”I am an atheist because I have never seen any real evidence of any gods of any kind. I was raised Catholic and later converted to Baptist as an adult. Even as a child it bothered me that god did not act in obvious and public ways as depicted in the Bible.”Must not have read the New Testament and the new covenant part. Once again, the philosophies of a child should be re-examined as an adult, after learning the principles of rational thought. And Theism should be addressed first, the Bible second.
”The liberal interpretation that the supernatural events in the Bible should be interpreted metaphorically only begged the question why the god entity shouldn’t be interpreted metaphorically as well.”The bible is not necessary for Theism; the existence of a creating first cause is not affected by any person’s opinion of the Bible.
”Also, as an African American I can’t reconcile accepting a religion that was used to enslave my ancestors.”This is a unique excuse for rejecting the ecclesiastic part, but it doesn’t work against the existence of a non-material entity existing in non-natural conditions, having the ability to create a universe. The argument is against human organizations, not against God. And it fails to consider that it was Christian influence that led to the cessation of slavery, not Secular Humanist Atheism. Confusing human organizations (commonly lumped together as “religion”) with a creating deity is frequently seen in Atheist arguments.
”But seeing George Carlin’s routine Religion is Bullshit sealed my atheism.”
Frederick Sparks
United States
I will post an analysis of George Carlin’s Comic Atheodicies soon.
21 comments:
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. ... At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=547
I.e., everything is material.
I.e., philosophical materialism is true.
I.e., a positive claim.
I.e., we need evidence for this position.
Prediction: none will be forthcoming.
Jefferson was a denier. He decided that he could believe the bible only if he edited it the way he preferred for it to read. So he removed all the non-physical references, which removed any purpose for Jesus existence, but which satisfied Jefferson’s denialism. That editing made up his own Bible, now called the Jefferson Bible.
The basis for his denialism was that he had no personal experience of certain things, so he denied them based on lack of personal experience. Lack of personal experience of [ Q ] is hardly evidence for lack of existence of [ Q ]; in fact that is the definition of the Inductive Fallacy (black swan and all). So there was/is no evidence in favor of Jefferson’s denialism; his denial was a personal opinion and nothing more. And it inductively fails.
I love it when someone uses a cartoon as an argument. This cartoon hands out assertions as if they are contrary, and uses their presumed contrary natures to imply that the one assertion is non-coherent.
But that is not the actual case.
The assertions go like this:
If [ A ] & [ B ] Then [ C ]
Where,
A => non-physical entity exists
B => affects real (physical) world
C => subject to science.
The full argument is this:
If [ A ] & [ B ] Then [ C ];
[ A ] ; [ B ];
Therefore [ C ].
This seemingly valid argument has a flaw. The definition of [B] has a presupposition which is this: it is presupposed that it means “necessarily” affects the real world, and further is subject to the principle of cause and effect, plus is repeatable and falsifiable. These conditions are not stated, but they are necessary if [A] is to be subject to [C].
The failure to provide a complete definition, plus the presumption that the argument is valid using the partial definition, renders the argument false. The reason it is false is that it is not necessary that a non-physical entity affects the physical world, but it can do so, and when it does so it is not subject to cause and effect, repeatability, or falsification, which puts it clearly outside the realm of absolute verification by empirical science or forensic science.
Therefore, [A] and [B] are mutually exclusive, meaning that the assertion cannot be valid:
If [ A ] & [ B ] Then [ C ];
[ A ] ; [ B ]; << Not Valid; A and B are mutually exclusive.
Therefore [ C ]. << Not Valid, because the assertion is not valid.
So, the argument is false.
But, cartoon "wisdom" is a hoot; keep it coming!
"clearly outside the realm of absolute verification by empirical science or forensic science."
I don't know if this argument will work on Athiest-scum.
The first thing out of their mouths will be that science doesnt absolutely verify anything. After they vomited up that statement they'll say that it's sounds like nonsense to say a non-material being can affect the material world but isn't subject to cause and effect.
