Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Then exchange your worldview for one that actually has some substance behind it (being falsifiable by your own scientific standards would be a good start), as opposed to just being a collection of arguments.

Do you even know what the term "straw man" means? You seem to be inordinately fond of it as a rhetorical device, but once it's been explained to you you really should think about trying a different tack.

I still have no idea what you think my "world view" to be, and nor therefore do I know why you think it isn't falsifiable. I've explained to you several times now how to falsify it, but you persist nonetheless in implying that it must be something else that isn't falsifiable. Rather than keep dicking around, why don't you finally share what this world view is that you're so keen to pin to me, and then perhaps I can tell you whether or not it's accurate?   

There's no point. Your worldview is a tautology, therefore anything that disagrees with it is automatically seen to be wrong.

Wrong. See above.

That's why you cannot cite anything that would falsify it!

Wrong. I already have done - several times in fact.

Moreover, it's not my job to do it as I am not subscribing to it.

But as we have no idea what you think "it" to be, then it precisely it is your job finally to describe it.

I have stated several times now how the Christian faith can be falsified, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, there is no Christian faith

Well your Christian faith perhaps - others though seem to be quite happy to call themselves "Christian" and to see the resurrection story as allegorical. I'm puzzled too by your supernatural conjecture (resurrection) apparently being amenable to a naturalistic concept like falsification. How come? 

What is the equivalent for your commitment to a naturalistic philosophy?

Seriously? Again? The only "commitment to a naturalistic philosophy" I have is the belief founded on inter-subjective experience that the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable using methods that provide probabilistically functional solutions. Anything else is guessing.

Of course of you think my "world view" to be something else only you really want to keep that a big secret then I'm not sure I can help you any further until you finally do share it.   

[SusanDoris]

He didn't rise from the dead.

I was thinking of writing a response to Sword's post, but on the whole I think I will just think *thumbs up* to the rational posts around here!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

And you know that how?

Depends what you mean by "know", but in its ordinary sense he knows it for exactly the same reasons that you know that leprechauns don't leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

People do not die and come back to life, so this is the default starting position.

If you assume that there are only natural causes and explanations! And you wonder why I keep on mentioning falsifiability! You are caught in your own circular reasoning:

The default starting position is that people do not die and come back to life;
People do not die and come back to life, so this is the default starting position

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

If you assume that there are only natural causes and explanations! And you wonder why I keep on mentioning falsifiability! You are caught in your own circular reasoning:

The default starting position is that people do not die and come back to life;
People do not die and come back to life, so this is the default starting position

You're still confused. The default position is that probabilistically people don't come back from the dead, and there are various arguments to support that based on real world observation and the inadequacy of the arguments to the contrary. That's not to say that it's categorically impossible though - ie, the "black swan" phenomenon - any more than it's categorically impossible that leprechauns leave gold at the ends of rainbows.

Until you grasp this however you're going to keep going wrong.     

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

You're still confused. The default position is that probabilistically people don't come back from the dead, and there are various arguments to support that based on real world observation and the inadequacy of the arguments to the contrary.

It's funny how all of these real world observations go out of the window when it comes to science attempting to explain origins...

• life from non-life
• codes from non-codes
• plant life from non-plant life
• animal life from non-animal life
• gender from non-gender, etc

None of which are demonstrable! Remind me again: Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The plant or the seed?

[Gordon]

It's funny how all of these real world observations go out of the window when it comes to science attempting to explain origins...

• life from non-life
• codes from non-codes
• plant life from non-plant life
• animal life from non-animal life
• gender from non-gender, etc

None of which are demonstrable! Remind me again: Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The plant or the seed?

I'm not sure all these examples are analogous to start with - it looks like you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which is very poor reasoning. It reads like a fallacious argument combining personal incredulity and ignorance but tbh I can't fathom what point you are attempting. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

It's funny how all of these real world observations go out of the window when it comes to science attempting to explain origins...
life from non-life
codes from non-codes
plant life from non-plant life
animal life from non-animal life
gender from non-gender, etc

None of which are demonstrable! Remind me again: Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The plant or the seed?

Talking to you is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. The point we were actually discussing was an epistemological one - the meaning of "know" and the phenomenon of probabilisitic truth. You went of the rails, and I explained where you went off the rails.

Now you just ignore that entirely, and instead parade one big argument from personal incredulity - yet another piece of fallacious reasoning.

Why?

And if you do want to change the subject nonetheless, then there are already varying degrees of answers to those questions and there's every sign that those answers will become more rounded over time. Even if that was not the case though and the only available answer was, "don't know" not for one moment would that give you a logical path to fill in the gaps with whatever superstitious belief happened to appeal to you most.

Good grief!     

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I'm not sure all these examples are analogous to start with - it looks like you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which is very poor reasoning.

No it isn't! It's showing that in order to get round a clear problem caused by having to hold to a naturalistic philosophy, you cheat. You can then claim evolution to explain all of the functional gain along the way, starting from the alleged common ancestor

Furthermore, if you don't know how life started, how can you be so sure how it then developed?

I'm expected to take all this on faith, but it's a problem if I believe in God by faith?

