A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Movin' On Up....
Guys, Your conversation is on an older post, one that automatically requires moderation now. If you move up to the comments on this post, your comments will show up immediately.
51 comments:
sonic
said...
Andrew- 1) You seem to have faith that someday someone will discover how life begins de-novo. I'm not sure how to falsify that.
2) You might want to read some of these to get an idea of how experimental results actually have a 'scatter pattern' and how that is dealt with. (I'm not claiming that the actual results of experiment reveal miracles, just that they don't actually disprove them).
Sorry about the delay, I had bookmarked the original page and was not checking the actual blog homepage.
And had sort of lost interest when Stan enable moderation and stopped posting all my responses to his claims. Just sort of cherry picked which ones he wanted to respond to and ignored the rest. Too bad because I thought the ones he didn't post had some of my best points.
1) The position that I am arguing for, the positive belief that there is no rational reason to believe in the existence of an intelligent being which created the universe and desires a personal relationship with his creations, would be easily falsified.
For example if prayer actually could be demonstrated to work. If miracles as described in holy text could be demonstrated to actually occur. There are many possibilities. Imagine what it would take for you to believe in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Those are the standards I apply to all religions.
Never mind that if an all powerful creature wished a personal relationship with me you'd think it would be blatantly obvious...
I do think that some day we might uncover the process that creates life from non-life. But even if we don't it doesn't really affect my position. Now if we discovered life only came from non-life with the right chemistry AND the incantation of "In Jesus' name we pray" .. I'd have to think on that one, but it would be extremely persuasive.
It does seems like the discovery of life from non-life would dramatically effect the theist position and it would be one less gap for god to hide in. But hey, there's always beyond space and time.
2) Your first link appears to be broken.
The second one and third doesn't even imply that there are unaccountable phenomenon at work. These are some of the issues those paper note as contributing to scatter patterns.
bias error precision error terminology must be standardized
It doesn't even imply there is no explanation for the scatter patterns. They basically agree with my original statement, it is a result of uncontrolled (or poorly controlled) variables.
Guys, Your conversation is on an older post, one that automatically requires moderation now. If you move up to the comments on this post, your comments will show up immediately.
Just found this article Sonic. You might find it interesting.
"But the main value of the work, according to Joyce, is at the basic research level. “What we’ve found could be relevant to how life begins, at that key moment when Darwinian evolution starts.” He is quick to point out that, while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not themselves a form of life."
Andrew said, "if an all powerful creature wished a personal relationship with me you'd think it would be blatantly obvious..."
Why?
"It does seems like the discovery of life from non-life would dramatically effect the theist position and it would be one less gap for god to hide in."
Contrarily it would seem that the continuing failure to predict (form a viable hypothesis) which characteristics of non-life would produce life, sentience, intellect, free will would be one less gap for science to hide in. It is necessary for life to be considered reductively in multiple categories in order to even consider replication as precursive to life. But then it is an article of faith that accompanies science, in the form of scientism.
Andrew- (Well there U R) I suggested that it would not be possible to discount miracle from the actual experimental evidence. A scatter pattern can be explained in any number of ways (of course the possibility of miracle is not included in the papers I referenced due to the fact that it is outside of the scientific norms to do so.) I give you the explanations given are good-- (I have done statistical analysis of experiments before, I am aware of a number of reasons the numbers don't exactly match the theoretical prescription).
However-- Given a scatter pattern one cannot claim to have disproved miracle. This is a very simple logical deduction. Make it.
Yes I am aware of the result (RNA duplication). There is an incredible amount of information on this topic-- I believe "Signature in the Cell", is considered the best book on the subject currently, but i have not read it and am not able to endorse.
Supposing there is a god ( something I don't always do), then I am certain that I do not know this god well enough to answer your questions about his behavior.
Sorry for the delay, guys, I've been under the weather.
Andrew, You said I deleted some comments you made. I do remember deleting comments (2 I think) that appeared to be repeats hits of the same comment. If that was in error, I apologize.
Martin- I agree that the 'god in the gaps' makes a bad argument. I think that if god is currently engaged in this universe, then he should be considered part of the natural world. (It is possible that god could exist such that he is part of the natural world and exists outside it as well). On the other hand, the notion that what we know from c=science precludes the possibility of god is inaccurate.
Andrew said, "if an all powerful creature wished a personal relationship with me you'd think it would be blatantly obvious..."
Why?
Um, via definition? All powerful + desirous of a relationship = relationship. No?
Contrarily it would seem that the continuing failure to predict (form a viable hypothesis) which characteristics of non-life would produce life, sentience, intellect, free will would be one less gap for science to hide in. It is necessary for life to be considered reductively in multiple categories in order to even consider replication as precursive to life. But then it is an article of faith that accompanies science, in the form of scientism.
It is not an article of faith b/c even if it is never discovered I still think that observing and testing reality is still the best way to discover it.
Compare the discoveries of science and compare them to the discoveries of faith. (Can you even name a discovery of faith? - something that cannot be attributed to science and reason but specifically based up "the belief in things unseen"?
If the heralding of one method over another is scientism, I'm signing up.
Ok, you can't discount a miracle, but given the proposed naturalistic explanation, is it not infinitely more reasonable to assume that variations in test are a result of
bias error precision error terminology must be standardized
rather than the creator of the universe tinkering with the experiment? Particularly since by controlling for these errors the scatter patterns are reduced?
Yup there is a great amount of information on the subject. Scientists are always learning and discovering new information. It's pretty - dare I say it? - miraculous!
Supposing there is a god ( something I don't always do), then I am certain that I do not know this god well enough to answer your questions about his behavior.
That's really my point. Even if a god exists, it would surely have to be a deistic god. So everyone who makes claims on his desires is either a fool or a liar. If everyone believed that the harmful impact of the religious would be practically negated. As I've said before, doubt is always a reasonable starting position.
I of course agree that god-of-the-gaps is poor reasoning.
My points regarding your contingency argument boil down to that it is not an argument for the existence of a theistic god, but for a deistic god.
Furthermore, as I pointed out, there are many reasons why the contingency argument seems unnecessary and problematic.
Stan,
Again, Stan if it was an honest mistake then no harm done. Except the sudden barrage of posts :)
Sonic,
Again, I agree. If god is engaged in the universe he would be considered part of the universe (for which there would be evidence of). I'm not sure what you mean by c=science, but I disagree that science precludes the possibility of god, only that it seems to have a track record of not requiring him as an explanation.
To quote Laplace "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là"
"I had no need of that hypothesis." As a reply to Napoleon, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his book on astronomy.
It also doesn't preclude the possibilities of fairies at the bottom of the garden...
For some reason Ahmed's comment won't show up here like I think he wanted it to, so here it is, Stan
Ahmed: You said: "I don't think this proves the existence of a creating deity," WLC says: I give three arguments for the personhood of the first cause. First, the argument, inspired by the Islamic Principle of Determination, that only a free agent could explain the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning from a changeless, timeless cause. (See the exposition of the argument in either the Blackwell Companion, pp. 193-4 or in Reasonable Faith [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008], pp. 153-4.) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a
Andrew said, "if an all powerful creature wished a personal relationship with me you'd think it would be blatantly obvious..."
Why?
Um, via definition? All powerful + desirous of a relationship = relationship. No?
I don't think you get to set the rules or definitions for what God wants. Or the remaining conditions or requirements.
"It is not an article of faith b/c even if it is never discovered I still think that observing and testing reality is still the best way to discover it."
Only if all of reality is accessible to us, which is neither a given, nor can it be proved or disproved using material techniques.
"Compare the discoveries of science and compare them to the discoveries of faith. (Can you even name a discovery of faith? - something that cannot be attributed to science and reason but specifically based up "the belief in things unseen"?
Your use of the term "faith" is disengenuous because it implies to you and Atheists in general that there is no connection between knowledge obtained non-empirically and rationality, and that any claimed knowledge is superstition (faith). Empirical science cannot prove, validate, or otherwise even produce the first principles of logic and rational thought. These are axioms that science relies on as a matter of necessity; they are known to be true intuitively. Any good philosophy of science book will show you that.
These things are taught in logic classes, which science enthusiasts never seem to take, and are things which science faithists accept without knowing it, as a matter of blindness to any knowledge outside of experimental knowledge.
The first reaction to this by many science faithists is to deny the existence of intuition. They cannot prove or disprove its existence, so they intuit that it cannot exist. In fact, the first derivative of logic is mathematics which is abstract and intuitive. It is mathematical models that allow scientists to intuit and predict the behaviors of things they cannot see. Read some Feynman.
Your denial of any knowledge that is not scientific is not provable using empirical science (not to mention logically non-coherent). So under your belief system, you cannot know what you claim to be true.
Science never produces truth; it produces contingent factoids that either falsify or fail to falsify hypotheses; these are subject to be overthrown at any time by subsequent findings.
"If the heralding of one method over another is scientism, I'm signing up."
If you are comparing science to blind faith, then you are presenting a false dichotomy; there are other choices.
Andrew- You bring up two interesting points-- 1) Laplace-- Of course Laplace didn't need to include god in his picture of the solar system because he thought he had exact formulae to account for the motions of the planets. It is of interest that his formulae were incorrect (especially in regards to Venus). General relativity makes more accurate predictions re:Venus, but not all the predictions have proved out yet. (An odd note-- there are currently 3 measured values for the gravitational constant-- nobody can figure out why or what the problem is or…) 2) Plausibility-- Can you tell me what is plausible about relativity (special or general) or quantum mechanics? I believe these are the foundational understandings of the 'laws of nature', yet many people find them impossible to understand intuitively. Your quoting of Laplace and your demand for plausibility lead me to believe that you have bought some sort of thinking about what science has found that is in disagreement with the facts.