God is science. He changes and made the universe. I hate Athiest-scum as much as you and can't wait to see them burn in Hell but if you say something can effect the material world then that effect can be observed or measured or whatever. It isn't that God is not obvious and observable. The problem is they DENY the observable. But this is why they were made. Made to burn to magnify His Glory.
If you continue down this path, Athiests will think you are running away because you don't have anything.
Here is a series of quotes by Jefferson on religion.
http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
I hardly think you can relegate his potion to that of a "denier" based solely on his "lack of personal experience".
"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820
If philosophical naturalism is true, methodological naturalism will work. Methodological naturalism works, therefore philosophical naturalism is true.
If [x] then [y], [y] therefore [x].
If [A] and [B] are mutually exclusive, then they cannot interact with each other.
You can't escape your logical syllogism by declaring that [A] isn't mutually exclusive to [B] when [A] chooses not to be. That is Special Pleading.
Since you asked for more comics :)
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2344#comic
"We are the pure and chosen few, and all the rest are damned.
There’s room enough in hell for you—we don’t want heaven crammed."
the Elect
"And do you think that unto such as you;
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew:
God gave the secret, and denied it me?--
Well, well, what matters it! Believe that, too."
Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
To “In His Name”:
I think you mistake my position on Atheists and Atheism. I think they are intellectually incorrect in their rejectionism; I do not hate them.
I realize that you are pointing to an error in my logic, but I am most drawn to your position of hatred, and I wish to make it clear that that is not my position. My purpose here is to demonstrate the fallacies and illogic in Atheist thinking, not to denigrate Atheists either in general or specifically. I do point out arrogance when it is demonstrated, and in some cases, Atheist hatred.
But I am dismayed at seeing it come from the other direction.
My interpretation is that the directive is to hate evil, not to hate evil people. If my work is seen to be in the flavor of hatred, then I have not done a good job and I apologize.
Now it seems to me that your concern is covered by the statement I made regarding the “necessity” of a non-physical entity causing empirically detectable change in the natural world:
”The reason it is false is that it is not necessary that a non-physical entity affects the physical world, but it can do so, and when it does so it is not subject to cause and effect, repeatability, or falsification, which puts it clearly outside the realm of absolute verification by empirical science or forensic science.”
Jeremy,
If philosophical naturalism is true, methodological naturalism will work. Methodological naturalism works, therefore philosophical naturalism is true.
Affirming the consequent, a logical fallacy. You need to affirm the antecedent, or deny the consequent.
Jeremy.
Your logic is erroneous; you said:
"If philosophical naturalism is true, methodological naturalism will work. Methodological naturalism works, therefore philosophical naturalism is true.
If [x] then [y], [y] therefore [x].
That is the basic error of Affirming the Consequent.
Asserting that [y] is true does not guarantee that [x] is true because it might also be the case that [y] is true because [z] is true, not because [x] is true:
Correct logic (modus ponens) is thus:
If [x] then [y];
[x]; << this affirms the precedent, not the consequent.
therefore [y].
Therefore your statement cannot be valid:
”If philosophical naturalism is true, methodological naturalism will work. Methodological naturalism works, therefore philosophical naturalism is true.”
The correct statement is:
Premise: If philosophical naturalism is true, methodological naturalism will work.
Assertion: Philosophical naturalism is true.
Conclusion: Therefore methodological naturalism will work.
This is modus ponens. However, since the assertion cannot be shown to be true, then the argument fails.
”You can't escape your logical syllogism by declaring that [A] isn't mutually exclusive to [B] when [A] chooses not to be. That is Special Pleading.”
If [A] is an agent, it is not special pleading. The argument is about a non-physical entity which is an agent with the ability to cause the formation of a universe. Perhaps you missed that?
Why would one quote Khayyham as theological argumentation? What exactly is his argument for the non-existence of a First Cause?
Thanks for the correction, I suspected something was wrong with that as I was typing it. I now recognize the logical error. Let me try again.
If [x] then [y];
[x]; therefore [y].
[x] = methodological naturalism
[y] = philosophical naturalism
We agree that methodological naturalism is true? Ie: Science works? Science can't work if natural laws are inexplicably and unpredictably suspended. Therefore philosophical naturalism seems a very reasonable assumption.
