Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

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.

Yep, the watchmaker is another weird argument. We are somehow meant to recognise design as if we have found a watch on a beach, and yet for a creator god the individual grains of sand are watches. As ever if complexity is somehow top down it creates an infinite regress.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

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.

I'm glad you put that "know" in inverted commas. Yes we know it, but only according to the naturalistic paradigm we use to explain it. Which is fine - it's a paradigm that ticks all the boxes of a model of the universe that has solutions that appear to work according to the inter-subjective experience we appear to have. That's not to say that we can't rule out, say, our experience just being an algorithm in a celestial kid's computer game but it does give us truths that are "true enough".

The problem though for the theist who positively asserts "God is" is that he has no method of any kind to populate a model of the type that naturalism provides. It's just white noise.

That's why instead I think that Vlad, Sword et al distract from that with a straw man version of naturalism - "the natural is necessarily all there is or can be" - and then attack it ("so how would you falsify that then?") in the hope:

A: That no-one notices that it's a straw man; and

B. That's it's entirely irrelevant for the purpose of taking "God" out of white noise territory.

All it gives them is an "anything's possible" (with which no-one disagrees anyway), and a belief object that's just one of an incalculable number of other conjectures about the supposed supernatural.         
     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I'm glad you put that "know" in inverted commas. Yes we know it, but only according to the naturalistic paradigm we use to explain it. Which is fine - it's a paradigm that ticks all the boxes of a model of the universe that has solutions that appear to work according to the inter-subjective experience we appear to have. That's not to say that we can't rule out, say, our experience just being an algorithm in a celestial kid's computer game but it does give us truths that are "true enough".

The problem though for the theist who positively asserts "God is" is that he has no method of any kind to populate a model of the type that naturalism provides. It's just white noise.

That's why instead I think that Vlad, Sword et al distract from that with a straw man version of naturalism - "the natural is necessarily all there is or can be" - and then attack it ("so how would you falsify that then?") in the hope:

A: That no-one notices that it's a straw man; and

B. That's it's entirely irrelevant for the purpose of taking "God" out of white noise territory.

All it gives them is an "anything's possible" (with which no-one disagrees anyway), and a belief object that's just one of an incalculable number of other conjectures about the supposed supernatural.         
   

Yes, I agree with all of that but to me the sensible challenge is to keep the concentration on the issue, not indulge in ongoing discussions of evolution. Once you do that you are effectively falling into a position that an argument that defeats evolution theory is in any way relevant to what the challenge is for those making the god claim. It allows Sword to compare something like the Bible with the thousands of papers on evolutionary theory because, to an extent, we take the findings on evolution on a sort of faith based on the original methodologically naturalistic assumption.

The whole discussion on evolution or indeed when people wibble about quantum is effectively a category mistake by both parties since the omni god means that anything is possible defeats the entire use of cause and effect. As wigginhall has noted that type of god means any arguments about the conclusions of science or uses of the method by the theist who has such a god are meaningless gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wigginhall, Hillside and Nearly sane all vying to put the shiteyist spin on theism.

I will believe Hillsides conversion from the standard definition of naturalism when he argues from a different perspective than the standard definition.

Good day Gentlemen.

[Nearly Sane]

Wigginhall, Hillside and Nearly sane all vying to put the shiteyist spin on theism.

I will believe Hillsides conversion from the standard definition of naturalism when he argues from a different perspective than the standard definition.

Good day Gentlemen.

Oh dear, dear, I am pointing out bad arguments. Not talking about theism at all but how some theists and non theists make bad arguments. And that's my interpretation of wigginhall as well since he cites Coulson. Or is your take that a Methodist author was trying to put 'the shiteist spin on theism'?


If you want to engage, read what is being said rather than ignore it and fill in the blanks from your imagination.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear, dear, I am pointing out bad arguments. Not talking about theism at all but how some theists and non theists make bad arguments. And that's my interpretation of wigginhall as well since he cites Coulson. Or is your take that a Methodist author was trying to put 'the shiteist spin on theism'?


