AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Nearly Sane]

But any pattern can only be perceived as a pattern from outside observation.  I once came across a mathematical proof that perception can't be defined in material terms.

Splat!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi torri,

I don't know that I 'accept philosophical naturalism'...

You're probably aware of this already, but just in passing you should be aware that when Vlad uses this terms he means by it his own personal re-definition of, "the natural is necessarily all there is" rather than its actual meaning of, "the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable".

So far as I'm aware pretty much no-one actually subscribes to his straw man, but he's so hugely invested in it ("how would you falsify that then?") that he prefers the dishonesty of sticking with it in order to demolish it rather than finally coming clean. Its contemptible stuff though, which is why I've concluded that there's no point in engaging with someone for whom words and terms mean whatever he wants them to mean.

Possibly he's related to one D. Trump?

[Maeght]

to state something as unlikely there is an implied figure. Given you don't have an idea on how to evaluate it, the idea of 'unlikely' is specious

Fine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

to state something as unlikely there is an implied figure. Given you don't have an idea on how to evaluate it, the idea of 'unlikely' is specious

Why though? The naturalistic paradigm is hugely well-supported by evidence, whereas there's none for the supernatural. Thus when naturalistic explanations are found they're unremarkable inasmuch as they fit the paradigm and join the set of bajillions that came before; identifying a supernatural explanation on the other hand (assuming there could ever be a method to do such a thing) would be an astonishing and unique finding, in a sample set of one.

Of course the black swan (or black fairy or some such I guess) is always possible, but probabilistically "likely" and "unlikely" seem reasonable to me without requiring specific numbers - the former being in accord with the way the universe observably works, the latter contradicting the way the universe observably works.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Why though? The naturalistic paradigm is hugely well-supported by evidence, whereas there's none for the supernatural. Thus when naturalistic explanations are found they're unremarkable inasmuch as they fit the paradigm and join the set of bajillions that came before; identifying a supernatural explanation on the other hand (assuming there could ever be a method to do such a thing) would be an astonishing and unique finding, in a sample set of one.

Of course the black swan (or black fairy or some such I guess) is always possible, but probabilistically "likely" and "unlikely" seem reasonable to me without requiring specific numbers - the former being in accord with the way the universe observably works, the latter contradicting the way the universe observably works.

because all of that is based on an assumption of naturalism and using methodological naturalism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

because all of that is based on an assumption of naturalism and using methodological naturalism.

So? I think it unlikely that fairies will take the wheel if I fall asleep while driving, and I find that to be the case based on motoring experience - mine and other people's. Why do I need specific numbers to be right about that?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

So? I think it unlikely that fairies will take the wheel if I fall asleep while driving, and I find that to be the case based on motoring experience - mine and other people's. Why do I need specific numbers to be right about that?

Not sure whether you are being disingenuous here or not but you appear to be mistaking probability of a naturalistic defined effect as the same as non naturalistic cause?

[jeremyp]

because all of that is based on an assumption of naturalism and using methodological naturalism.

No, it's based on observation. We observe that every time we have come up with an explanation of a phenomenon it has been naturalistic. The expectation (i.e. probability > 1/2)  is therefore that all those things we can't explain are going to turn out to be natural.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Not sure whether you are being disingenuous here or not but you appear to be mistaking probability of a naturalistic defined effect as the same as non naturalistic cause?

Not at all. I'm just not sure that I follow your thinking about needing specific numbers reasonably to assign "likely" and "unlikely" labels to various conjectures.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not at all. I'm just not sure that I follow your thinking about needing specific numbers reasonably to assign "likely" and "unlikely" labels to various conjectures.

you could have a spread of numbers, didn't ask for specific. How do you do any calculation with NO numbers?

[Nearly Sane]

No, it's based on observation. We observe that every time we have come up with an explanation of a phenomenon it has been naturalistic. The expectation (i.e. probability > 1/2)  is therefore that all those things we can't explain are going to turn out to be natural.

you cannot observe things have a naturalistic cause if you do not have a method that can show what are naturalistic causes as opposed to non naturalistic ones. If your methodology is based on assumption of naturalism this is by definition impossible! Got any such non naturalistic methodology?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

you could have a spread of numbers, didn't ask for specific. How do you do any calculation with NO numbers?

Well, you did say "a figure" and "an implied figure" in consecutive posts. The indefinite articles sounded specific to me, hence the question.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Well, you did say "a figure" and "an implied figure" in consecutive posts. The indefinite articles sounded specific to me, hence the question.

never said specific though. Got any answer to how you do probability with no numbers!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

you could have a spread of numbers, didn't ask for specific. How do you do any calculation with NO numbers?

How would "a" figure or "an" implied figure not be specific figures?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

How would "a" figure or "an" implied figure not be specific figures?

because it could be a range. Again got any figures?

[torridon]

I once came across a mathematical proof that perception can't be defined in material terms.

Come on then, post it up

[Alan Burns]

Come on then, post it up

I did post it on an old thread which has since been removed.  I can't remember the link, but if I do come across it I will post it again.

[Sassy]

I suggest you present the evidence yourself: the burden of proof is yours.

