Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am saying as there is no evidence to support the existence of god, the default position is unbelief, unless proved otherwise.

The default position is agnosticism.
You are suggesting that atheism is a circular argument and arbitrary limitation to empirical thinking.
It also ignores the nature of the universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

“Metaphysical naturalism is an approach to metaphysics or ontology, which deals with existence per se. It should not be confused with methodological naturalism, which sees empiricism as the basis for the scientific method." (Wiki)

Never have done.
But you have.
In fact many, many antitheists have expressed their chagrin at me continually telling them exactly what you are amazingly accusing me of.

You are either taking the mickey........why bother?
Turdpolishing your record to come out the winner........why bother?
An equivalent position would be the West German football team going up to collect the Jules Remy instead of England........why bother?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Quoteminer General,

Never have done.

Well that took a twist. Let’s re-cap shall we?

You have spent years asserting that “philosophical naturalism” (by which it turns out you actually meant metaphysical naturalism by the way) fails because methodological naturalism doesn’t validate it.

I have spent years telling you that you’re wrong to try to tie the two together in this way, and why – essentially because neither philosophical nor metaphysical naturalism rely on methodological naturalism for validation in any case, and because methodological naturalism merely proceeds on the assumptions of naturalism but takes no position on any philosophical content.

You then decided to reference RationalWiki for support by quote mining the bit you thought helped you, only to find that when read in context the quote in fact falsifies your position too.

Not satisfied with shooting yourself in one foot, you then decided to shoot yourself in the other by quote mining a different article in Wikipedia. And lo and behold, it turned out that that article too when read in context also falsified you.

And still you haven’t even got to the elephant in the room – namely that all you have is a huge straw man because no-one holds the position you’re trying to pin on them – ie, metaphysical naturalism –  even if you did manage to get the terminology right.

Apart from that though…

But you have.

Only if you think my spending years telling you that methodological naturalism has bugger all to do with philosophical or metaphysical naturalism is confusing the two.

Here’s a clue: it isn’t. It's actually pretty much the opposite of that.

In fact many, many antitheists have expressed their chagrin at me continually telling them exactly what you are amazingly accusing me of.

Do you need a visa to visit the alternative reality world you’re trying to paint yourself into?

You are either taking the mickey........why bother?
Turdpolishing your record to come out the winner........why bother?
An equivalent position would be the West German football team going up to collect the Jules Remy instead of England........why bother?

No, I’m just using reason and your own citations to show you to be wrong. Comprehensively so as it turns out.

You crashed, you burned. Deal with it and move on.

If you don’t think metaphysical naturalism is sustainable find someone who actually subscribes to it and take it up with him.

If you don’t think the naturalism I and others actually hold to – ie, that the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable – is sustainable though, now you know that methodological naturalism has bugger all to do with it finally try to find an argument to support you.

Good luck with it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The default position is agnosticism.

No it isn't. Floo's post should have said "non-belief" rather than "unbelief" (because the latter implies the positive statement "no god"), but agnosticism just means that the conjecture "god" is unknowable. It's entirely possible to be an agnostic atheist - or more accurately given the incoherence of the conjecture "God", an ignostic atheist.
 

You are suggesting that atheism is a circular argument and arbitrary limitation to empirical thinking.

She's suggesting that atheism is neither of those things. Atheism is merely where you end up when there's no cogent reason for theism.
 

It also ignores the nature of the universe.

I have no idea what you think you mean by "the nature of the universe", but it also ignores the nature of cheddar cheese.

So what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn't. Floo's post should have said "non-belief" rather than "unbelief" (because the latter implies the positive statement "no god")

Crikey...You've really got a bad case of the ''what you meant to say was.....'' today haven't you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Quoteminer General,

Crikey...You've really got a bad case of the ''what you meant to say was.....'' today haven't you?

Deflection noted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quoteminer General,

Deflection noted.

What you meant to say was

''Vlad you're on cracking form today, here's a tenner''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What you meant to say was

''Vlad you're on cracking form today, here's a tenner''

Surely what you meant to say was, "Oh OK, now I see where I've gone wrong all these years. Thank you blue for correcting me. If I can think of an argument worthy of the name to replace my failed one, I'll let you know."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Surely what you meant to say was, "Oh OK, now I see where I've gone wrong all these years."

Yes...bothering with your tripe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Quoteminer General,

Yes...bothering with your tripe.

But that's all it took to knock you out of the park.

