is untrue. It has so far withstood "scientific scrutiny". |
Argument from ignorance, are you kidding? Earlier, you said this:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The position is almost trying to pull the old "prove a negative", which we know doesn't really work. |
Unless I'm missing something, you're not keeping tabs on your own fallacies there. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 02:59:04 PM · #1535 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe it's fruitful to ask you how exactly your position is different than a Deist (the watchmaker God)? What separates you from a Deist philosophy? |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Could the universe have come about on the whim of some cosmic super-entity? YES
Could there be forces at work in the universe outside of the purely material forces? YES
Is there any evidence that either of these two propositions might be true? NO
Is it at all probable that either of these two propositions might be true, given what we do know about the way the universe functions? NO
Is it reasonable to hold a belief in either of the first two positions given three and four? ABSOLUTELY NOT |
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 03:08:55 PM · #1536 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe it's fruitful to ask you how exactly your position is different than a Deist (the watchmaker God)? What separates you from a Deist philosophy? |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Could the universe have come about on the whim of some cosmic super-entity? YES
Could there be forces at work in the universe outside of the purely material forces? YES
Is there any evidence that either of these two propositions might be true? NO
Is it at all probable that either of these two propositions might be true, given what we do know about the way the universe functions? NO
Is it reasonable to hold a belief in either of the first two positions given three and four? ABSOLUTELY NOT |
|
But surely you see that a Deist and an atheist would answer these exactly the same. The Deist is option one and the atheist is option two. SP already said that there is no evidence for either (question three) and that it is not reasonable to hold either position (question four). So I'm asking why SP is an atheist and not a Deist?
Message edited by author 2010-02-24 15:10:48.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 03:10:20 PM · #1537 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I stand up and claim that the Universe was created ex nihilo by God, there is no scientific evidence to say this is untrue. It has so far withstood "scientific scrutiny". |
Argument from ignorance, are you kidding? Earlier, you said this:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The position is almost trying to pull the old "prove a negative", which we know doesn't really work. |
Unless I'm missing something, you're not keeping tabs on your own fallacies there. |
I was taking "scientific scrutiny" to mean "science has since shown the miracle under question to have a normal explanation". If SP meant it in another way then my reply might not make sense.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 03:55:35 PM · #1538 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But surely you see that a Deist and an atheist would answer these exactly the same. The Deist is option one and the atheist is option two. |
This atheist -- I'm pointing at my chest now -- does not consider there to be forces at work in the universe outside of the material, and I would wonder at any atheist that does. I'm not certain you've construed the example in quite the way it was meant. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 04:16:42 PM · #1539 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But surely you see that a Deist and an atheist would answer these exactly the same. The Deist is option one and the atheist is option two. |
This atheist -- I'm pointing at my chest now -- does not consider there to be forces at work in the universe outside of the material, and I would wonder at any atheist that does. I'm not certain you've construed the example in quite the way it was meant. |
Oops, my bad Louis. I actually read question #2 quite differently than it is really written down.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 04:22:38 PM · #1540 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe it's fruitful to ask you how exactly your position is different than a Deist (the watchmaker God)? What separates you from a Deist philosophy? |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Could the universe have come about on the whim of some cosmic super-entity? YES
Could there be forces at work in the universe outside of the purely material forces? YES
Is there any evidence that either of these two propositions might be true? NO
Is it at all probable that either of these two propositions might be true, given what we do know about the way the universe functions? NO
Is it reasonable to hold a belief in either of the first two positions given three and four? ABSOLUTELY NOT |
|
In philosophical content, the self-identified deists that I know basically weigh the probability of question 4 as slightly less improbable than I would and thus would modify the "absolutely not" conclusion to something more like "probably not, but who knows." I would basically construe their position as militantly agnostic on the broad question of whether any type of god/s might exist. (I have also heard them described, somewhat uncharitably, as "wistful atheists.")
In practice, there really is not much difference between the atheist and the deist position. Neither person puts any stock in an interventionist god/s, and both accept the material nature of the universe.
As I have stated before, all atheists are technically agnostics since there is no way to disprove the deistic concept of a watchmaker-style god/s. However, the atheist is someone who looks at the evidence and is willing to say that the probabilities are such that the "no god/s" option is the most likely (and, for me, I would say far and away the most likely).
But - again - you are the one not playing the field straight here. You have been doing backflips to try and get some admission that there "could" be a non-material explanation for the origin of the universe - the deist position - which no one, at least not me, has been arguing against, but want to use such an admission to somehow bolster your argument for the Christian God - the theist position. One does not support the other.
The deist position is basically a philosophical statement that the question of God is unknowable and that it is theoretically possible that the universe could have a non-material origin.
The theist - like yourself - is making very particular claims about the nature of such a God, none of which can be ultimately supported - as even you have acknowledged - by anything more than a feeling or intuition on the part of the individual believer.