If you want to engage, read what is being said rather than ignore it and fill in the blanks from your imagination.

.......And as for what you were trying to do with methodological materialism I haven't yet got to the bottom of that yet but it looked as though you were trying to claim it for atheism at the end of the day.

[Nearly Sane]

.......And as for what you were trying to do with methodological materialism I haven't yet got to the bottom of that yet but it looked as though you were trying to claim it for atheism at the end of the day.

Well I was using the term methodological naturalism, so I would suggest you stick with that rather than change words. As to 'claiming it for atheism', again I really suggest you read posts. If you propose an omni god interacting with the world in a non naturalistic fashion, then using naturalistic methods as part of an argument makes no sense as you break the basic assumption of the method. That neither says that you have to be an atheist to use naturalist methods in other circumstances, nor that naturalist methods are somehow supportive of atheism. Indeed had you read the posts you would have seen that my issue is with theists who don't realise the problem of switching methods, AND with atheists who think that any findings using naturalist methods have any impact on non natural claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Yes, I agree with all of that but to me the sensible challenge is to keep the concentration on the issue, not indulge in ongoing discussions of evolution. Once you do that you are effectively falling into a position that an argument that defeats evolution theory is in any way relevant to what the challenge is for those making the god claim. It allows Sword to compare something like the Bible with the thousands of papers on evolutionary theory because, to an extent, we take the findings on evolution on a sort of faith based on the original methodologically naturalistic assumption.

The whole discussion on evolution or indeed when people wibble about quantum is effectively a category mistake by both parties since the omni god means that anything is possible defeats the entire use of cause and effect. As wigginhall has noted that type of god means any arguments about the conclusions of science or uses of the method by the theist who has such a god are meaningless gibberish.

You won't get much argument from me here. I tend to do both: here's the answer to the question about evolution you thought didn't have an answer, and besides it's entirely irrelevant the the purposes of the likelihood or otherwise of "God" whether there is or isn't an answer.

My impression with Vlad and Sword alike is that they've built their edifices of beliefs based on a series of fallacious arguments, and then they have to mis-characterise the position of their interlocutors so as to attack the straw man version in order never again return to the fallacies. I find this very odd - for months (and possibly years) I've been explaining to Vlad his straw man and more recently I've done the same with Sword.

Both though just ignore the correction and carry on regardless with the straw man version. It's as if they can't even allow for the possibility of the belief edifice being built on sand so they have to plough on, head down and "methodological naturalism" flag in hand come what may.           

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Wigginhall, Hillside and Nearly sane all vying to put the shiteyist spin on theism.

I will believe Hillsides conversion from the standard definition of naturalism when he argues from a different perspective than the standard definition.

Good day Gentlemen.

Just re-defining a term that actually means something else in order to attack your own straw man version of it doesn't make it the "standard definition" at all. It just makes it your re-definition of a term to mean something else in order for you to attack your own straw man version of it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

You won't get much argument from me here. I tend to do both: here's the answer to the question about evolution you thought didn't have an answer, and besides it's entirely irrelevant the the purposes of the likelihood or otherwise of "God" whether there is or isn't an answer.

My impression with Vlad and Sword alike is that they've built their edifices of beliefs based on a series of fallacious arguments,   

....and they are?

[Gordon]

.......And as for what you were trying to do with methodological materialism I haven't yet got to the bottom of that yet but it looked as though you were trying to claim it for atheism at the end of the day.

Vlad

Shhh!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

....and they are?

Have a look at Sword's Reply 13476 - it's chock full of them, all of which (and more) you've attempted over the years.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You won't get much argument from me here. I tend to do both: here's the answer to the question about evolution you thought didn't have an answer, and besides it's entirely irrelevant the the purposes of the likelihood or otherwise of "God" whether there is or isn't an answer.