The Khayyham quote was in response to "In His Name". I thought it a more polite was of saying fuck off. I appreciate your more articulate response.
"If [A] is an agent, it is not special pleading. The argument is about a non-physical entity which is an agent with the ability to cause the formation of a universe. Perhaps you missed that?"
Hm. Perhaps, I didn't actually see you present an argument, just an assertion.
But no, I think it is still special pleading. You've defined [A] as being mutually exclusive to [B]. If this is not the case (as in when [A] feels like interacting, then the two are NOT mutually exclusive. If the two are NOT mutually exclusive, then they are within the scope of science. Or at the very least observation.
Furthermore, if it is NOT within the scope of observation and experimentation, how can you possibly learn anything about it? Revelation? If so then perhaps the Khayyam quote might have some relevance. "God gave the secret, and denied it me?"
Jeremy,
Therefore philosophical naturalism seems a very reasonable assumption.
How would this follow? Does it follow that, because night vision goggles are a good tool to examine the night, that the night is all that exists? I don't see a good way to get from "a tool to examine X" to "X is all there is."
Jeremy said,
If [x] then [y];
[x]; therefore [y].
[x] = methodological naturalism
[y] = philosophical naturalism
We agree that methodological naturalism is true? Ie: Science works? Science can't work if natural laws are inexplicably and unpredictably suspended. Therefore philosophical naturalism seems a very reasonable assumption.
Philosophical Naturalism is a superset of methodological naturalism (science). This is seen by the syllogism and by not stating that [x] = [y]. A superset contains something that is outside and beyond the subset.
Science – [x] - voluntarily declares limits for itself: if it cannot be physically analyzed, tested or reproduced, it is not a subject for science. Plus, if it cannot be falsified, it is not a subject for science (the Popper criterion).
There is nothing inherent in the application of science which suggests that there is no possible subject outside the auspices of physical analysis, testing, or reproduction. The suggestion that “nothing exists that science can’t test” is a philosophical statement, not a scientific, empirical fact. Since Philosophical Naturalism requires empirical “validity” for a suggestion to become a fact, then it defeats itself, because its own premise cannot have empirical “validity”.
”But no, I think it is still special pleading. You've defined [A] as being mutually exclusive to [B]. If this is not the case (as in when [A] feels like interacting, then the two are NOT mutually exclusive. If the two are NOT mutually exclusive, then they are within the scope of science. Or at the very least observation.”
Physical and non-physical are mutually exclusive (by the definition of “non-). A momentary interaction due to agency with the power to do so produces a singularity which either changes a physical existence, or momentarily subverts a physical cause and effect behavior which we normally call a “law”. What happens scientifically is that such an event is “unexplained”, empirically, or it is not suitable for investigation empirically, but must be forensically evaluated. Forensics cannot provide empirical results, and it certainly cannot provide cause and effect analysis; it only reports the circumstances of existing found evidence. How the evidence that forensics uncovers relates is the subject of an hypothesis which speculates on the relationship, without any ability to provide experimental justification to support it.
What happens under Philosophical Naturalism, however, is not scientifically based or evidence based. Even in the face of “unexplained” events, the firm conclusion is asserted that only methodological naturalistic causes must be investigated, since that is their only path to knowledge; this is asserted as truth, without evidence to support it.
Your last comment goes to the subject of knowledge. How do we know anything? Our historical past is known through documentation and forensics. Mathematics is known intellectually. Logic and the fundamental axioms are known to be self-evident. Love, hate, fear and other driving emotions are known subjectively and personally.
And how firm is scientific knowledge? It is contingent on the next discovery and the advances of technology. It is subject to the Inductive Fallacy and the Deductive Fallacy. It is subject to idea hoarding by elder scientists who refuse to publish the ideas which endanger their own theories. It is subject to ideology infestation. Does it correct itself, as it advertises? Not without a whole lot of leverage and too much time. It is subject to moneyed interests who fund only certain fields. Do we ask for experimental data in order to know things on a daily basis? We depend on hearsay and witness testimony for evidence of current events. We don’t provide “hard data” when asked how our day was.