The two posts I did addressing your previous response on Oct 5th have not been posted. Did they not show up correctly?
Stan, I'm using your definition of god. All-powerful and desirous of a relationship. A theistic god. I am not setting the rules, I'm just using the words according to the definitions. For example, if God is All Powerful, and likes flowers, it would stand to reason that there would be flowers. (You can substitute anything for flowers there .. people, relationships, crib death, bears). I don't think its fair to remove the obvious outcome of a definition once its been pointed out that it seems irrational. I should also mention that all the rules or definitions of god are from theists. I am just holding you to the definition.
No, even if only the barest fraction of reality is available to us (and it is), the only way to actually learn something about it is from observation and testing.
Can you point out the "connection between knowledge obtained non-empirically and rationality, and that any claimed knowledge is superstition "?
I'm not actively denying any knowledge Stan, I'm questioning what knowledge has been presented. And you didn't offer any.
Is intuition simply not understanding, without apparent effort. Is it not intuitively obvious that if you trip, you fall down? Is this not based on experience, not revelation? Why would any deny this? Also, I suspect Feynman might be on my side in this theological debate.
"Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence."
Alternatively, you can question the principles science is founded on, but it would be a massive leap to question its results.
"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works." -Hawking
Science never produces truth; it produces contingent factoids that either falsify or fail to falsify hypotheses; these are subject to be overthrown at any time by subsequent findings.
And that's why it works. Newtonian Physics works, but not as well as Einsteinian Relativity. But both do work.
If you are comparing science to blind faith, then you are presenting a false dichotomy; there are other choices.
And those choices are? Please elaborate. With the end result being theism of course?
1) I looked up the formula for gravity and yes there are three different formula. But the wiki article does explain. The first is derived from force to assist student comprehension, the second is in Centimetre gram second system of units, the third is astrophysics where astrophysics where distances are measured in parsecs (pc), velocities in kilometers per second (km/s) and masses in solar units.
So .. the answer is OR. It's largely a scale issue. Definitely don't seem to need the god hypothesis here.
2) The formulas work, and provide testable results. Plausible?
See todays xkcd, link above :)
To quote Feynman again, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." But it works. I think you mean intuitive instead of plausible? I admit general relativity and quantum mechanics are not intuitive. But that's where evidence and reasoning come in which allows us to disregard our gut instinct and conclude; "I guess it is like that"
Andrew, I believe that those two posts are the ones that I thought were copies of the first post, which I did post. I deleted them after reading – or maybe just scanning – the first few lines. This is my error, I apologize. I won't delete any more of your comments, even if they are redundant. Again, my error.
” Stan, I'm using your definition of god. All-powerful and desirous of a relationship.”
I have never defined God as all-powerful. That is your definition, not mine. I have defined God as coherent, first and foremost; then just; and only then very powerful within the limits of coherence and justice. Your definition is purely your definition, not mine.
” I don't think its fair to remove the obvious outcome of a definition once its been pointed out that it seems irrational. I should also mention that all the rules or definitions of god are from theists. I am just holding you to the definition.”
I refuse to be held to your irrational interpretation of theology. You are trying to force your interpretation onto a situation in order to show that it is not coherent, and in order to do that you – you – chose an irrational one to do the job. The omnipotent argument is a strawman, it is too weak to pass the muster. Don’t pretend to know what I think. Tell me the names of the theists that insist on your definition, please.
” No, even if only the barest fraction of reality is available to us (and it is), the only way to actually learn something about it is from observation and testing.
Can you point out the "connection between knowledge obtained non-empirically and rationality, and that any claimed knowledge is superstition "?
I'm not actively denying any knowledge Stan, I'm questioning what knowledge has been presented. And you didn't offer any.”
Actually the following is the case, as opposed to what you write. First, re-read your first sentence. You deny that there is any way to knowledge other than observation and testing.
Then re-read your last sentence. You deny that you denied that knowledge.
Now let’s look at what I presented. ” first principles of logic and rational thought. These are axioms that science relies on as a matter of necessity; they are known to be true intuitively. Any good philosophy of science book will show you that.” You continue to ignore these axioms at the peril of appearing to be proud of your ignorance. Here, I will give you more: moral and ethical knowledge; Mathematical knowledge; knowledge of rational processes; ability to intuit meanings from language; ability to intuit meanings from sensate inputs; ability to differentiate valid from non-valid. On and on. None of these are materially isolatable for investigation under microscopy or other instrumentation. In fact your rigid argument disallows any historical knowledge (it’s not experimentally replicable and is witness-based), which pretty much will leave you in the dark if you really held to what you say you know. So without historical knowledge, logic or rational thought, inability to discern meanings, inability to judge valid from non-valid, where are you left?
As for Feynman, I meant read the science. Throwing UFO’s into an argument about a coherent first cause makes no sense. I happen to agree with him on the UFO point. Besides, you are not allowed to make a philosophical argument because philosophy holds no knowledge according to you. I will start to call these errors more consistently as we go. (continued)
” Alternatively, you can question the principles science is founded on, but it would be a massive leap to question its results.”
This statement is totally false. Science’s most basic axioms, the first principles, (of which you know nothing) are the basis for rationality itself, without which science could not exist, period. Further, the results of science are never taken as fixed, final, or even totally explanatory; they generally are tests of models, and they are ALWAYS subject to subsequent findings that might falsify the findings or overturn the entire paradigm. This is the Inductive Fallacy, which caught you unaware in your statement. Feynman said that all experiments should first retest all the prior science upon which the experiment depends, in order to know that the prior science is still valid. Einstein made his career out of questioning the results of science. I don't think you will get much mileage out of your statement when it is presented to working scientists rather than true believers.
"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works." -Hawking
Hawking, as I demonstrated in the article above, is desperate in his search for an alternate answer to the answer he doesn’t like. That is his prerogative, but he is under increasing pressure from the science community, including his prior associates, to be logically temperate rather than to step outside science in his attempts to use science improperly, which is damaging his professional credibility. To equate religion = authority is both incorrect (free will, which he both denies and admits), and it is a paradox as he uses his very own supposed authority to drive a religious viewpoint. It also is a categorization error because he lumps all religion together indiscriminately and then categorizes something that is non-existent. Moreover, it is an Argument From Authority Fallacy which he tries to hand off to those who don’t actually read his stuff but want to use him as an authority. [Hawking’s books are called the world’s best-selling unread books].
” And that's why it works. Newtonian Physics works, but not as well as Einsteinian Relativity. But both do work.”
Neither one works in a fashion that allows one to discern the meaning of this sentence. Not much of reality is concerned with the motion of particles, either up close (Newtonian) or at a distance (Relativity). Much of reality is concerned with the discernment of meaning from both sensate inputs, and from subsequent intuitions concerning these inputs, as well as intuitions respecting the meaning of meanings and other meta-narrative abstractions. Neither Newtonian nor Relativity physics has anything to do with creating a novel, or reading it; interpreting body language; designing a new communication system. Creativity is not in their scope; interpretation is not in their scope; design of previously non-existing things is not in their scope. I have an Einstein quote that says that, if you need authority for that.
“If you are comparing science to blind faith, then you are presenting a false dichotomy; there are other choices".
And those choices are? Please elaborate. With the end result being theism of course?
The choices are shown above. The end result is up to the intellectually honest, intellectually humble seeker of the boundaries of reality to discern for himself, not for me to force on him. But refusal to discern, or to admit that discernment itself is non-material and not subject to empirical scrutiny instrumentally, will result in nothing. It's actually totally up to you, as are all things educational.
1) Regarding gravity- Note the difference between a formula and a constant. I said the measured value of the constant is uncertain now. (this is from Nature 23 Aug. 2010) http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100823/full/4661030a.html "Recent measurements of gravitational constant increase uncertainty over accepted value." (This situation has nothing to do with what you mentioned)
2) No, I mean plausible. Is 'spooky action at a distance' plausible? Is the 'tunnel effect' plausible? Is the fact Einstein thought 'imagination is more important than knowledge' plausible?
Which of those three questions doesn't belong with the other two?
To quote Einstein (this time accurately)--
"Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, whose basis (principles) cannot be distilled from experience by an inductive method, but can only be arrived at by free invention. The justification (truth content) of the system rests in the verification of the derived propositions by sense experiences."
Excuse the piling on-- I often read that if god is 'all powerful, then...' I'm wondering what the experimental evidence for those statements is. (I mean did someone test an all-powerful thing to know what it would do? Where can I read about the results?)
I have never defined God as all-powerful...I have defined God as coherent, first and foremost; then just; and only then very powerful within the limits of coherence and justice.
Stan, is that not powerful enough to ensure that he can have a relationship with you, and that you can be aware of it? The qualifier of all- is unnecessary. And because this is a theistic god would you not also agree that this god cares about you and desires a relationship with you?
Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
It's a very common definition. You can likely walk into any church and find a similar description from the majority of the faithful. You might disagree with the atheistic position but I suspect you would also disagree with the preponderance of other theists.
moral and ethical knowledge; Mathematical knowledge; knowledge of rational processes; ability to intuit meanings from language; ability to intuit meanings from sensate inputs; ability to differentiate valid from non-valid.
Are these not the means by which we observe and measure? You are taught morals, you are taught math, you learn to differentiate meanings from language and sensate inputs and to tell valid from not-valid. It's knowledge, built on prior knowledge. These qualities do not require a god hypothesis to validate. I didn't say anything about a microscope.
Alternatively, you can question the principles science is founded on, but it would be a massive leap to question its results.