That's fine, if that is what you want to personally believe. But it should be obvious that it is wholly unconvincing to someone who does not already share that belief. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 04:33:29 PM · #1541 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I stand up and claim that the Universe was created ex nihilo by God, there is no scientific evidence to say this is untrue. It has so far withstood "scientific scrutiny". |
I would argue that it is reasonable to extrapolate from the universe we can observe, which provides no reason to believe that non-material processes are at work.
But that is beside the point, as it is not the materialist is who making grand truth claims which are properly subject to falsification - i.e., God did it. Again, the materialist is simply saying "we don't know."
Message edited by author 2010-02-24 17:04:37. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 05:21:37 PM · #1542 |
Why do you guys keep thinking I have some ultimate plan here where if you admit something that I've cornered you into becoming a Christian? It's not what I'm doing here.
Someone asked me why I remained a Christian even though it seems to require rationalization/justification. I explained that I felt switching positions would not get away from the rationalization/justifications and so saw no reason to switch. Someone then asked me to name examples and I did. End of story.
The back and forth comes from the very human reaction that "I'm not rationalizing anything, my system makes perfect sense!"
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 05:35:11 PM · #1543 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why do you guys keep thinking I have some ultimate plan here where if you admit something that I've cornered you into becoming a Christian? It's not what I'm doing here. |
It simply appears to be what you're doing. You seem anxious to wrest an admission from materialists that they have faith-based assumptions as groundless as religious ones, when it's been often demonstrated that that's simply not the case. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 05:56:12 PM · #1544 |
Well, my frustration comes from the fact that you are insisting that there is no difference between:
Materialist: "I am required to accept the results of observed evidence as to how the universe works. This means accepting that there may be questions for which we do not yet have good answers. Because I require evidence and an adherence to the scientific method, there may very well be certain questions for which I must accept that we may never be able to definitively answer (like what was "there" before the universe existed)."
. . and . . .
Theist: "Under my worldview, I am required to believe that a collection of 2000-year old (or older) writings describe the functioning of the universe and provides the answers to all important questions. Because I cannot question the existence of a supreme being or the inerrancy of my holy texts, I must insist that any new scientific or historical evidence be interpreted in a way that does not conflict with my core beliefs or, if that is not possible, ignored."
. . . and then accusing us of engaging in mental gymnastics.
ETA: Or what Louis said. ;()
Message edited by author 2010-02-24 18:03:08. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 06:32:34 PM · #1545 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Theist: "Under my worldview, I am required to believe that a collection of 2000-year old (or older) writings describe the functioning of the universe and provides the answers to all important questions. Because I cannot question the existence of a supreme being or the inerrancy of my holy texts, I must insist that any new scientific or historical evidence be interpreted in a way that does not conflict with my core beliefs or, if that is not possible, ignored."
. . . and then accusing us of engaging in mental gymnastics.
ETA: Or what Louis said. ;() |
That's not what Doc is saying. He's not especially hung up on demonstrating that *his* theistic worldview (Christianity) is an inerrant one, and that other theistic worldviews are false or inaccurate. He may believe that, but that's not his argument here. He's not basing his argument on a 2,000 year old book. He's taking a logical, or reasoned, stance regarding the simple existence of a god, a creator, of whatever flavor, and trying to show how when we step out into the extreme speculation required to attempt to understand the origins of the universe, we're all on more-or-less equal footing.
From my perspective, y'all are attempting to refute him by refuting his Christianity, and that's not the point he's trying to argue. It's sort of an ad hominem argument you folks are trying to stick him with, is the best i can describe it. But who am I? What do I know, anyway?
R. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 06:50:23 PM · #1546 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Theist: "Under my worldview, I am required to believe that a collection of 2000-year old (or older) writings describe the functioning of the universe and provides the answers to all important questions. Because I cannot question the existence of a supreme being or the inerrancy of my holy texts, I must insist that any new scientific or historical evidence be interpreted in a way that does not conflict with my core beliefs or, if that is not possible, ignored."
. . . and then accusing us of engaging in mental gymnastics.
ETA: Or what Louis said. ;() |
That's not what Doc is saying. He's not especially hung up on demonstrating that *his* theistic worldview (Christianity) is an inerrant one, and that other theistic worldviews are false or inaccurate. He may believe that, but that's not his argument here. He's not basing his argument on a 2,000 year old book. He's taking a logical, or reasoned, stance regarding the simple existence of a god, a creator, of whatever flavor, and trying to show how when we step out into the extreme speculation required to attempt to understand the origins of the universe, we're all on more-or-less equal footing.