My impression with Vlad and Sword alike is that they've built their edifices of beliefs based on a series of fallacious arguments, and then they have to mis-characterise the position of their interlocutors so as to attack the straw man version in order never again return to the fallacies. I find this very odd - for months (and possibly years) I've been explaining to Vlad his straw man and more recently I've done the same with Sword.

Both though just ignore the correction and carry on regardless with the straw man version. It's as if they can't even allow for the possibility of the belief edifice being built on sand so they have to plough on, head down and "methodological naturalism" flag in hand come what may.         

But in doing 'both' you validate the whole approach and end up indulging in the idea that winning or losing  an argument about evolution is in any way relevant to a non naturalist claim. Indeed it's precisely the sort of muddled thinking that allows William Lane Craig to use the confusion of this approach to sound at all rational. I am not a fan of approaches that accept contradictory themes for the sake of argument. The amount of time spent on the evolution argument seems to me a distraction

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But in doing 'both' you validate the whole approach and end up indulging in the idea that winning or losing  an argument about evolution is in any way relevant to a non naturalist claim. Indeed it's precisely the sort of muddled thinking that allows William Lane Craig to use the confusion of this approach to sound at all rational. I am not a fan of approaches that accept contradictory themes for the sake of argument. The amount of time spent on the evolution argument seems to me a distraction

I'm not sure that, "here's the answer but it's irrelevant to you position anyway (and here's why)" validates the approach, but on balance you're probably more right than wrong about this - not least because the creationist will just tend to ignore the second bit and pursue relentlessly his misunderstanding of the first bit.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I'm not sure that, "here's the answer but it's irrelevant to you position anyway (and here's why)" validates the approach, but on balance you're probably more right than wrong about this - not least because the creationist will just tend to ignore the second bit and pursue relentlessly his misunderstanding of the first bit.

But I don't think that is made clear. The issue I have is that it gives support to a Gish gallop. If you don't answer the points, you are stated as losing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Have a look at Sword's Reply 13476 - it's chock full of them, all of which (and more) you've attempted over the years.

I think you're the boy who cried fallacy.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

That is fair enough, and I appreciate your perceptive comments about the essential irrelevance of evolutionary arguments in the atheism/theism debate (the question is certainly not a binary matter of "evolution or God - which?"). However, my comment was quite simply a response to Sword's ludicrous question of whether he was simply to take the ToE by natural selection as a matter of faith.
Indeed, evolutionary arguments do distract from the overall context of the thread.

[Nearly Sane]

That is fair enough, and I appreciate your perceptive comments about the essential irrelevance of evolutionary arguments in the atheism/theism debate (the question is certainly not a binary matter of "evolution or God - which?"). However, my comment was quite simply a response to Sword's ludicrous question of whether he was simply to take the ToE by natural selection as a matter of faith.
Indeed, evolutionary arguments do distract from the overall context of the thread.

Indeed,Dicky, I was simply using  your post a convenient  'in'  to the discussion to make the point as I don't really engage in the evolution vs debate as already covered it is an invalid aporoach

[torridon]

And do you honestly believe that there are no fallacies in the "logic" that is used to explain the accidental emergence of intelligent self aware life forms from a cloud of exploding gas?

if you see a fallacy, then point it out.

And why would the emergence of intelligent life be accidental ?  I don't see the justification for 'accidental'; rather, life is inevitable given what we have learned about the basic laws of nature. Rare, but inevitable.

[Alan Burns]

And why would the emergence of intelligent life be accidental ?  I don't see the justification for 'accidental'; rather, life is inevitable given what we have learned about the basic laws of nature. Rare, but inevitable.

It would seem that you and Bluehillside are not comfortable with the use of the word accidental.

The dictionary definition:
happening by chance, unintentionally.

In the materialistic world, every event must happen by chance since it is a consequence of previous events, all of which are uncontrolled.  If an event is intended to happen, then the source of the intention must have the control to bring about the event.  This scenario cannot happen if all events are deterministic - just the result of chain reactions of cause and effect which began with the big bang.  In the materialistic world, nothing is in control but the basic laws of science.