Yes that was a completely sloppy way to phrase that. Of course science-based results can and must be questioned and the falsification processes must be rigorous.
I meant the end result. After a couple hundred years it is pretty easy to look back and see that all the advancements of humanity can be attributed to a greater understanding of our world, which can be attributed to the scientific method.
I was hoping to hear you present something theology (not philosophy) has contributed.
Part of the reason Einstein got as far as he did was because of Newton. Standing on the shoulders of giants..
I thought the UFO quote was a good analog for god. You must admit there is a similarity between the claims of contact with god and contact with UFOs.
”And that's why it works. Newtonian Physics works, but not as well as Einsteinian Relativity. But both do work.”
Neither one works in a fashion that allows one to discern the meaning of this sentence. Not much of reality is concerned with the motion of particles, either up close (Newtonian) or at a distance (Relativity).
Seeing as reality is particles and physics the study of particles, I think it rather does concern reality quite directly. Saying it is not what allows us to discern the meaning of the written word is a brutal misdirection. Like saying geography tells us nothing of how the heart pumps blood. On the other hand, I believe neuroscience (which has roots in physics and chemistry) can do quite a bit to explain how we are able to read that sentence.
You said physics and relativity have nothing to do with designing a communications system? I think that's demonstrably wrong.. look into how GPS satalites work for a specific example of relativity in practice in our day to day lives.
Can you demonstrate that discernment is not material? As it is built on prior knowledge, and knowledge is certainly material (ie: if you damage part of my brain, knowledge is lost)
And those choices are? Please elaborate. With the end result being theism of course?
The choices are shown above.
Sorry Stan, I'm really not seeing them. You keep telling me how I'm wrong without presenting a convincing alternative. Even if I admit that intangible concepts exist such as morals exist (and I admit they do, even piranhas have a version) it still does not get us any closer to supposing a god hypothesis is required to explain such concepts.
1) Ah I see what you meant now. Certainly helped to include the article link. There are actually 8 different measurements listed, from 1973 to 2010. Agreed my other reply has no bearing on this article.
I could try and rationalize the findings, it seems simply enough to assert it is likely a measurement precision issue as the article implies (It may be down to systematic error, which is why it is so important to measure G in a variety of ways, he says. "People are obviously overlooking effects and not taking that into account in their experiments,") and should also point out that this is at an incredibly high level of precision. But the crux of the matter is: how does this imply god?
2) You had asked what made quantum mechanics and general relativity plausible? They work.
Is that not what that quote from Einstein says? "You can't directly experience the principles of physics, you can only logically invent them, and then find out if they are accurate via experimentation and observation"
piling on) Is it not obvious that these are thought experiments who's outcome is intuitively obvious? This is why Stan insists that the O/O/O description of god is a strawman (despite its original introduction into the discussion by Martin, not myself) because it is logically incoherent.
”I have never defined God as all-powerful...I have defined God as coherent, first and foremost; then just; and only then very powerful within the limits of coherence and justice.
Stan, is that not powerful enough to ensure that he can have a relationship with you, and that you can be aware of it?”
It is and I am. But not until I was humble enough to be spoken to and to accept it for what it was. It took me 40 years to quit telling God who he was and to accept the humble listening part, and even then the process took time; here’s why: Humility is not something that one gains by pursuing it. Nor is it something that gives one bragging rights on his knowledge base. I’m not sure how to tell you how it is achieved except that it is a “backing away” into vulnerability, both intellectual and emotional. If one is not vulnerable to truth, then for him there is no truth.
The point is that it is not something to throw in God’s face: “My expectations are X and you failed to meet them”. In reality, your expectations mean nothing, and they get in the way – it is as much up to you, as you declare that it is up to him.
” omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
It's a very common definition. You can likely walk into any church and find a similar description from the majority of the faithful. You might disagree with the atheistic position but I suspect you would also disagree with the preponderance of other theists.”
You are willing to attribute a lot of things to a lot of people you don’t even know. I doubt that you can back up your claim that a preponderance of theists believe any such thing is absolutely essential to the being of God. You didn’t even give a source for your supposed quote. You continue to make assertions that you don’t back up and which you would like to believe despite lack of any evidence.
If you are asserting that these attributes are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a personal deity, you are asserting something that not only can you not prove, but something that is not logically valid. If you want to argue against God, you should at least argue against a valid, coherent concept.
(continued) ”Are these not the means by which we observe and measure? You are taught morals, you are taught math, you learn to differentiate meanings from language and sensate inputs and to tell valid from not-valid. It's knowledge, built on prior knowledge. These qualities do not require a god hypothesis to validate. I didn't say anything about a microscope.” (continued below)
You are first, asserting an infinite regress of knowledge, presumably with no beginning. Your assertion was that the only knowledge is that which is provided by science using experimental, replicable investigations of material reality. Your answer doesn’t seem to recognize your earlier position. Second, I did not mention any god hypothesis as I pointed out the types of knowledge that are attained through non-scientific means. You seem to have missed your own point and then my point. Third, how did the first person to gain knowledge gain the specific knowledge of how to use “the means by which we observe and measure”? In other words, did the knowledge of how to pursue knowledge just spontaneously occur?
”After a couple hundred years it is pretty easy to look back and see that all the advancements of humanity can be attributed to a greater understanding of our world, which can be attributed to the scientific method.”
This is a common error in viewing humanity. The human condition is not defined by science or technology, it is defined by its moral character. The moral character is defined within an individual, and that has definitely not been an area of scientific advance, nor of empirical contribution. In fact, the murderous cultures that exist – 250 Million murdered in Atheist tyrannies last century alone – still abide around the world. The common character traits that were once accepted as “decent and valuable” are now derided by a Darwinian culture that thinks it “came from slime and will return to slime” to quote Jeffery Dahmer.
You might think that science has improved living conditions, and it has. It has also provided AK47’s, landmines, A bombs, and bio-warfare. Science and technology are morally and functionally neutral, which means that the human condition is dictated by the wisdom of those who use them. (Not technical knowledge: wisdom). Wisdom is not provided empirically, unless your ideology is Consequentialism, where the end justifies any means to get it, which is empirically determined. Wisdom is another non-empirical type of knowledge.
”I was hoping to hear you present something theology (not philosophy) has contributed.”
I told you my experience, above. But what you seem to want is a conclusive argument on a piece of paper. Neither philosophy nor theology will give you that.
Actually I view theology as a superset of philosophy, because it includes rational thought and respect for logic and is inclusive, whereas philosophy and philosophers tend to exclude any thoughts but their own, and are by definition previously committed to Atheism and Philosophical Materialism regardless of whether those things meet the standards of coherence. So philosophers closet themselves in an area of thought that is completely closed off from inconvenient thoughts, by their wall of ideology. This leads to philosophical arrogance which is the opposite of the intellectual humility required to recognize inconvenient truths. It is necessary to be subordinate to whatever the truth might be, rather than to try to force a truth out of rationalized ideology. Neither philosophy nor theology provides empirical information, as I discussed before. They provide other types of knowledge (or they would be called empirical science).
Certain religions and sects do the same thing: rationalize things that they call truth. That has no bearing on finding the actualities. Rationalizing is a logical fallacy. And that includes scientism as an ideology.
”I thought the UFO quote was a good analog for god. You must admit there is a similarity between the claims of contact with god and contact with UFOs.”
That is the problem in trying to sort truth out of the claims of others. That is not how it is found.
Suggestion: Try this thought experiment: which is more coherent, Hawking’s claims for the spontaneous beginning of the universe, or the existence of a source for that beginning, a source that meets the cause and effect standards (cause is greater than the effect, prior to the effect, etc). Which claim meets with our understanding of logical requirements for the claim? Which claim meets with our observations of how the universe works?
No need to respond to this, it’s just a suggested exercise.
Thanks for those responses, I found them honest and enlightening.
My issue with what I am learning is your concept of god is that it is essentially unreachable and unfalsifiable. No matter how honestly or fervently I seek this relationship, if I fail, it is easily laid at my feet that the fault is my own.
As I mentioned I was raised Catholic and hard a very hard time since I was a child accepting the Catholic concept of God. It seemed transparently man-made and contradictory. Despite this I did try very hard to have some sort of relationship with God, praying and whatnot. I certainly went through some incredibly vulnerable and emotional times.
It was not until I honestly investigated the claims of theists (as well as astrologers, palm readers, faith healers, ghost hunters, psychics, etc etc etc) and found them all lacking was the transition from disillusioned theist to atheist made. I'm not bitter about it, I'm happier than I've ever been. I just have such a hard time comprehending how others can hold such seemingly contradictory beliefs.
The quote was from Wikipedia. I also went to a Catholic school, raised in a Catholic home. From my personal experience, from people I actually know, O/O/O is a very common perception of God.
The point is that it is not something to throw in God’s face: “My expectations are X and you failed to meet them”. In reality, your expectations mean nothing, and they get in the way – it is as much up to you, as you declare that it is up to him.
You continue to make assertions that you don’t back up and which you would like to believe despite lack of any evidence.
I feel like your statements contradict each other or you are holding me to a different standard than ourself.
But that's fine, I'm not attempting to force you to defend the O/O/O god, but a god that is powerful beyond imagining (to the extent that it is not self-contradictory) and desirous of a relationship with myself. Furthermore you assert that such a relationship is as much up to me as to God. Well I am searching and continue to do so, as of yet however I have found no reason to believe. Obviously a very powerful god would be aware of what it would take for me to believe. So why is the existence of God not apparent?
I do not see an infinite regress or a conflict with my earlier sentiments.
You are taught these things. It is no more an infinite regress than to say a house is an infinite regress. Where did the bricks come from? The blueprints? The idea of a house?