From my perspective, y'all are attempting to refute him by refuting his Christianity, and that's not the point he's trying to argue. It's sort of an ad hominem argument you folks are trying to stick him with, is the best i can describe it. But who am I? What do I know, anyway? |
I know he is not making the explicit theistic argument that I have laid out, but he is making the argument that the theist's (not deist's, unless I am misinterpreting him) stance is philosophically equivalent -- requiring the same level of rationalizations, assumptions and mental contortions -- as the materialists. At the same time that he is making the argument that the philosophies are equivalent, he also appears to want to restrict the discussion so that we are only allowed to talk about materialism. You can't first draw a parallel between two positions and then, when those supposed parallels are challenged by setting the two positions side by side and doing a comparison, complain that "we aren't talking about the opposing position."
Materialist: "This is the way materialism works."
Thiest: "But that is the same as theism!"
Materialist: "No, theism operates this way, which is in contrast to materialism, which operates as stated above."
Theist: "No fair! We aren't talking about theism."
Materialist: ??
Message edited by author 2010-02-24 18:55:54. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 06:57:40 PM · #1547 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He's taking a logical, or reasoned, stance regarding the simple existence of a god, a creator, of whatever flavor, and trying to show how when we step out into the extreme speculation required to attempt to understand the origins of the universe, we're all on more-or-less equal footing. |
Except that though neither of us have a definitive explanation that can be proved as to the exact origin, when you use a scientific approach to how you look at things, and a system of positing theories, proving, disproving, growing, changing and evolving, we have answers to questions......ones asked and answered, by proof and evidence, for thousands of years.
He says God did it.
You don't think that's a different way of looking at things?
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 07:03:58 PM · #1548 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He's taking a logical, or reasoned, stance regarding the simple existence of a god, a creator, of whatever flavor, and trying to show how when we step out into the extreme speculation required to attempt to understand the origins of the universe, we're all on more-or-less equal footing. |
Except that though neither of us have a definitive explanation that can be proved as to the exact origin, when you use a scientific approach to how you look at things, and a system of positing theories, proving, disproving, growing, changing and evolving, we have answers to questions......ones asked and answered, by proof and evidence, for thousands of years.
He says God did it.
You don't think that's a different way of looking at things? |
Bottom line:
He's saying that there's an unknown "force" or "prime mover" that created, or caused to come into being, the universe, and he calls that God. So do I. All the rest of it is window-dressing. We don't KNOW, and as things stand right now we CAN'T know. He's a little more personal about his God than you or I are about ours, for sure, but that's not the argument he's engaged in now and you can't refute him by refuting Christianity, is my only point. Christianity, in the end, is irrelevant to the discussion at this level, as indeed are Buddhism, Islam, and Cargo Cults :-)
R. |
|
|
|
02/24/2010 07:16:36 PM · #1549 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He's taking a logical, or reasoned, stance regarding the simple existence of a god, a creator, of whatever flavor, and trying to show how when we step out into the extreme speculation required to attempt to understand the origins of the universe, we're all on more-or-less equal footing. |
Except that though neither of us have a definitive explanation that can be proved as to the exact origin, when you use a scientific approach to how you look at things, and a system of positing theories, proving, disproving, growing, changing and evolving, we have answers to questions......ones asked and answered, by proof and evidence, for thousands of years.
He says God did it.
You don't think that's a different way of looking at things? |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Bottom line:
He's saying that there's an unknown "force" or "prime mover" that created, or caused to come into being, the universe, and he calls that God. So do I. All the rest of it is window-dressing. We don't KNOW, and as things stand right now we CAN'T know. He's a little more personal about his God than you or I are about ours, for sure, but that's not the argument he's engaged in now and you can't refute him by refuting Christianity, is my only point. Christianity, in the end, is irrelevant to the discussion at this level, as indeed are Buddhism, Islam, and Cargo Cults :-)
R. |
From what I can tell his support of how we came to be differs a whole bunch from what I see. No, I have no more idea for sure about the origin of the universe, but then we do differ, and a lot, as to where we came from at that point. I happen to actually believe all the scientific evidence I've seen over the years that talks about these spiffy rocks made up of old bone that has over time become rock. I believe that the Leakeys knew what they were talking about, and I have seen dinosaur fossils with my own eyes.
Is Jason a creationist as well? Then no, we who believe scientific evidence are NOT on the same playing field. It's just that neither of us knows how the universe got started. I don't care, and many don't, and it doesn't refute evolution just 'cause we don't know the answer to one question. I believe that Jason himself said that just 'cause "I don't know." is the answer to one question doesn't make the whole scenario collapse. At least we have a lot of evidence, and scientific prooof at that to support that the world has been here a damn sight longer than 6-8000 years as the Bible would have it.
|
|
|
|
02/24/2010 07:31:08 PM · #1550 |
| where do you find that 6-8000 reference? |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 08:39:26 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 08:39:26 AM EDT.
|