So, any thoughts on where you'll go now to critique naturalism (either sort) now your "it's problematic because methodological naturalism doesn't demonstrate it" nonsense has collapsed in a heap?

For metaphysical naturalism it's actually pretty straightforward, but the problem there is that no-one subscribes to it.

For philosophical naturalism on the other hand you're going to have to work awful hard to come up with something.

Good luck with it though!

[torridon]

I do not dismiss the findings of evolutionary biology or other scientific investigations ...

I'm afraid there is a trail of hundreds of posts from you now on this thread alone that demonstrate otherwise.

[torridon]

My take on things is that we are surrounded by overwhelming evidence of God's amazing creativity, yet so many people are deluded into thinking it all happened naturally from nothing more than the unattended consequences from a cloud of exploding gas.

And many ignore the evidence of our own supernatural spirituality by assuming that our conscious free will is just an illusion.

There is no evidence for gods though.  If someone found such you can bet that the newspapers would be full of it, it would be the biggest news story since journalism began, period. If we had found any, study of it would already be in the science curriculum.  What you call evidence isn't evidence at all, more likely it is your overwhelming personal bias talking.

[floo]

There is no evidence for gods though.  If someone found such you can bet that the newspapers would be full of it, it would be the biggest news story since journalism began, period. If we had found any, study of it would already be in the science curriculum.  What you call evidence isn't evidence at all, more likely it is your overwhelming personal bias talking.

Well said.

[Alan Burns]

I'm afraid there is a trail of hundreds of posts from you now on this thread alone that demonstrate otherwise.

I do not dismiss the findings, but I question the conclusions and assumptions.
One questionable assumption being that every beneficial mutation needed to create life as we know it was generated by purely random events, together with the assumption that the events needed to generate the first living cell were also purely random.

And the justification for these questionable assumptions is the fact that free will does exist in this universe.  I know you try to deny it, but the reality is that every human being implements conscious acts of free will every day.  We are not all automated biological robots but free thinking human beings which can consciously interact with this universe, not just react to it.  How else could I possibly write these posts?  This is evidence that our universe is not entirely deterministic, but can be manipulated by conscious acts of free will derived from the spiritual source of the human soul, or from God Himself.

[Nearly Sane]

I do not dismiss the findings, but I question the conclusions and assumptions.
One questionable assumption being that every beneficial mutation needed to create life as we know it was generated by purely random events, together with the assumption that the events needed to generate the first living cell were also purely random.

And the justification for these questionable assumptions is the fact that free will does exist in this universe.  I know you try to deny it, but the reality is that every human being implements conscious acts of free will every day.  We are not all automated biological robots but free thinking human beings which can consciously interact with this universe, not just react to it.  How else could I possibly write these posts?  This is evidence that our universe is not entirely deterministic, but can be manipulated by conscious acts of free will derived from the spiritual source of the human soul, or from God Himself.

Still haven't been able to give a logically coherent definition of free, so you are still writing meaningless nonsense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not dismiss the findings, but I question the conclusions and assumptions.

Yes you do. One finding is that evolutions causes speciation. You dismiss that.

One questionable assumption being that every beneficial mutation needed to create life as we know it was generated by purely random events, together with the assumption that the events needed to generate the first living cell were also purely random.

You fundamentally misunderstand evolution. Mutations are “random” in the sense of not happening to achieve a pre-determined plan. The interaction of those mutations with their environment however is anything but random. That’s not a “questionable assumption” at all – it’s just what the evidence tells us.

Here's a basic primer to get you started:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/z237hyc/revision/4

And the justification for these questionable assumptions is the fact that free will does exist in this universe.

It’s no such thing.

I know you try to deny it, but the reality is that every human being implements conscious acts of free will every day.

You’ve changed subject completely here, and we “deny” it because it’s not true. That decision-making feels “free” does not mean that it’s actually free of cause and effect.

We are not all automated biological robots but free thinking human beings which can consciously interact with this universe, not just react to it.  How else could I possibly write these posts?  This is evidence that our universe is not entirely deterministic, but can be manipulated by conscious acts of free will derived from the spiritual source of the human soul, or from God Himself.

There’s no evidence whatever for that, and overwhelming evidence for the contrary. If you think there is any evidence for your assertions though, then finally produce it.

[Alan Burns]

You fundamentally misunderstand evolution. Mutations are “random” in the sense of not happening to achieve a pre-determined plan. The interaction of those mutations with their environment however is anything but random. That’s not a “questionable assumption” at all – it’s just what the evidence tells us.