An infinite regress would be: God created everything. Special pleading too since the next response is that God doesn't need a creator.
I guess I did miss your point. I assumed that your position was that issues such as morality, etc were derived from a divine source. If they are not dependent on God, why mention it?
In other words, did the knowledge of how to pursue knowledge just spontaneously occur?
No I think it is something you learn. It takes time and effort. Like figuring out how to Google (much easier than the Dewey-Decimal system). It's a gradual process.
This is a common error in viewing humanity. The human condition is not defined by science or technology, it is defined by its moral character.
Well you seem to be just asserting that. I wasn't talking about the human condition, but about knowledge (real, working knowledge with tangible results). However in that line of thinking, scientific advancements have given us the luxury of being able to act more morally. As less effort is required to simply sustain ourselves, our energies can be directed towards more humanitarian goals and less towards scratching out an existence.
Wow Stan. You accuse me of making strawman arguments and then throw out this ridiculous accusation of atheistic mass murderers and a quote by Jeffery Dahlmer? That's pretty despicable. I'm not using the epidemic of pedophilic priests, the inquisition or the stultification of school children with the insistence of teaching fantasy in school as an attack against theism.
To further press this point, the tyrannies of Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Stalin and Hitler were distinctly faith-based. The are state religions. No one would suggest what occurred in these lands was the result of too much inquiry and skeptical thinking.
Ignore that Stalin was trained in seminary, ignore that Hitler was an open Catholic and had a truce with the church.
Ignore the Netherlands and Europe which have some of the highest standards of living and lowest numbers of theists..
How about this quote "I've got one life to live this life of mine, one life to love this wife of mine..." There's an atheistic quote I personally think is beautiful.
Wisdom is another measurement of knowledge gained. No one enters this world wise, it is gained via trail and error. By observation and experimentation.
It is and I am. But not until I was humble enough to be spoken to and to accept it for what it was. It took me 40 years to quit telling God who he was and to accept the humble listening part, and even then the process took time; here’s why: Humility is not something that one gains by pursuing it. Nor is it something that gives one bragging rights on his knowledge base. I’m not sure how to tell you how it is achieved except that it is a “backing away” into vulnerability, both intellectual and emotional. If one is not vulnerable to truth, then for him there is no truth.
If this is your experience and your argument, than can you not see how others remain unconvinced? If someone told you this regarding Allah, Ganesha or the FSM would you be convinced?
I'm not disputing that concepts such as justice, wisdom and imagination are not valuable to humanity. I'm disputing that they are derived from theology.
About the UFOs again. Yes I was just reading up on Feynman and say that quote and thought it appropriate. I agree it is much easier to have a coherent discussion when you lay out your position on the table as you have just done.
Here's a couple other Feynman quotes.
“I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.”
“Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which 'are' there.”
“Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.”
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made."
"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."
Thought experiment: I have to go with Hawking. Not so much because he's a theoretical physicist and this is his area of expertise, (please note that this is not an Argument from Authority. Quoting experts within their field of expertise is not a fallacy), but because proposing a First Cause raises more problems than it solves.
1) There is no concrete reason to suggest such a being exist.
2) Such a being would need it's own explanation for existing.
3) It is argued that Occam's razor can be used against the argument, showing how the argument fails using both the efficient and conserving types of causality.
4) If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained. (Hume/Edwards)
5) Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics.
There are further reasons as well, but I think that's enough to establish firm ground for my point of view.
I'll propose my own thought experiment. What is more plausible, man created god, or god created man? Given that we have numerous example of man creating things both real and imaginary, and no examples of creation that can be unarguably attributed to a theistic God (the creation of the universe points merely to a deistic god, not a theistic god.)
Here's some more information concerning how modern theologists view God. This information comes from the only theology book [note 1] I have (these textbooks are very expensive these days). The book discusses omnipotence ("all powerful") in less than two pages out of 1253. Here are the main points:
”Finally, God’s infinity may also be considered in relationship to what is traditionally referred to as the omnipotence of God. By this we mean that God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power.
…There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of. He can do only those things that are proper objects of his power. Thus, he cannot do the logically absurd or the contradictory. He cannot make square circles or triangles with four corners. He cannot undo what has happened in the past, although he may wipe out its effects or even the memory of it. He cannot act contrary to his nature- he cannot be cruel or unconcerned….” (emphasis added)
In fact, we have only hints of God's character. I'm sure that what is written above would be cheerfully modified if God were to make his character known to be different from what is discerned so far.
Also note that a theology book such as this one delineates differing discernments by other theologians where they exist; differing opinions get their play. What we think we know about God has the same constraints as science: it is contingent, not absolute.
I'm too ill to discuss much with you tonight, but I'd like to say this: I'm glad you are sticking around.
Although I don't know what you hope to accomplish since you accept only negative inputs and then wonder why you aren't in direct contact with God. I assume that you do realize that...?
I also should have warned you that my thought experiment was a trick, to see if you put any personal analytical time into assessing Hawking's analogy before accepting it. More on that when I'm better.
I can see that your thought experiment presents a false dichotomy, but I'll have to wait to answer it properly. I hope for tomorrow maybe.
Andrew- My point is that using science to dismiss god is a mistake. I point out that many of the reasons that people give for believing that science has disproved god come from false beliefs about what scientists actually find. How am I doing? The notion that there is either science or god is a false dilemma. Until that point is clear I'm not sure how it would be possible to see either clearly. There may be other reasons to dismiss god (I can name many), but what we know from science shouldn't really be on the list IMO. (I realize that there are individual scientists who would disagree with my statement. I'm sure you are aware that there are those who would agree with my statement.)
Andrew: Let’s compare the issues in the two thought experiments. Let’s take your thought experiment: First choice, did God create man. Valid question on the creation of man. Second choice was not on the same subject which is who or how was man created. The second choice changed the subject entirely to whether God is imagined by man. Entirely different subject, which is obtained by a sarcastic twist of the words in a single sentence, producing entirely different meanings, and in fact, entirely different, non-exclusive subjects.
So the comparison of two different subjects are used in dilemma format in a false comparison (pick only one of the two). The answer, of course is that both choices are plausible, and not mutually exclusive. Such phony logical fallacies fool only the logically unaware. It is plausible, on the subject of the creation of man, that God was involved. It is plausible, on the separate subject of man creating gods, that yes, that has happened. Not exclusive answers.
Now let’s look at my thought experiment for you: I gave you a clear-cut choice on a single question: the beginning of the universe. Choices: it had a cause; or it did not have a cause (spontaneous). Mutually exclusive, must be one or the other. Valid dichotomy.
This thought experiment gave you the opportunity to form a considered opinion on merits or demerits of Hawking’s premises and conditions which he used to draw his conclusion, and to then weigh the pros and cons and their logical viability in his conclusion, then comparing that to the same sort of analysis of the logical viability of a cause for the universe.
But you did not do that. You first chose the answer most compatible with your ideology. Then you sought other, non-related arguments to pack around your answer, arguments entirely unrelated to Hawking’s argument (especially the bit about parsimony – Hawking’s theory is not parsimonious). You chose those statements to support the conclusion, not the argument he made. This is classical Rationalization Fallacy, and is the specific marker for an argument being made from ideology ONLY, not from any attempt at rational analysis.
Ideology and Rationalization "know" the answer without any analysis required or desired, then choose arguments that give an appearance of supporting it.
This serves to decorate your motivations, as shown by your actions: You see no need to even learn, much less use, logical processes – that is not your purpose. You are functioning as an evangelical Atheist, determined to argue regardless of any logic involved or not involved. Your arguments lack the conviction of logical validity, or any attempt at it, or desire for it. For example you deny any knowledge that is not empirical/experimental, yet you use philosophical arguments with wild abandon, even disregarding their fallacies. Blatant ideological lock-down.
So I see no need to continue this discussion with you.
Oh, that's too bad Stan. You went from being glad I'm sticking around to seeing no reason to continuing the discussion with me overnight. Have a bad sleep?
But that's fine, I'm not attempting to force you to defend the O/O/O god, but a god that is powerful beyond imagining (to the extent that it is not self-contradictory) and desirous of a relationship with myself
Yet you responded with an argument addressing the fallacious nature of the O/O/O god concept .. again?
My opinion would be cheerfully modified if God were to make his character known to be different from what is discerned so far.
I also should have warned you that my thought experiment was a trick
Yet you are upset with me because you interpret some sarcasm in my own thought experiment? There was no sarcasm. The topic was not the creation of man but the creation of god. Either god (always existing First Cause) created man, or man created god. It is the origin of god we are concerned with here, I thought that much to be obvious. So .. no false dilemma? Again you appear to be peppering me with accusations of debating fallacies without addressing my actual arguments or rebuttals.
I arrived at the conclusion I considered most valid. I presented reasons for both accepting the authority of a theoretical physicist regarding theoretical physics and gave points why a First Cause is unnecessary. Any theory is parsimonious compared to an intelligent first cause.
Again you level fallacies at me without addressing my actual points.
My central point regarding a First Cause is that it is not an argument for theism.
This serves to decorate your motivations, as shown by your actions: You see no need to even learn, much less use, logical processes – that is not your purpose. You are functioning as an evangelical Atheist, determined to argue regardless of any logic involved or not involved.
This from the guy who yesterday lumped me in with all the mass murderers of the 20th century and Jeffery Dahlmer. And then total ignored my refutation of it.
And I've learned lots in the last couple weeks. I actually read the webpages referenced here. I read up on Feynman. I read up on the philosophy of science. It'd be nice if you actually faced my points and acknowledged my rebuttals instead of jumping on what you are frequently interpreting (incorrectly) as logical fallacies.