[Dicky Underpants]

DU,

You have the advantage here as I haven't read any of his books. I have though read various of his newspaper articles, one long one in particular that I critiqued here at length so appalling was it. I'm guessing that it's been culled along with so much else, but I'll have a look nonetheless.

Hi blue

Just looked up a few references to see what he has to say about evolutionary beliefs in America at the present time. I found these salient quotes:

"he famously testified in McLean vs. Arkansas in 1981 that creation science – a form of Christian creationism that claims to be scientifically valid – should not be allowed in public science classes, because it features virtually none of the characteristics of true science."

and

"The 50% or so who do not believe in creationism include scientists and liberal Christians and others. I would not have thought them very fertile ground for conversion.

The interesting question, it seems to me, is whether the 50% of Americans who are creationists will shrink at all. One would like to think that perhaps this might happen, but my sense is that the shrinkage is not going to be very great unless there are significant changes in society, including education. So I doubt that we are going to see a figure much lower than 40% for a long time" (Ruse speaking)

from the interview to be found here:

www.patheos.com/.../interview-michael-ruse-on-evolution-creationism-and-religion/

All I can say is, on matters like these, he certainly gets my vote. If he's opposed to creationism, then he oughtn't to be classed with WLC. We, (and especially America) need all the well-informed voices available to oppose this intellectual rot.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

No it isn't! It's showing that in order to get round a clear problem caused by having to hold to a naturalistic philosophy, you cheat. You can then claim evolution to explain all of the functional gain along the way, starting from the alleged common ancestor

Furthermore, if you don't know how life started, how can you be so sure how it then developed?

I'm expected to take all this on faith, but it's a problem if I believe in God by faith?

No, you're "expected" to take it on evidence.

Read a freakin' book willya!

[Maeght]

Furthermore, if you don't know how life started, how can you be so sure how it then developed?

Why do you need to know how life started to understand how existing life forms evolved?

I'm expected to take all this on faith ...

Accepting evolution is a well supported scientific theory which explains the development of different species of life forms isn't a matter of faith. Its all about the evidence.

[Dicky Underpants]

I'm expected to take all this on faith, but it's a problem if I believe in God by faith?

No, you're expected to look at the evidence for evolution, and make up your mind. If you look hard enough, you may even find ways that neo_Darwinism may be modified, but you need to be informed as to what Neo-Darwinism actually is to be able to suggest valid improvements on the theory.

[Dicky Underpants]

Sword,

No, you're "expected" to take it on evidence.

Read a freakin' book willya!

"Great minds think alike" (or sumpin')

[Nearly Sane]

No, you're expected to look at the evidence for evolution, and make up your mind. If you look hard enough, you may even find ways that neo_Darwinism may be modified, but you need to be informed as to what Neo-Darwinism actually is to be able to suggest valid improvements on the theory.

let's assume Sword posts a brilliant irrefutable take down of the ToE, it would make no difference to the case he needs to make which one for his god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

let's assume Sword posts a brilliant irrefutable take down of the ToE, it would make no difference to the case he needs to make which one for his god.

Quite so: his "take down" is an argument from personal incredulity, and his argument for "god" is a god of the gap he mistakenly thinks he's thereby created.

Bad arguments both.

[SqueakyVoice]

Then exchange your worldview for one that actually has some substance behind it (being falsifiable by your own scientific standards would be a good start), as opposed to just being a collection of arguments.
There's no point. Your worldview is a tautology, therefore anything that disagrees with it is automatically seen to be wrong. That's why you cannot cite anything that would falsify it! Moreover, it's not my job to do it as I am not subscribing to it. I have stated several times now how the Christian faith can be falsified, but in case you missed it, here it is again:

If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, there is no Christian faith

What is the equivalent for your commitment to a naturalistic philosophy?

There are around 1.6 billion Muslims, 1.1bn Hindus, 0.5bn Buddhists and a further 750mn people of various other religions around the world (from wiki). The vast majority of these faiths holds beliefs of one kind or another in elements of the supernatural. The vast majority of them don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Presumably this 'falsifiable supernatural methodology' thingy that you're pretending to have has some pretty killer arguments that show why those 4bn (ish) non-philosophical naturalists have got it wrong as well..?

BTW what's the name for the argumentative fallacy of "Oh yeah? Well, your philosophy is as rubbish as mine"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

Just looked up a few references to see what he has to say about evolutionary beliefs in America at the present time. I found these salient quotes:

"he famously testified in McLean vs. Arkansas in 1981 that creation science – a form of Christian creationism that claims to be scientifically valid – should not be allowed in public science classes, because it features virtually none of the characteristics of true science."

and

"The 50% or so who do not believe in creationism include scientists and liberal Christians and others. I would not have thought them very fertile ground for conversion.

The interesting question, it seems to me, is whether the 50% of Americans who are creationists will shrink at all. One would like to think that perhaps this might happen, but my sense is that the shrinkage is not going to be very great unless there are significant changes in society, including education. So I doubt that we are going to see a figure much lower than 40% for a long time" (Ruse speaking)

from the interview to be found here:

www.patheos.com/.../interview-michael-ruse-on-evolution-creationism-and-religion/

All I can say is, on matters like these, he certainly gets my vote. If he's opposed to creationism, then he oughtn't to be classed with WLC. We, (and especially America) need all the well-informed voices available to oppose this intellectual rot.