Knowledge comes in many forms and it has varying degrees of reliability. It is an interesting subject. Do you want to get into it?
Because if philosophical naturalism isn't true, then science wouldn't work?
A tool to examine 'x' wouldn't work very well if 'x' was sometimes 'y'.
I readily concede that philosophical naturalism rests on axioms and cannot be demonstrated to be 100% true. However it is readily falsifiable, an attribute which super-naturalism does not possess. There is also an entire universe of material which is accessible to our senses. A considerable amount of evidence, I think.
"Physical and non-physical are mutually exclusive (by the definition of “non-). A momentary interaction due to agency with the power to do so produces a singularity which either changes a physical existence, or momentarily subverts a physical cause and effect behavior which we normally call a “law”. What happens scientifically is that such an event is “unexplained”, empirically, or it is not suitable for investigation empirically, but must be forensically evaluated."
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but forensics IS a science. Or rather a series of sciences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_science
It is based on observation and experimentation.
If a singularity subverts or changes a physical law, that IS theoretically subject to the scientific method. (ie: black holes, quantum fluctuations, dark energy/matter, etc) It also rejects the exclusivity of the two realms of existence. If they can interact, they are not exclusive.
Math and logic both rest upon unprovable axioms. You could claim said axioms are rather self evident. Emotions are accessible both by experience as well as observation and experimentation. We also know experimentally that emotions are not a pathway to a claim about the greater universe. For example, I might FEEL like I left my stove on, but when I call the wife to observe the stove she confirms that it is indeed off.
Epistemology is a fascinating subject, I agree. I would not promote science as a way to being 100% correct, but rather as a method of being less wrong. For example Newtonian physics are correct, but not as correct as Einstein's Relativity.
Even hearsay and witness testimony is subject to the scientific method. For instance, we know experimentally that both are horrible sources for evidence.
We don't require hard data when asked how our day was because the claims are typically incredibly mundane. Now if you asked me how my day was, and I told you I learned how to fly by flapping my arms .. I suspect you would ask for some sort of solid evidence rather than just accept my claim.
Your objections to the scientific method seem more pointed at the bureaucracy and politics of performing science, rather than the method itself.
So, I would ask again, if something is not within the scope of observation, how can you know anything about it?
”Because if philosophical naturalism isn't true, then science wouldn't work?”
Har! That’s a good’n, Jeremy. Science has no dependency on philosophical naturalism: none. Philosophical Naturalism is a parasite on science, which tries to attribute an extrapolated “truth” to science which is non-valid.
”A tool to examine 'x' wouldn't work very well if 'x' was sometimes 'y'.”
That’s a start.
”I readily concede that philosophical naturalism rests on axioms and cannot be demonstrated to be 100% true. However it is readily falsifiable, an attribute which super-naturalism does not possess. There is also an entire universe of material which is accessible to our senses. A considerable amount of evidence, I think.”
Since you think that philosophical naturalism is falsifiable, how would it be falsified? The process of falsification usually involves experiments which conclusively show that the hypothesis is incorrect. Do you have this sort of data? Or do you mean something else by “falsification”?
”forensics IS a science. Or rather a series of sciences.
One can call anything a science, but only empirical science has the benefit of hypothesis verification / falsification. Forensics, again, produces an hypothesis which cannot be verified empirically.
”If a singularity subverts or changes a physical law, that IS theoretically subject to the scientific method. (ie: black holes, quantum fluctuations, dark energy/matter, etc) It also rejects the exclusivity of the two realms of existence. If they can interact, they are not exclusive.”
Any change by such an interaction is temporary, or it would become known as a “law of nature”. Miracles are temporary interruptions, not permanent. It is not possible to disprove whether the Red Sea was parted temporarily for Moses, even forensically. It is not possible to disprove that mass visions of Mary occurred, no matter what science is used. Speculation (hypotheses which are unfounded in reproducible fact) is not science.
It is not the realms that interact, it is the agent which moves between them. An agent capable of creating mass/energy and space/time is likely capable of modifying them.
” Even hearsay and witness testimony is subject to the scientific method. For instance, we know experimentally that both are horrible sources for evidence.”