Shrug. I'm fine if you don't want to continue the discussion. I feel my viewpoint remains valid and there remains no rational reason to live as though a theistic god exists. I'll just continue to go about living a happy life without being worried that a fairy in the sky is judging me.
Science and/or logic cannot disprove a god does not exist. But it can demonstrate that any specific God logically cannot exist or is at best superfluous. For this reason I should have insisted on a concise and inclusive description of whatever god I am supposed to be not believing in at the beginning of the debate.
Of course it would be a false dilemma to say there is either science or god. Certainly there could be both. Hypothetically.
There may be other reasons to dismiss god (I can name many), but what we know from science shouldn't really be on the list IMO
I agree there are many who would both agree and disagree with your conclusion. I hold both positions myself.
I agree that it is impossible to disprove a god exists.
However, claims of any specific God necessarily create a definition of that God. Such a definition can always be pointed out as being invalid, and specific claims of this God's actions (raising the dead, flooding the earth, healing the sick, rescuing miners, a literal seven day creation, etc etc etc - there are no shortage of God claims) can be either disproved or shown that the hand of god was not necessary to create the resulting claim.
To the extent of my knowledge, all such claims fall into the later category, and the former category is a retreat from the claims of theism used to claim (correctly) that you cannot prove a god does not exist.
How am I doing?
Well, I'm enjoying the back and forth! But I think most of your points can be easily explained naturally. By the sensitivity of the instruments (gravitational constant) and uncontrolled variables and bias errors (scatter patterns).
So we seem t have returned to Laplace..
You say you have many reasons to not believe in a god that do not reference science? Care to share?
For our casual readers, here is what I said about Jeffrey Dahmer:
"The moral character is defined within an individual, and that has definitely not been an area of scientific advance, nor of empirical contribution. In fact, the murderous cultures that exist – 250 Million murdered in Atheist tyrannies last century alone – still abide around the world. The common character traits that were once accepted as “decent and valuable” are now derided by a Darwinian culture that thinks it “came from slime and will return to slime” to quote Jeffery Dahmer."
And my last words to Andrew are this: you are an ideological shill for Atheism; and you are a liar.
In a moment that should have been much more well guarded, I indulged in the bit of intemperance demonstrated in my last comment, above. Now I am musing on whether to accede to a need for comity on the blog by either erasing or modifying the comments. Which brings me to consider the purpose of this blog, the post in question and to weigh the needs for commodious commenting vs rational behaviors and, what is actual and true.
The purpose of this blog has been to consider, within the boundaries of good logic on the one hand, and fallacy on the other, the propositions and premises of Atheism. We have been successful in being able to have conversations, many of them lengthy, debating various issues within those boundaries while maintaining an atmosphere of learning in a back and forth manner.
With the advent of the original post, Challenge to Atheists, I have been unable to corral the conversation back into its intended limits. The problem arises when a blogger wishes to maintain certain limits but commenters arrive who insist on dragging it beyond the limits of rational discourse into the arena of anti-rationality. This is acceptable for a time, while trying to explain what the limits of rationality are, and why they are needed. But when failing at that, and when the attempts to drag the comments back out of the rational arena evolve into fallacious charges, then the limit has truly been reached, and the conversation must be stopped. Otherwise, to accede to the demands of anti-rationalist would ultimately consume the blog in absurdity.
After considering the nature of the blog and the problems within the individual post, I mulled on the nature of my – shall we say – infelicitous response of exiting the conversation: Was it politically correct? Was it necessary for the blog? Was it an emotional response? Or was it valid and true, if blunt? I conclude that it was not, of course, politically correct. It was necessary, but poorly executed. It was an emotional response, but it was not logically incorrect nor invalid.
What to do? (If anything…) While I do rather regret the intemperate emotional aspect of my response, I do not take back the underlying meaning, which would much better have been like this:
When faced with false charges across the board, it only makes sense to respond gently and to quit the conversation. This is because the conversation is irreparably rent by lack of honest response and especially by dishonest charges. Thus there is no reason to continue, because honesty is necessary in an intellectual exchange, and there is none to be had in this conversation.
Andrew- I just read Stan's last couple posts, and while I think they maybe overly harsh, I have to admit I think we are having similar difficulties. The definition of god is 'first cause'. If you agree that it is impossible to disprove a god exists, then you would have to admit that Stan's challenge "Prove that there is no God" is beyond your capability. If you want to claim that there is no God without proof or evidence-- the existence of the universe is the evidence for first cause-- admit to yourself that is what you are doing. If you want to attack a particular notion of God, that is fine with me, but realize this is what people do-- learn and change ideas over time. (Showing that Zeus doesn't live on a mountain doesn't disprove god anymore than pointing out that electrons don't always act like particles disproves the existence of electrons-- be consistent in your thinking). One thing that I find interesting-- you seem to want to use 'intuitively obvious' when it suits, but then you want to use science (intuitively obvious doesn't work so well- just ask Feynman) when it suits. You may want to take a look at that. Good luck.
I agree I think it is past time to end this conversation. It seems for some time we have been talking past each other instead of to each other.
A couple of parting shots if I might?
1) The original challenge was to an Atheist. Thus the challenge to provide evidence for the non-existence of a god surely must be a theistic god and not a deistic god. The goal posts have been moved. A first cause is not a theistic god.
2) I admit that you cannot demonstrate with 100% certainty that some incarnation that someone might call god may somehow exist in some form. I have freely admitted this multiple times throughout the conversation. If that is what you want to cling to, clutch it to your breast.
3) My original argument was to assert that any concept of god is supernatural in nature and since nothing supernatural has been demonstrated to exist, it is reasonable to act as though supernatural beings do not exist.
(The arguments for the demonstration of even a reasonable possibility for the existence of the supernatural have been .. unconvincing to say the least)
I was told that I was making a category error.
Now I then attempt to make more philosophical arguments and I am accused of being a liar and a shill.
All the instances of my use of the word intuit were responses to yourselves.
4) Stan. I have no idea what you are thinking. That quote does lump atheists in with mass murderers. That's EXACTLY what it does. To say I'm a liar and a shill because I say this is despicable not to mention demonstrably false is ridiculous. And ideological.
Any "charges" I have made have been in direct response to claims made or questions asked. I have attempted to respond to every point made, within reason. Your response has been to attack my tone, my 'category' and level (frequently inaccurate) fallacies at me while dodging actually answering any of my questions.
I'm quite comfortable with the arguments I've made quite happy to end the conversation and allow any readers to draw from it what they might.
Here, I will address just one of your persistent issues, above.
You say, "My original argument was to assert that any concept of god is supernatural in nature and since nothing supernatural has been demonstrated to exist, it is reasonable to act as though supernatural beings do not exist.
BTW this is just the primary argument for categories and empirical testing of expectations within categories. If we can't come to agreement here, then we can't possibly communicate at any further level.
(The arguments for the demonstration of even a reasonable possibility for the existence of the supernatural have been .. unconvincing to say the least)
I was told that I was making a category error.
Do you not see that "super-natural is outside of natural? It is a separate category. The name and the category were created to accommodate things that are not natural (not within the category called "natural"). Hence they are in a separate category, which we call "super"-natural. Two categories, exclusive of each other.
If there are two categories which are exclusive sets, and something exists in one set and not the other, then it is a category error to expect to find it in the second category where it does not exist.
Natural and Supernatural are two separate categories where one cannot expect to find a supernatural entity by exclusive investigation of the natural category, where the supernatural entity does not exist.
Do you deny this? If so, on what grounds?
BTW, this is just a primary level of understanding of category levels. If we can't agree at this level, then it won't be possible to communicate further into the subject.
Super-natural is completely outside the natural and the two are exclusive of each other.
You seem to be saying god does not exist in the natural. I will agree to this.
How do you investigate the super-natural from the natural world? Two categories, exclusive of each other.
You seem to be saying you cannot. For all intents and purposes, this is my position as well. However I will not claim to have any knowledge whatsoever of anything that can be interpreted as super-natural.
If reality is natural, and super natural is outside nature, then the super-natural is not-real.
Put this way, our positions seem very similar, except for your assertion that you can indeed know the super-natural. Clarification would be most illuminating.
Here I will briefly discuss some of the other issues.
Jeffrey Dahmer was clearly influenced by both Atheism and by Evolutionary theory, as is the culture. And that is what I said. I did not mention you in the same sentence or the same paragraph.
When I point to a fallacy I give it a name which can be looked up if it is not understood. Usually I try to also demonstrate the applicability of the text in question to the type of fallacy. I believe I did so reliably in your case. I went into great detail in describing a false dichotomy and how it applied; your response was to re-interpret the words in a way not even suggested by the actual statement.
Your response to the category error issue was essentially: no it's not.
I am unaware of any questions I have not answered, repeat them if you wish.
I am unaware of you answering the original challenge, which was addressed to Atheists - who reject deity, per your own reference to the wiki definition in the more recent comment, above. No one that I know of calls himself an a-deist; the term a-theist serves to reject deity, deism, and theistic deities and theism. Your charge of moving the goal posts is not valid. It's this type of charge that brings question to your seriousness here. It is, frankly, a waste of my time to engage such silly things.
Now I will engage an issue you had earlier; to wit, I had encouraged you to stay around, then I wanted to stop the conversation.
Yes. Stay around - and read and go to the library, buy all the reference books you can afford, make learning a lifestyle. I had thought when I made that statement that our conversation might lead to actual analysis. But I quickly found that I would become embroiled in word games and definitional issues that were so far outside the bounds of logic that they were intractable. It is a waste of time to deal with such things as denial of obvious category errors and charges of slander.