Like a student telling his lecturer he has to do the work for him.

The evidence of fallacies is their use, and there are numerous textbook examples to be found in this Forum.

None I have seen in this thread that would relate to anything on the forum.

[floo]

Like a student telling his lecturer he has to do the work for him.
None I have seen in this thread that would relate to anything on the forum.

Admit it Sass you have no evidence!

[Alan Burns]

I don't know that I 'accept philosophical naturalism', I just don't see any justification for supernaturalism.  I don't think we could define or detect 'supernatural' so that puts it out of the field of enquiry.   Not that I claim to have any profound answers, I think noone does, I am just flagging up what seems like dodgy reasoning to me, and that has included, recently, Matrix (or Simulation) theory and theism for both suffering an implication of infinite regress, and therefore probably a logic fail.  Or, with God, by defining God as uncaused and eternal, I think a tautology is on offer here, we are simply defining God to avoid the infinite regress and to avoid the question of his nature or origins. that looks like a fudge to me, and it looks like a simple answer to a question that in reality is very hard and demands more work from us to think clearly and freely without affectation or bias.  My instincts suggest answers to our deepest questions will stem from pure logic eventually; anything anthropocentric in character, like theism, always looks suspicious to me.

I think you have successfully concluded that you do not have all the answers yet, but you persist in relying on human endeavours to find the answers.  I have concluded that our human brains alone do not have the capacity to find the answers you seek.  But my Christian faith provides all the answers I will ever need.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#305

...yet [Dawkins] won't see DNA, the blueprint for living organisms as an argument for a designer/creator!

quite likely because the whole concept of 'creator' is a logical fallacy, a false friend; it appears superficially attractive as an explanation but in fact it explains nothing and only leaves us saddled with the yet bigger problem of who created the creator.

#320

If we try to understand A by saying 'B must have made it', this gets us nowhere if we cannot say where B came from.  The creator fallacy is thus a false friend - appearing to solve a problem but in fact it only invites an infinite regress of creators which is a more intractable problem than just understanding A.

But this is creating a problem where none exists, in my opinion.

Do human beings design and make things? Yes.

Is the truth that human beings design and make things dependent on knowing the origin of human beings first? No.

Can comparisons be made between the attributes of things designed and made by human beings and what can be observed in nature? Yes. Example: DNA as the blueprint for living organisms.

Therefore, is a conclusion that life was created by an intelligent cause affected by knowing what the intelligent cause is?

[torridon]

I think you have successfully concluded that you do not have all the answers yet, but you persist in relying on human endeavours to find the answers.  I have concluded that our human brains alone do not have the capacity to find the answers you seek.  But my Christian faith provides all the answers I will ever need.

I think human brains are the best sort for figuring out this sort of stuff. All the contents of the world's faiths are themselves the products of human brains anyhow.  Unlike you I try to avoid using faith as a route to discovery and understanding - as is apparent from your last sentence, faith tends to lead to closed minds.

[floo]

#305#320But this is creating a problem where none exists, in my opinion.

Do human beings design and make things? Yes.

Is the truth that human beings design and make things dependent on knowing the origin of human beings first? No.

Can comparisons be made between the attributes of things designed and made by human beings and what can be observed in nature? Yes. Example: DNA as the blueprint for living organisms.

Therefore, is a conclusion that life was created by an intelligent cause affected by knowing what the intelligent cause is?

[/b][/i][/u]

That is your conclusion, but I suspect there is another explanation which science will discover in the end.

I am of the opinion humans are the designers where all the world's gods are concerned. The Biblical god is a very unpleasant human construction.

[Alan Burns]

I think human brains are the best sort for figuring out this sort of stuff. All the contents of the world's faiths are themselves the products of human brains anyhow.  Unlike you I try to avoid using faith as a route to discovery and understanding - as is apparent from your last sentence, faith tends to lead to closed minds.

My mind is not closed.  Every day I open it up to allow God into my life.  I just wish that more people would open up the door to allow God in.

[torridon]

#305#320But this is creating a problem where none exists, in my opinion.

Do human beings design and make things? Yes.

Is the truth that human beings design and make things dependent on knowing the origin of human beings first? No.

Can comparisons be made between the attributes of things designed and made by human beings and what can be observed in nature? Yes. Example: DNA as the blueprint for living organisms.

Therefore, is a conclusion that life was created by an intelligent cause affected by knowing what the intelligent cause is?

Then you just haven't grasped the extent of the problem you are creating.  There is nothing in the above that attempts to explain the origins or the nature of god.  Complexity has it origins in simpler constituents; atoms are complex arrangements of subatomic particles, likewise molecules are complex arrangements of atoms, likewise up we go until we get to galaxies and photosynthesis and insurance salesmen.  Large numbers are made up of lots of little numbers, not the reverse.  If your principle to explain something complex is to posit an even more complex creator then you are committing yourself to an infinite regress of ever increasingly complex creators.  So if you think this universe was created by a creator that implies that God was also created by some higher creator god.  Your approach leads to nonsense. Better to try to understand things the right way round - that complexity derives from origins that are simpler, not more complex.