Yet we all use them every day, and the empirical claims are generalities and do not refer to the accuracy of any specific witness testimony.
”Your objections to the scientific method seem more pointed at the bureaucracy and politics of performing science, rather than the method itself.”
I have absolutely nothing but respect for science done properly. But I cannot respect claims made in the name of science that are not true, even scientifically.
”So, I would ask again, if something is not within the scope of observation, how can you know anything about it?”
I answered that one, and I ask you again, how do you propose to falsify the proposition that there is a cause for the universe, one that exists outside of the universe’s mass/energy space/time and is therefore undefinable in those terms, and is not subject to empirical experimental, replicable, falsifiable observation?
But to make a summary statement: science does not produce truth, it produces contingent factoids which are subject to change at any moment. Philosophers do not produce truth, because they reject grounding principles, which limits them to either circularity or infinite regression. Truth is primarily known by subjective rational investigation of propositions, using principles of logic which are grounded in First Principles. The source of those propositions can be any sort of input; any proposition can be screened for validity and grounding. The source of the validity of the First Principles is self-evidence.
Methodological Naturalism wouldn't work if Philosophical Naturalism is not true.
You said 'that is a start', and then seemed to ignore the logical outcome of the statement.
A tool to examine 'x' wouldn't work very well if 'x' was sometimes 'y'.
Science does work well, therefore 'x' is not 'y'.
The only 'out' I see would be a God of the Gaps argument. Again, I'm not arguing for 100% proof here, just pointing out that that is a pretty heavy nail in the coffin of super naturalism.
Philosophical Naturalism would be falsified by an incident of super naturalism.
Forensics is a series of sciences. For example chemistry to determine the time of death.
It is (theoretically, but not practically given the variables involved) to "prove" that Moses did part the Red Sea or whichever miracle you like. Every investigation into a modern miracle
has resulted in a natural explanation.
A further objection to your case of Special Pleading. If x and y can only interact because y is an agent, then the process should go both ways as x is also an agent, billions of them in fact.
Either way it would seem your claim of mutual exclusivity fails. If it fails, then the claim that the super natural exists is subject to investigation.
I don't think you answered the question. I reread your post a couple times but I think each example you mentioned I noted how such methods of learning were via experience and experimentation. Or like math, is tautologically correct.
"I answered that one, and I ask you again, how do you propose to falsify the proposition that there is a cause for the universe, one that exists outside of the universe’s mass/energy space/time and is therefore undefinable in those terms, and is not subject to empirical experimental, replicable, falsifiable observation?"
By retorting that if such things are beyond our ability to know, why do they matter? If it exists solely outside the universe, how can anyone claim any knowledge? By pointing out that immaterial is equivalent to non-existent.
My comment here
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6274381712003139086&postID=5212005140573031158&isPopup=true
is integral to helping me determine your position on this subject, any insight would be much appreciated.
Thanks for the back and forth!
”Methodological Naturalism wouldn't work if Philosophical Naturalism is not true.
You said 'that is a start', and then seemed to ignore the logical outcome of the statement.”
C’mon Jeremy, at least read what is written. Here it is as a reminder:
””Because if philosophical naturalism isn't true, then science wouldn't work?”
Har! That’s a good’n, Jeremy. Science has no dependency on philosophical naturalism: none. Philosophical Naturalism is a parasite on science, which tries to attribute an extrapolated “truth” to science which is non-valid.
”A tool to examine 'x' wouldn't work very well if 'x' was sometimes 'y'.”
That’s a start.”
The “start” reference was to your X, Y statement, not your false comparison of Methodological Naturalism to Philosophical Naturalism.
Corrections of this kind make me wonder if I’m wasting my time here.
Then you said,
”A tool to examine 'x' wouldn't work very well if 'x' was sometimes 'y'.
Science does work well, therefore 'x' is not 'y'.”
No one is saying the x is y; we are saying that x is not y.
”The only 'out' I see would be a God of the Gaps argument. Again, I'm not arguing for 100% proof here, just pointing out that that is a pretty heavy nail in the coffin of super naturalism.”