I remain skeptical of the value of continuing this, but I will watch for your response.
OK, now that we have two categories, how would you define items that fall into the natural category? In other words, what definitive characteristic makes something "natural"?
OK, now that we have two categories, how would you define items that fall into the natural category? In other words, what definitive characteristic makes something "natural"?
Personally, I would define items that fall into the natural category as "real" and things which do not as "imaginary".
Obviously you are not in agreement with this so I will ask:
Having two categories of existence which are exclusive of each other, you yet claim to be aware of the super-natural. I ask only that you substantiate your claim without contradicting your premise.
Let's stick with the argument and go one step at a time.
Real and imaginary are not measurable characteristics. E.g. what is "real", and how is it measured? We will need measurable characteristics in order to satisfy any empirical experiments that will need to be done. What are these characteristics that are testable, empirically, that are to be deemed "natural"?
Let's stick with the argument and go one step at a time.
That is why I split my posts up, one addressing your main point and the other addressing your secondary points. Not sure why you didn't post the secondary.
Something is 'real' if it actually exists. If it is measurable, observable, tangible and/or verifiable or has the potential to be so.
Imaginary things can of course exist, as concepts. But we are not talking about the existence of ideas, but of a personality, power and intelligence. ie: god
You cannot define God into existence.
I am unaware of any questions I have not answered, repeat them if you wish.
Having two categories of existence which are exclusive of each other, you yet claim to be aware of the super-natural. I ask only that you substantiate your claim without contradicting your premise.
51 comments:
Andrew-
1) You seem to have faith that someday someone will discover how life begins de-novo. I'm not sure how to falsify that.
2) You might want to read some of these to get an idea of how experimental results actually have a 'scatter pattern' and how that is dealt with.
(I'm not claiming that the actual results of experiment reveal miracles, just that they don't actually disprove them).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V34-482B12X-3&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F1988&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1493765834&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=23cdfa8ac6ce79d7cebf72e6ea82f7cf&searchtype=a
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/professional/uncertainty/annotated_bibliography_files/Experimental%20Uncertainty.pdf
http://www.iihr.uiowa.edu/~fluidslab/files/Introduction/uaoverview.pdf
Hi Sonic,
Sorry about the delay, I had bookmarked the original page and was not checking the actual blog homepage.
And had sort of lost interest when Stan enable moderation and stopped posting all my responses to his claims. Just sort of cherry picked which ones he wanted to respond to and ignored the rest. Too bad because I thought the ones he didn't post had some of my best points.
1) The position that I am arguing for, the positive belief that there is no rational reason to believe in the existence of an intelligent being which created the universe and desires a personal relationship with his creations, would be easily falsified.
For example if prayer actually could be demonstrated to work. If miracles as described in holy text could be demonstrated to actually occur. There are many possibilities. Imagine what it would take for you to believe in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Those are the standards I apply to all religions.
Never mind that if an all powerful creature wished a personal relationship with me you'd think it would be blatantly obvious...
I do think that some day we might uncover the process that creates life from non-life. But even if we don't it doesn't really affect my position. Now if we discovered life only came from non-life with the right chemistry AND the incantation of "In Jesus' name we pray" .. I'd have to think on that one, but it would be extremely persuasive.
It does seems like the discovery of life from non-life would dramatically effect the theist position and it would be one less gap for god to hide in. But hey, there's always beyond space and time.
2) Your first link appears to be broken.
The second one and third doesn't even imply that there are unaccountable phenomenon at work. These are some of the issues those paper note as contributing to scatter patterns.
bias error
precision error
terminology must be standardized
It doesn't even imply there is no explanation for the scatter patterns. They basically agree with my original statement, it is a result of uncontrolled (or poorly controlled) variables.
Guys,
Your conversation is on an older post, one that automatically requires moderation now. If you move up to the comments on this post, your comments will show up immediately.
Moderation is still enable on this thread.
http://scienceblog.com/18191/scientists-develop-first-examples-of-rna-that-replicates-itself-indefinitely/
Just found this article Sonic. You might find it interesting.
"But the main value of the work, according to Joyce, is at the basic research level. “What we’ve found could be relevant to how life begins, at that key moment when Darwinian evolution starts.” He is quick to point out that, while the self-replicating RNA enzyme systems share certain characteristics of life, they are not themselves a form of life."
Andrew, I enabled all your comments. I did not edit or remove any. What points did you make?
Stan
Moderation is automatically enabled after 7 days.
Stan
Andrew said,
"if an all powerful creature wished a personal relationship with me you'd think it would be blatantly obvious..."
Why?
"It does seems like the discovery of life from non-life would dramatically effect the theist position and it would be one less gap for god to hide in."
Contrarily it would seem that the continuing failure to predict (form a viable hypothesis) which characteristics of non-life would produce life, sentience, intellect, free will would be one less gap for science to hide in. It is necessary for life to be considered reductively in multiple categories in order to even consider replication as precursive to life. But then it is an article of faith that accompanies science, in the form of scientism.
Andrew- (Well there U R)
I suggested that it would not be possible to discount miracle from the actual experimental evidence. A scatter pattern can be explained in any number of ways (of course the possibility of miracle is not included in the papers I referenced due to the fact that it is outside of the scientific norms to do so.)
I give you the explanations given are good-- (I have done statistical analysis of experiments before, I am aware of a number of reasons the numbers don't exactly match the theoretical prescription).
However-- Given a scatter pattern one cannot claim to have disproved miracle.
This is a very simple logical deduction. Make it.
Yes I am aware of the result (RNA duplication). There is an incredible amount of information on this topic-- I believe "Signature in the Cell", is considered the best book on the subject currently, but i have not read it and am not able to endorse.
Supposing there is a god ( something I don't always do), then I am certain that I do not know this god well enough to answer your questions about his behavior.
It does seems like the discovery of life from non-life would dramatically effect the theist position and it would be one less gap for god to hide in.
I agree that god-of-the-gaps is not good reasoning nor good theology. "If it ain't a miracle, God didn't do it."
Philosophy of religion does not generally engage in god-of-the-gaps. The contingency argument I presented earlier is not like that.
Sorry for the delay, guys, I've been under the weather.
Andrew, You said I deleted some comments you made. I do remember deleting comments (2 I think) that appeared to be repeats hits of the same comment. If that was in error, I apologize.
Stan
Martin-
I agree that the 'god in the gaps' makes a bad argument. I think that if god is currently engaged in this universe, then he should be considered part of the natural world. (It is possible that god could exist such that he is part of the natural world and exists outside it as well).
On the other hand, the notion that what we know from c=science precludes the possibility of god is inaccurate.
Andrew said,
"if an all powerful creature wished a personal relationship with me you'd think it would be blatantly obvious..."
Why?
Um, via definition? All powerful + desirous of a relationship = relationship. No?
Contrarily it would seem that the continuing failure to predict (form a viable hypothesis) which characteristics of non-life would produce life, sentience, intellect, free will would be one less gap for science to hide in. It is necessary for life to be considered reductively in multiple categories in order to even consider replication as precursive to life. But then it is an article of faith that accompanies science, in the form of scientism.
It is not an article of faith b/c even if it is never discovered I still think that observing and testing reality is still the best way to discover it.
Compare the discoveries of science and compare them to the discoveries of faith. (Can you even name a discovery of faith? - something that cannot be attributed to science and reason but specifically based up "the belief in things unseen"?
If the heralding of one method over another is scientism, I'm signing up.
Sonic,
Here I am :)
Ok, you can't discount a miracle, but given the proposed naturalistic explanation, is it not infinitely more reasonable to assume that variations in test are a result of
bias error
precision error
terminology must be standardized
rather than the creator of the universe tinkering with the experiment? Particularly since by controlling for these errors the scatter patterns are reduced?
Yup there is a great amount of information on the subject. Scientists are always learning and discovering new information. It's pretty - dare I say it? - miraculous!
Supposing there is a god ( something I don't always do), then I am certain that I do not know this god well enough to answer your questions about his behavior.
That's really my point. Even if a god exists, it would surely have to be a deistic god. So everyone who makes claims on his desires is either a fool or a liar. If everyone believed that the harmful impact of the religious would be practically negated. As I've said before, doubt is always a reasonable starting position.
Martin,
I of course agree that god-of-the-gaps is poor reasoning.
My points regarding your contingency argument boil down to that it is not an argument for the existence of a theistic god, but for a deistic god.
Furthermore, as I pointed out, there are many reasons why the contingency argument seems unnecessary and problematic.
Stan,
Again, Stan if it was an honest mistake then no harm done. Except the sudden barrage of posts :)
Sonic,
Again, I agree. If god is engaged in the universe he would be considered part of the universe (for which there would be evidence of). I'm not sure what you mean by c=science, but I disagree that science precludes the possibility of god, only that it seems to have a track record of not requiring him as an explanation.
To quote Laplace "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là"
"I had no need of that hypothesis."
As a reply to Napoleon, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his book on astronomy.
It also doesn't preclude the possibilities of fairies at the bottom of the garden...
For some reason Ahmed's comment won't show up here like I think he wanted it to, so here it is,
Stan
Ahmed:
You said: "I don't think this proves the existence of a creating deity," WLC says: I give three arguments for the personhood of the first cause. First, the argument, inspired by the Islamic Principle of Determination, that only a free agent could explain the origin of a temporal effect with a beginning from a changeless, timeless cause. (See the exposition of the argument in either the Blackwell Companion, pp. 193-4 or in Reasonable Faith [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008], pp. 153-4.) http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a
Andrew said,
"if an all powerful creature wished a personal relationship with me you'd think it would be blatantly obvious..."