I fully understand the theory of evolution.  But I do question the feasibility of random mutations and natural selection being solely responsible for driving the evolutionary process to where it is today.  The fact that environmental changes have played a role does not in itself imply that intelligently driven interaction is not needed to ensure survival through the inherently hostile environment of this universe.

[Nearly Sane]

I fully understand the theory of evolution.  But I do question the feasibility of random mutations and natural selection being solely responsible for driving the evolutionary process to where it is today.  The fact that environmental changes have played a role does not in itself imply that intelligently driven interaction is not needed to ensure survival through the inherently hostile environment of this universe.

Why did your 'god' need/want to wipe out the dinosaurs?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fully understand the theory of evolution.

But your posts tell us that you're deeply ignorant about it.

But I do question the feasibility of random mutations and natural selection being solely responsible for driving the evolutionary process to where it is today.

You can question anything you like. What you can't do though is to make up your own facts.
 

The fact that environmental changes have played a role does not in itself imply that intelligently driven interaction is not needed to ensure survival through the inherently hostile environment of this universe.

This is just incoherent. Take a deep breath and try again - lots of life thrives in lots of environments that appear to be "inherently hostile". Hydrothermal vents deep in the oceans are a good example. That you personally find something surprising though tells you nothing whatever about how it happened, let alone that an "intelligent driver" was necessary. The evidence for evolutionary speciation is overwhelming, and no external intelligence is necessary to make it so. Why then do you dismiss it out of hand?     

[Alan Burns]

Still haven't been able to give a logically coherent definition of free, so you are still writing meaningless nonsense.

My definition of free will is an event which is not caused by previous physically deterministic events, but by the conscious will of a human being.  I know you argue that conscious will is influenced by past events, but I argue that it is influenced, but not automatically determined by past events.  There is an element of conscious control which enables choice rather than automated decisions, and this ability to choose can't be defined by a chain of uncontrollable physically determined reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Why did your 'god' need/want to wipe out the dinosaurs?

Or indeed bother putting them there at all?

[Gordon]

I fully understand the theory of evolution.  But I do question the feasibility of random mutations and natural selection being solely responsible for driving the evolutionary process to where it is today.

Have you tried presenting your questioning to, for instance, a professional evolutionary biologist? I'm fairly sure they'd tell you that your concerns are unfounded.

The fact that environmental changes have played a role does not in itself imply that intelligently driven interaction is not needed to ensure survival through the inherently hostile environment of this universe.

Neither does it imply that an inexhaustible supply of 'Cheesy Wotsits' isn't essential to 'ensure survival through the inherently hostile environment of this universe'; questions here include; a) are there indeed Cheesy Wotsits, b) if so, where did they come from, c) if so, how to we recognise them, and d) if so, what do they do, how do they do it and how do we know they've done it?

[Nearly Sane]

My definition of free will is an event which is not caused by previous physically deterministic events, but by the conscious will of a human being.  I know you argue that conscious will is influenced by past events, but I argue that it is influenced, but not automatically determined by past events.  There is an element of conscious control which enables choice rather than automated decisions, and this ability to choose can't be defined by a chain of uncontrollable physically determined reactions.

.
And how does that choice happen? That's the question ypu have been asked, repeatedly. And never answered.  Therefore still meaningless posting from you, Alan.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My definition of free will is an event which is not caused by previous physically deterministic events, but by the conscious will of a human being.  I know you argue that conscious will is influenced by past events, but I argue that it is influenced, but not automatically determined by past events.  There is an element of conscious control which enables choice rather than automated decisions, and this ability to choose can't be defined by a chain of uncontrollable physically determined reactions.

You don't "argue" anything - you assert. And your assertions moreover are both incoherent (the determined vs random choice is binary - there is no third option) and contradicted by the evidence. You cling to them nonetheless though because you think they support a personal religious belief you happen to have.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

But your posts tell us that you're deeply ignorant about it.

You can question anything you like. What you can't do though is to make up your own facts.
 
This is just incoherent. Take a deep breath and try again - lots of life thrives in lots of environments that appear to be "inherently hostile". Hydrothermal vents deep in the oceans are a good example. That you personally find something surprising though tells you nothing whatever about how it happened, let alone that an "intelligent driver" was necessary. The evidence for evolutionary speciation is overwhelming, and no external intelligence is necessary to make it so. Why then do you dismiss it out of hand?     

But if intelligent intervention is possible, is it not a possibility that it was used to prevent a total wipe out of life in the hostile environments?