There is no “gap” between discoveries of subcategories of X that are being discussed. You are applying a Category Error. You think that ultimately by looking at enough X’s that Y will have to be discovered. But no amount of X investigation will produce any Y data. It takes more than a Category Error to declare nails in coffins; premature judgments are a sign of ideological need to jump to conclusions.
”Philosophical Naturalism would be falsified by an incident of super naturalism.”
Exactly so, except that such incidents are DENIED and are said to be unexplained natural events. This is “Philosophical Naturalism of the Gaps”.
”Forensics is a series of sciences. For example chemistry to determine the time of death. Actually it implies the approximate time of death.
”It is (theoretically, but not practically given the variables involved) to "prove" that Moses did part the Red Sea or whichever miracle you like. Every investigation into a modern miracle has resulted in a natural explanation.”
To restate this: "It is True that Every investigation into a modern miracle has resulted in a natural explanation." This is blatantly not the case.
These sorts of general statements of unfounded “truth” are indicative of a non-critical and unskeptical pursuit of an ideology. There is no way that any naturalistic proof can be had regarding the vision claimed by the girl at Lourdes. There is no way that any naturalistic proof can be had of any vision which anyone, anywhere has claimed. The result is blatant denial due to the dogmatic belief in Philosophical Materialism, rather than the honest statement of “unexplained events”.
It is absolutely NOT the case that forensics can prove anything one way or the other regarding the parting of the Red Sea. Atheists want to claim, “well, if I'd had my cameras there, and my instrumentation, then we would know”. But that is not the issue, it is a Red Herring. The issue is that a claim is made, and no amount forensics, no amount of Naturalism of any type, can prove anything regarding the claim. Denial is out of a position of dogma, not out of position of objective science.
(Continued from above)
”A further objection to your case of Special Pleading. If x and y can only interact because y is an agent, then the process should go both ways as x is also an agent, billions of them in fact.”
That has no basis in reality. Temporal agents are not the same thing as a non-temporal agent: Category Error yet again.
”Either way it would seem your claim of mutual exclusivity fails. If it fails, then the claim that the super natural exists is subject to investigation.”
It fails only under Fallacious thinking: Category Errors.
”I don't think you answered the question. I reread your post a couple times but I think each example you mentioned I noted how such methods of learning were via experience and experimentation. Or like math, is tautologically correct.”
Why do you believe in tautology? Can you prove tautology to be a valid concept using science? Be careful how you answer this one….
”"I answered that one, and I ask you again, how do you propose to falsify the proposition that there is a cause for the universe, one that exists outside of the universe’s mass/energy space/time and is therefore undefinable in those terms, and is not subject to empirical experimental, replicable, falsifiable observation?"
By retorting that if such things are beyond our ability to know, why do they matter? If it exists solely outside the universe, how can anyone claim any knowledge?”
They matter because Atheism (my choice for 40 years) declares by de facto that there are no absolutes. But there are absolutes; if it were not so, then logic cannot have any meaning and science (based on logic) could provide no mechanical knowledge. Worse, there would be no basis for morality, because Atheism is free-floating and without any anchor. Are the propositions of Atheism True? They cannot be True if there is Truth. And logic works, and so does science. There must be anchoring principles that are absolutes, giving a fulcrum for leveraging truth out of premises. No fulcrum, no knowledge.
There are, in fact, principles which are valid regardless of anyone’s opinion about them, regardless of where in space-time or mass-energy they are applied. They are “incorrigibly” True. They are the foundations of reason, mathematics, logic, and science, all of which would be untethered without this absolute foundation.
Why should that be the case? Why should an exploding universe produce such things? What is the source of such absolutes?
This might be of no consequence to the denier of absolutes (the dedicated Atheist). But it is of concern to those of us who want their worldviews to be based on truths, rather than on human constructs.
”By pointing out that immaterial is equivalent to non-existent.”
This phrase is an incomplete sentence and seems to have no bearing on our recent discussion. Immaterial is not equal to non-existent, except under the dogma of Philosophical Materialism.
I’ll comment on your link in another comment. And you are very welcome for the back and forth, it’s why I’m here. (So long as it doesn’t get irredeemably silly, that is).