Why?
Um, via definition? All powerful + desirous of a relationship = relationship. No?
I don't think you get to set the rules or definitions for what God wants. Or the remaining conditions or requirements.
"It is not an article of faith b/c even if it is never discovered I still think that observing and testing reality is still the best way to discover it."
Only if all of reality is accessible to us, which is neither a given, nor can it be proved or disproved using material techniques.
"Compare the discoveries of science and compare them to the discoveries of faith. (Can you even name a discovery of faith? - something that cannot be attributed to science and reason but specifically based up "the belief in things unseen"?
Your use of the term "faith" is disengenuous because it implies to you and Atheists in general that there is no connection between knowledge obtained non-empirically and rationality, and that any claimed knowledge is superstition (faith). Empirical science cannot prove, validate, or otherwise even produce the first principles of logic and rational thought. These are axioms that science relies on as a matter of necessity; they are known to be true intuitively. Any good philosophy of science book will show you that.
These things are taught in logic classes, which science enthusiasts never seem to take, and are things which science faithists accept without knowing it, as a matter of blindness to any knowledge outside of experimental knowledge.
The first reaction to this by many science faithists is to deny the existence of intuition. They cannot prove or disprove its existence, so they intuit that it cannot exist. In fact, the first derivative of logic is mathematics which is abstract and intuitive. It is mathematical models that allow scientists to intuit and predict the behaviors of things they cannot see. Read some Feynman.
Your denial of any knowledge that is not scientific is not provable using empirical science (not to mention logically non-coherent). So under your belief system, you cannot know what you claim to be true.
Science never produces truth; it produces contingent factoids that either falsify or fail to falsify hypotheses; these are subject to be overthrown at any time by subsequent findings.
"If the heralding of one method over another is scientism, I'm signing up."
If you are comparing science to blind faith, then you are presenting a false dichotomy; there are other choices.
Andrew-
You bring up two interesting points--
1) Laplace-- Of course Laplace didn't need to include god in his picture of the solar system because he thought he had exact formulae to account for the motions of the planets. It is of interest that his formulae were incorrect (especially in regards to Venus). General relativity makes more accurate predictions re:Venus, but not all the predictions have proved out yet. (An odd note-- there are currently 3 measured values for the gravitational constant-- nobody can figure out why or what the problem is or…)
2) Plausibility-- Can you tell me what is plausible about relativity (special or general) or quantum mechanics? I believe these are the foundational understandings of the 'laws of nature', yet many people find them impossible to understand intuitively.
Your quoting of Laplace and your demand for plausibility lead me to believe that you have bought some sort of thinking about what science has found that is in disagreement with the facts.
Stan,
The two posts I did addressing your previous response on Oct 5th have not been posted. Did they not show up correctly?
Stan, I'm using your definition of god. All-powerful and desirous of a relationship. A theistic god. I am not setting the rules, I'm just using the words according to the definitions. For example, if God is All Powerful, and likes flowers, it would stand to reason that there would be flowers. (You can substitute anything for flowers there .. people, relationships, crib death, bears). I don't think its fair to remove the obvious outcome of a definition once its been pointed out that it seems irrational. I should also mention that all the rules or definitions of god are from theists. I am just holding you to the definition.
No, even if only the barest fraction of reality is available to us (and it is), the only way to actually learn something about it is from observation and testing.
Can you point out the "connection between knowledge obtained non-empirically and rationality, and that any claimed knowledge is superstition "?
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_economic_argument.png
Seemed somewhat appropriate :)
I'm not actively denying any knowledge Stan, I'm questioning what knowledge has been presented. And you didn't offer any.
Is intuition simply not understanding, without apparent effort. Is it not intuitively obvious that if you trip, you fall down? Is this not based on experience, not revelation? Why would any deny this? Also, I suspect Feynman might be on my side in this theological debate.
"Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence."
Alternatively, you can question the principles science is founded on, but it would be a massive leap to question its results.
"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
-Hawking
Science never produces truth; it produces contingent factoids that either falsify or fail to falsify hypotheses; these are subject to be overthrown at any time by subsequent findings.
And that's why it works. Newtonian Physics works, but not as well as Einsteinian Relativity. But both do work.
If you are comparing science to blind faith, then you are presenting a false dichotomy; there are other choices.
And those choices are? Please elaborate. With the end result being theism of course?
Sonic,
1) I looked up the formula for gravity and yes there are three different formula. But the wiki article does explain. The first is derived from force to assist student comprehension, the second is in Centimetre gram second system of units, the third is astrophysics where astrophysics where distances are measured in parsecs (pc), velocities in kilometers per second (km/s) and masses in solar units.
So .. the answer is OR. It's largely a scale issue. Definitely don't seem to need the god hypothesis here.
2) The formulas work, and provide testable results. Plausible?
See todays xkcd, link above :)
To quote Feynman again, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." But it works. I think you mean intuitive instead of plausible? I admit general relativity and quantum mechanics are not intuitive. But that's where evidence and reasoning come in which allows us to disregard our gut instinct and conclude; "I guess it is like that"
Andrew,
I believe that those two posts are the ones that I thought were copies of the first post, which I did post. I deleted them after reading – or maybe just scanning – the first few lines. This is my error, I apologize. I won't delete any more of your comments, even if they are redundant. Again, my error.
” Stan, I'm using your definition of god. All-powerful and desirous of a relationship.”
I have never defined God as all-powerful. That is your definition, not mine. I have defined God as coherent, first and foremost; then just; and only then very powerful within the limits of coherence and justice. Your definition is purely your definition, not mine.
” I don't think its fair to remove the obvious outcome of a definition once its been pointed out that it seems irrational. I should also mention that all the rules or definitions of god are from theists. I am just holding you to the definition.”
I refuse to be held to your irrational interpretation of theology. You are trying to force your interpretation onto a situation in order to show that it is not coherent, and in order to do that you – you – chose an irrational one to do the job. The omnipotent argument is a strawman, it is too weak to pass the muster. Don’t pretend to know what I think. Tell me the names of the theists that insist on your definition, please.
” No, even if only the barest fraction of reality is available to us (and it is), the only way to actually learn something about it is from observation and testing.
Can you point out the "connection between knowledge obtained non-empirically and rationality, and that any claimed knowledge is superstition "?
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_economic_argument.png
Seemed somewhat appropriate :)
I'm not actively denying any knowledge Stan, I'm questioning what knowledge has been presented. And you didn't offer any.”
Actually the following is the case, as opposed to what you write.
First, re-read your first sentence. You deny that there is any way to knowledge other than observation and testing.
Then re-read your last sentence. You deny that you denied that knowledge.
Now let’s look at what I presented. ” first principles of logic and rational thought. These are axioms that science relies on as a matter of necessity; they are known to be true intuitively. Any good philosophy of science book will show you that.” You continue to ignore these axioms at the peril of appearing to be proud of your ignorance. Here, I will give you more: moral and ethical knowledge; Mathematical knowledge; knowledge of rational processes; ability to intuit meanings from language; ability to intuit meanings from sensate inputs; ability to differentiate valid from non-valid. On and on. None of these are materially isolatable for investigation under microscopy or other instrumentation. In fact your rigid argument disallows any historical knowledge (it’s not experimentally replicable and is witness-based), which pretty much will leave you in the dark if you really held to what you say you know. So without historical knowledge, logic or rational thought, inability to discern meanings, inability to judge valid from non-valid, where are you left?
As for Feynman, I meant read the science. Throwing UFO’s into an argument about a coherent first cause makes no sense. I happen to agree with him on the UFO point. Besides, you are not allowed to make a philosophical argument because philosophy holds no knowledge according to you. I will start to call these errors more consistently as we go.
(continued)
” Alternatively, you can question the principles science is founded on, but it would be a massive leap to question its results.”
This statement is totally false. Science’s most basic axioms, the first principles, (of which you know nothing) are the basis for rationality itself, without which science could not exist, period. Further, the results of science are never taken as fixed, final, or even totally explanatory; they generally are tests of models, and they are ALWAYS subject to subsequent findings that might falsify the findings or overturn the entire paradigm. This is the Inductive Fallacy, which caught you unaware in your statement. Feynman said that all experiments should first retest all the prior science upon which the experiment depends, in order to know that the prior science is still valid. Einstein made his career out of questioning the results of science. I don't think you will get much mileage out of your statement when it is presented to working scientists rather than true believers.
"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."
-Hawking
Hawking, as I demonstrated in the article above, is desperate in his search for an alternate answer to the answer he doesn’t like. That is his prerogative, but he is under increasing pressure from the science community, including his prior associates, to be logically temperate rather than to step outside science in his attempts to use science improperly, which is damaging his professional credibility. To equate religion = authority is both incorrect (free will, which he both denies and admits), and it is a paradox as he uses his very own supposed authority to drive a religious viewpoint. It also is a categorization error because he lumps all religion together indiscriminately and then categorizes something that is non-existent. Moreover, it is an Argument From Authority Fallacy which he tries to hand off to those who don’t actually read his stuff but want to use him as an authority. [Hawking’s books are called the world’s best-selling unread books].
” And that's why it works. Newtonian Physics works, but not as well as Einsteinian Relativity. But both do work.”
Neither one works in a fashion that allows one to discern the meaning of this sentence. Not much of reality is concerned with the motion of particles, either up close (Newtonian) or at a distance (Relativity). Much of reality is concerned with the discernment of meaning from both sensate inputs, and from subsequent intuitions concerning these inputs, as well as intuitions respecting the meaning of meanings and other meta-narrative abstractions. Neither Newtonian nor Relativity physics has anything to do with creating a novel, or reading it; interpreting body language; designing a new communication system. Creativity is not in their scope; interpretation is not in their scope; design of previously non-existing things is not in their scope. I have an Einstein quote that says that, if you need authority for that.