Thanks for this. Just because I found some of his arguments in one context to be poor doesn't mean he's always wrong of course - good to see he's on the side of the sensible on this issue at least. Frustratingly this site seems to have culls of old posts every now and then, so I can't find the discussion we had about him a while back.

I didn't by the way classify him with WLC at all for this purpose - rather I was just giving disparate examples of philosophers whose ideas I'd found to be wanting, albeit ideas about different issues.

[Gordon]

No it isn't! It's showing that in order to get round a clear problem caused by having to hold to a naturalistic philosophy, you cheat. You can then claim evolution to explain all of the functional gain along the way, starting from the alleged common ancestor

Furthermore, if you don't know how life started, how can you be so sure how it then developed?

I'm expected to take all this on faith, but it's a problem if I believe in God by faith?

It is indeed: for natural phenomena you need to look at the evidence in context with the methods used to acquire and interpret this evidence - as in this being justified knowledge, that is also provisional. If you want to do the same for 'God' then you need something comparable: 'faith' seems to be your substitute for this and it isn't comparable. This is where you need something specific to your claims of the divine, since your personal incredulity surrounding abiogenesis etc says nothing about 'God'.

It does seem that you want to reinforce your faith by shifting the burden of proof and your obvious use of fallacies: your strawman approach to 'worldview' being just one example.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Quite so: his "take down" is an argument from personal incredulity, and his argument for "god" is a god of the gap he mistakenly thinks he's thereby created.

Bad arguments both.

To be fair, I think the whole god of the gaps idea is problematic for reasons that Sword is partly correct on. The idea that because there are large gaps in our knowledge makes a god any more likely is fallacious so the corollary is that filling in those gaps by using an assumption of naturalism and  investigating with that method has any effect on the probability of a god is also fallacious.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I'm not sure that I follow your argument here.

To be fair, I think the whole god of the gaps idea is problematic for reasons that Sword is partly correct on. The idea that because there are large gaps in our knowledge makes a god any more likely is fallacious...

Yes. That's basically the god of the gaps argument.

...so the corollary is that filling in those gaps by using an assumption of naturalism and  investigating with that method has any effect on the probability of a god is also fallacious.

Does anyone do that? We assume naturalism in the absence of any other investigative method to create a model of the universe, but I'm not sure that anyone says, "we haven't found god(s) this way, therefore no gods" do they? Rather it's something like, "If you want to posit a supernatural something then the methods and tools of naturalism are irrelevant for that job so you'll have to come up with something else instead to do it."

Oddly when I've pressed Sword on this he's somewhat half-heartedly (and vaguely) hinted at some naturalistic ways of investigating his claims, but there's nothing so far at least to distinguish them from just his personal opinions on the matter.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I'm not sure that I follow your argument here.

Yes. That's basically the god of the gaps argument.

Does anyone do that? We assume naturalism in the absence of any other investigative method to create a model of the universe, but I'm not sure that anyone says, "we haven't found god(s) this way, therefore no gods" do they? Rather it's something like, "If you want to posit a supernatural something then the methods and tools of naturalism are irrelevant for that job so you'll have to come up with something else instead to do it."

Oddly when I've pressed Sword on this he's somewhat half-heartedly (and vaguely) hinted at some naturalistic ways of investigating his claims, but there's nothing so far at least to distinguish them from just his personal opinions on the matter.   

Most references to god of the gaps that I have seen are non theists pointing out that where we might once have said thunder was god farting or some such, we now 'know' it to be caused naturally. Since we only have methodologic naturalism, that's a given. It doesn't mean as some say that the gaps are getting smaller, it's that the concepts of gaps is meaningless. 

[wigginhall]

Charles Coulson used to argue that God is either in the whole of nature, or not at all.   This is in 'Science and Christian Belief', which was popular for a while; he was a maths professor.   So the idea of gaps is nonsense.

[Nearly Sane]

Charles Coulson used to argue that God is either in the whole of nature, or not at all.   This is in 'Science and Christian Belief', which was popular for a while; he was a maths professor.   So the idea of gaps is nonsense.

agreed, over the years I just see the whole amount of time dedicated to the evolution arguments, as one big waste of time. The idea of of a god being something that gains strength from the amount of things we don't know seems a fundamentally flawed concept, and that is what needs to be pointed out, not individual's lack of knowledge of the ToE

[wigginhall]

agreed, over the years I just see the whole amount of time dedicated to the evolution arguments, as one big waste of time. The idea of of a god being something that gains strength from the amount of things we don't know seems a fundamentally flawed concept, and that is what needs to be pointed out, not individual's lack of knowledge of the ToE

And it tends to be certain things that we don't know.   For example, I often cite gravity, about which a lot is not known, but Christians don't seem interested in that.   I suppose they focus on the Big Bang as equivalent to Genesis-type creation, and evolution, as equivalent to creation of animals.   And there is also this idea of 'code' in DNA, which is supposed to be inexplicable, I don't know why.