Whoa. Sorry if I don't address all your points on this one Stan. Looong.
"No one is saying the x is y; we are saying that x is not y."
Riight .. the material world (x) is not supernatural (y). If it was, the scientific method would be unreliable.
The scientific method IS reliable, hence x is not y.
"Actually it implies the approximate time of death."
Yea .. you just added the word "approximate". It is still determined scientifically.
"But no amount of X investigation will produce any Y data. "
But as you stated in the other thread, you can acquire Y data from investigating X.
"There is no way that any naturalistic proof can be had regarding the vision claimed by the girl at Lourdes."
Sorry, I don't accept this as a modern miracle. By that I mean I don't consider it to be modern.
Like as soon as we got video cameras God stopped doing miracles.
"The issue is that a claim is made, and no amount forensics, no amount of Naturalism of any type, can prove anything regarding the claim. "
Only if the claim is unfalsifiable by design. It is simply beyond out ability to investigate if Moses parted the Red Sea.
However, Jewish archaeologists can find no evidence of the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians, nor evidence of their years in the deserts. They have concluded that such tales are simply stories.
Proof? No. A convincing lack of evidence? Most certainly. Check out "The Bible Unearthed" if you are interested.
"Why do you believe in tautology?"
Because 2+2=4. Every time. It is true by definition. It obeys the law of non-contradiction. It is testable. We can experiment with it. It provides results.
"They matter because Atheism (my choice for 40 years) declares by de facto that there are no absolutes."
I do not think that is true. Atheism says I do not believe there is a god or gods. That is all. Just because there is no God does not mean there is no absolutes. False dichotomy.
"Why should that be the case? Why should an exploding universe produce such things? What is the source of such absolutes?"
Why shouldn't it? If the universe was logically impossible, I suspect it never would have formed.
"But it is of concern to those of us who want their worldviews to be based on truths, rather than on human constructs."
Yes. Very much so. You understand I hold truth to be a high ideal and believe gods to be a human construct?
"Immaterial is not equal to non-existent"
This is why I needed you to answer the other question regarding evidence of the immaterial.
On one hand you reject the request for material evidence of the immaterial as a Category Error, yet on the other hand you would accept material evidence of the immaterial.
"Temporal agents are not the same thing as a non-temporal agent: Category Error yet again."
Now you are moving the goalposts. You said the material and immaterial can interact if the immaterial is an Agent. I pointed out that this is Special Pleading. Now it is only allowed because it is a non-temporal agent.
Furthermore I would posit that with a theistic world view, the material agent can interact with the immaterial agent via prayer. Kinda helping you out here I think, but mostly would like to have a firm understanding of what your opinion actually is. Because I feel like you are going back and forth considerably.
"I’ll comment on your link in another comment. And you are very welcome for the back and forth, it’s why I’m here. (So long as it doesn’t get irredeemably silly, that is)."
If I'm being silly I'll try and put a :P next to it so it is more apparent. I should have done as such after the GWB thing because I did not intend for that to be such a point of contention.
”But as you stated in the other thread, you can acquire Y data from investigating X.”
I don’t believe I said anything remotely like that. Which thread? What statement?
”Sorry, I don't accept this as a modern miracle. By that I mean I don't consider it to be modern.
Like as soon as we got video cameras God stopped doing miracles.”
That’s an interesting charge. You can prove with video cameras that God interfaces with no one? Ever? We’ll need details on that.
”"The issue is that a claim is made, and no amount forensics, no amount of Naturalism of any type, can prove anything regarding the claim. "
Only if the claim is unfalsifiable by design. It is simply beyond out ability to investigate if Moses parted the Red Sea.”
Not by design; unfalsifiable by its very nature. You cannot prove that it was designed to be deceptive; you have taken that inference as truth without proof.
”However, Jewish archaeologists can find no evidence of the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians, nor evidence of their years in the deserts. They have concluded that such tales are simply stories.”
Proof? No. A convincing lack of evidence? Most certainly. Check out "The Bible Unearthed" if you are interested.”