I do not see how you can claim that life is inevitable.  Given the demonstrably destructive nature of natural unguided forces in our universe, it is quite feasible that a totally lifeless universe can exist.

You could say it is inevitable that a team of monkeys playing with typewriters would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare, given enough time.  But the truth is that it would take more monkeys that the number of atomic particles in the known universe, working from the beginning of time to get anywhere near this possibility.  The truth is that it will never happen.

We live in a finite universe which has existed for a finite amount of time.  Life as we know it has developed on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten material which emerged from an exploding star.  Was it accidental or intended?

[Maeght]

It would seem that you and Bluehillside are not comfortable with the use of the word accidental.

The dictionary definition:
happening by chance, unintentionally.

In the materialistic world, every event must happen by chance since it is a consequence of previous events, all of which are uncontrolled.

If it is due to previous events then it is not by chance is it? You say uncontrolled - but if each is a consequence of previous events how are they uncontrolled?

[Alan Burns]

If it is due to previous events then it is not by chance is it? You say uncontrolled - but if each is a consequence of previous events how are they uncontrolled?

dictionary definition of "control":
the power to influence or direct

This implies that which is being controlled is under the influence of a conscious controller.  If every event is a consequence of previous chains of events, dating back to the big bang, there is nothing in control but the laws of nature, which in purely material terms can have no conscious awareness.

[Leonard James]

dictionary definition of "control":
the power to influence or direct

This implies that which is being controlled is under the influence of a conscious controller.

No it doesn't. It simply means that the laws of nature affect material things. That in no way implies consciousness. 

If every event is a consequence of previous chains of events, dating back to the big bang, there is nothing in control but the laws of nature, which in purely material terms can have no conscious awareness.

Quite! They don't need consciousness to cause effects.

[Maeght]

dictionary definition of "control":
the power to influence or direct

This implies that which is being controlled is under the influence of a conscious controller.

No it doesn't.

If every event is a consequence of previous chains of events, dating back to the big bang, there is nothing in control but the laws of nature, which in purely material terms can have no conscious awareness.

'Nothing but' .... exactly, controlled by the laws of nature, so not chance. There is no requirement for a conscious controller.

The Oxford English dictionary includes the following definition of chance

'The occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause.'

If the events are caused by previous events then it is not chance by definition.

[torridon]

I do not see how you can claim that life is inevitable.  Given the demonstrably destructive nature of natural unguided forces in our universe, it is quite feasible that a totally lifeless universe can exist.

You could say it is inevitable that a team of monkeys playing with typewriters would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare, given enough time.  But the truth is that it would take more monkeys that the number of atomic particles in the known universe, working from the beginning of time to get anywhere near this possibility.  The truth is that it will never happen.

We live in a finite universe which has existed for a finite amount of time.  Life as we know it has developed on the cooling crust of a tiny blob of molten material which emerged from an exploding star.  Was it accidental or intended?

Wb Alan bope you had a good hol, I was off of for a week also (in Lourdes as it happens )

The view that life is a fantastically improbable accident is 20 or so years out of date.  People working in relevant fields like astrobiology now see biology as an inevitable consequence of biochemistry which in turn derives from physics, given sufficient time and space for these things to work themselves out and we happen to be in a window in time in the evolution of this universe that is appropriate for such developments.  Highly intelligent life is not accidental, but it will be fantastically rare, but there again the universe is fantastically huge.  Primitive life is probably not so rare, we will probably find some sooner or later on Europa or some such place, and high end biochemistry is pretty ubiquitous through space now.  Life is an energy efficient way of breaking down complex sugars which are now abundant in interstellar space.  It's an ancient war between the forces of nature on one hand which tend to create increasing complexity, and thermodynamics on the other which tries to break it down. We aren't children of God, we are pawns in that war.