More non-proof. In actuality the archaeological finds are accelerating, with a number missing cultures which are mentioned only in the Bible now having been found. It is interesting that the first place archaeologists go when looking for such ancient things… is to the Bible. I sincerely doubt your statement that "Jewish archaeologists have concluded that such things are just stories". The statement implies "all Jewish Archaeologists" and is without references.
”"Why do you believe in tautology?"
Because 2+2=4. Every time. It is true by definition. It obeys the law of non-contradiction. It is testable. We can experiment with it. It provides results.”
Tautology is definition: circular. Testable, w/experiments: subject to the Inductive Fallacy. Why do you believe the law of non-contradiction? Can you prove it? Logicians everywhere would be grateful if you can.
”"They matter because Atheism (my choice for 40 years) declares by de facto that there are no absolutes."
I do not think that is true. Atheism says I do not believe there is a god or gods. That is all. Just because there is no God does not mean there is no absolutes. False dichotomy.”
That is the position taken by most Atheist Philosophers. Not sure where you get your information.
And a false dichotomy is a completely different animal; if the statement is false, then it is, in general, either based on false premises or is a non-sequitur in some sense. A false dichotomy gives two solutions to a four solution problem, and insists that there are not four solutions. That statement was in the form of “If A then B; A; therefore B. A simple syllogism, not a dichotomy.
(continued)
(continued from above)
Tell me an absolute which any Atheist would accept. They do not accept as absolutes the principles of tautology, non-contradiction, or excluded middle (Nietzsche, “Beyond Good and Evil”); nor do they accept cause and effect (Hume); they do not accept grounding of any type for argumentation (PZ Meyer and Massimo Pigliuccui). What you might be able to prove is that Atheists have no common, grounded thought process and cannot agree on much of anything beyond asserting (without proof) that there is no First Cause for the universe.
Keep in mind that philosophical materialism depends entirely on science for knowledge, and that science provides only temporary, contingent factoids, and cannot provide any absolute truths. Also, any “knowledge” obtained by introspection or non-sensory, physical avenues is without value under philosophical materialism.
So exactly where is there room for any absolute?
”"Why should that be the case? Why should an exploding universe produce such things? What is the source of such absolutes?"
Why shouldn't it? If the universe was logically impossible, I suspect it never would have formed.”
Then your position is that there are absolutes? Again, what are they?
”"But it is of concern to those of us who want their worldviews to be based on truths, rather than on human constructs."
Yes. Very much so. You understand I hold truth to be a high ideal and believe gods to be a human construct?”
Yet you seem to have no idea what the limits are on truth; truth cannot exist under philosophical materialism.
”"Immaterial is not equal to non-existent"
This is why I needed you to answer the other question regarding evidence of the immaterial.
On one hand you reject the request for material evidence of the immaterial as a Category Error, yet on the other hand you would accept material evidence of the immaterial.
And again, I don’t believe I said that, so I need to know where I said it and what I was referencing in context.
"Temporal agents are not the same thing as a non-temporal agent: Category Error yet again."
”Now you are moving the goalposts. You said the material and immaterial can interact if the immaterial is an Agent. I pointed out that this is Special Pleading. Now it is only allowed because it is a non-temporal agent.
This is indicative of a total misunderstanding on your part. There is no possible way in which a material agent (humans) can be equated to a non-material agent with the ability to create a universe. Surely you can see the difference between a material human and a non-material, First Cause?
” Furthermore I would posit that with a theistic world view, the material agent can interact with the immaterial agent via prayer. Kinda helping you out here I think, but mostly would like to have a firm understanding of what your opinion actually is. Because I feel like you are going back and forth considerably.”
Actually it seems to me that your misunderstandings of what I’m saying is throwing you around some. For empirical evidence regarding prayer go here:
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/search/label/Prayer
There are other reports using humans, but those are always declared false without cause, just to throw doubt on them. George Carlin’s form of threatened murder / suicide by prayer is the standard Atheist example. But it has no bearing on prayer as practiced in order to aid in understanding. However, I will not defend that position because this discussion has not moved beyond simplistic philosophical materialism, and moving beyond the mere existence of a First Cause is meaningless under PM.
Also I commented on your referenced link at that thread.
Post a Comment