“If you are comparing science to blind faith, then you are presenting a false dichotomy; there are other choices".
And those choices are? Please elaborate. With the end result being theism of course?
The choices are shown above. The end result is up to the intellectually honest, intellectually humble seeker of the boundaries of reality to discern for himself, not for me to force on him. But refusal to discern, or to admit that discernment itself is non-material and not subject to empirical scrutiny instrumentally, will result in nothing. It's actually totally up to you, as are all things educational.
Andrew-
1) Regarding gravity-
Note the difference between a formula and a constant. I said the measured value of the constant is uncertain now.
(this is from Nature 23 Aug. 2010)
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100823/full/4661030a.html
"Recent measurements of gravitational constant increase uncertainty over accepted value."
(This situation has nothing to do with what you mentioned)
2) No, I mean plausible. Is 'spooky action at a distance' plausible?
Is the 'tunnel effect' plausible?
Is the fact Einstein thought 'imagination is more important than knowledge' plausible?
Which of those three questions doesn't belong with the other two?
To quote Einstein (this time accurately)--
"Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, whose basis (principles) cannot be distilled from experience by an inductive method, but can only be arrived at by free invention.
The justification (truth content) of the system rests in the verification of the derived propositions by sense experiences."
Excuse the piling on--
I often read that if god is 'all powerful, then...'
I'm wondering what the experimental evidence for those statements is. (I mean did someone test an all-powerful thing to know what it would do? Where can I read about the results?)
I have never defined God as all-powerful...I have defined God as coherent, first and foremost; then just; and only then very powerful within the limits of coherence and justice.
Stan, is that not powerful enough to ensure that he can have a relationship with you, and that you can be aware of it? The qualifier of all- is unnecessary. And because this is a theistic god would you not also agree that this god cares about you and desires a relationship with you?
Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
It's a very common definition. You can likely walk into any church and find a similar description from the majority of the faithful. You might disagree with the atheistic position but I suspect you would also disagree with the preponderance of other theists.
moral and ethical knowledge; Mathematical knowledge; knowledge of rational processes; ability to intuit meanings from language; ability to intuit meanings from sensate inputs; ability to differentiate valid from non-valid.
Are these not the means by which we observe and measure? You are taught morals, you are taught math, you learn to differentiate meanings from language and sensate inputs and to tell valid from not-valid. It's knowledge, built on prior knowledge. These qualities do not require a god hypothesis to validate. I didn't say anything about a microscope.
Alternatively, you can question the principles science is founded on, but it would be a massive leap to question its results.
Yes that was a completely sloppy way to phrase that. Of course science-based results can and must be questioned and the falsification processes must be rigorous.
I meant the end result. After a couple hundred years it is pretty easy to look back and see that all the advancements of humanity can be attributed to a greater understanding of our world, which can be attributed to the scientific method.
I was hoping to hear you present something theology (not philosophy) has contributed.
Part of the reason Einstein got as far as he did was because of Newton. Standing on the shoulders of giants..
I thought the UFO quote was a good analog for god. You must admit there is a similarity between the claims of contact with god and contact with UFOs.
”And that's why it works. Newtonian Physics works, but not as well as Einsteinian Relativity. But both do work.”
Neither one works in a fashion that allows one to discern the meaning of this sentence. Not much of reality is concerned with the motion of particles, either up close (Newtonian) or at a distance (Relativity).
Seeing as reality is particles and physics the study of particles, I think it rather does concern reality quite directly. Saying it is not what allows us to discern the meaning of the written word is a brutal misdirection. Like saying geography tells us nothing of how the heart pumps blood. On the other hand, I believe neuroscience (which has roots in physics and chemistry) can do quite a bit to explain how we are able to read that sentence.
You said physics and relativity have nothing to do with designing a communications system? I think that's demonstrably wrong.. look into how GPS satalites work for a specific example of relativity in practice in our day to day lives.
Can you demonstrate that discernment is not material? As it is built on prior knowledge, and knowledge is certainly material (ie: if you damage part of my brain, knowledge is lost)
And those choices are? Please elaborate. With the end result being theism of course?
The choices are shown above.
Sorry Stan, I'm really not seeing them. You keep telling me how I'm wrong without presenting a convincing alternative. Even if I admit that intangible concepts exist such as morals exist (and I admit they do, even piranhas have a version) it still does not get us any closer to supposing a god hypothesis is required to explain such concepts.
Sonic,
1) Ah I see what you meant now. Certainly helped to include the article link. There are actually 8 different measurements listed, from 1973 to 2010. Agreed my other reply has no bearing on this article.
I could try and rationalize the findings, it seems simply enough to assert it is likely a measurement precision issue as the article implies (It may be down to systematic error, which is why it is so important to measure G in a variety of ways, he says. "People are obviously overlooking effects and not taking that into account in their experiments,") and should also point out that this is at an incredibly high level of precision. But the crux of the matter is: how does this imply god?
2) You had asked what made quantum mechanics and general relativity plausible? They work.
Is that not what that quote from Einstein says? "You can't directly experience the principles of physics, you can only logically invent them, and then find out if they are accurate via experimentation and observation"
piling on) Is it not obvious that these are thought experiments who's outcome is intuitively obvious?
This is why Stan insists that the O/O/O description of god is a strawman (despite its original introduction into the discussion by Martin, not myself) because it is logically incoherent.
”I have never defined God as all-powerful...I have defined God as coherent, first and foremost; then just; and only then very powerful within the limits of coherence and justice.
Stan, is that not powerful enough to ensure that he can have a relationship with you, and that you can be aware of it?”
It is and I am. But not until I was humble enough to be spoken to and to accept it for what it was. It took me 40 years to quit telling God who he was and to accept the humble listening part, and even then the process took time; here’s why: Humility is not something that one gains by pursuing it. Nor is it something that gives one bragging rights on his knowledge base. I’m not sure how to tell you how it is achieved except that it is a “backing away” into vulnerability, both intellectual and emotional. If one is not vulnerable to truth, then for him there is no truth.
The point is that it is not something to throw in God’s face: “My expectations are X and you failed to meet them”. In reality, your expectations mean nothing, and they get in the way – it is as much up to you, as you declare that it is up to him.
” omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.
It's a very common definition. You can likely walk into any church and find a similar description from the majority of the faithful. You might disagree with the atheistic position but I suspect you would also disagree with the preponderance of other theists.”
You are willing to attribute a lot of things to a lot of people you don’t even know. I doubt that you can back up your claim that a preponderance of theists believe any such thing is absolutely essential to the being of God. You didn’t even give a source for your supposed quote. You continue to make assertions that you don’t back up and which you would like to believe despite lack of any evidence.
If you are asserting that these attributes are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a personal deity, you are asserting something that not only can you not prove, but something that is not logically valid. If you want to argue against God, you should at least argue against a valid, coherent concept.
(continued)
”Are these not the means by which we observe and measure? You are taught morals, you are taught math, you learn to differentiate meanings from language and sensate inputs and to tell valid from not-valid. It's knowledge, built on prior knowledge. These qualities do not require a god hypothesis to validate. I didn't say anything about a microscope.”
(continued below)
You are first, asserting an infinite regress of knowledge, presumably with no beginning. Your assertion was that the only knowledge is that which is provided by science using experimental, replicable investigations of material reality. Your answer doesn’t seem to recognize your earlier position. Second, I did not mention any god hypothesis as I pointed out the types of knowledge that are attained through non-scientific means. You seem to have missed your own point and then my point. Third, how did the first person to gain knowledge gain the specific knowledge of how to use “the means by which we observe and measure”? In other words, did the knowledge of how to pursue knowledge just spontaneously occur?
”After a couple hundred years it is pretty easy to look back and see that all the advancements of humanity can be attributed to a greater understanding of our world, which can be attributed to the scientific method.”
This is a common error in viewing humanity. The human condition is not defined by science or technology, it is defined by its moral character. The moral character is defined within an individual, and that has definitely not been an area of scientific advance, nor of empirical contribution. In fact, the murderous cultures that exist – 250 Million murdered in Atheist tyrannies last century alone – still abide around the world. The common character traits that were once accepted as “decent and valuable” are now derided by a Darwinian culture that thinks it “came from slime and will return to slime” to quote Jeffery Dahmer.
You might think that science has improved living conditions, and it has. It has also provided AK47’s, landmines, A bombs, and bio-warfare. Science and technology are morally and functionally neutral, which means that the human condition is dictated by the wisdom of those who use them. (Not technical knowledge: wisdom). Wisdom is not provided empirically, unless your ideology is Consequentialism, where the end justifies any means to get it, which is empirically determined. Wisdom is another non-empirical type of knowledge.
”I was hoping to hear you present something theology (not philosophy) has contributed.”
I told you my experience, above. But what you seem to want is a conclusive argument on a piece of paper. Neither philosophy nor theology will give you that.
Actually I view theology as a superset of philosophy, because it includes rational thought and respect for logic and is inclusive, whereas philosophy and philosophers tend to exclude any thoughts but their own, and are by definition previously committed to Atheism and Philosophical Materialism regardless of whether those things meet the standards of coherence. So philosophers closet themselves in an area of thought that is completely closed off from inconvenient thoughts, by their wall of ideology. This leads to philosophical arrogance which is the opposite of the intellectual humility required to recognize inconvenient truths. It is necessary to be subordinate to whatever the truth might be, rather than to try to force a truth out of rationalized ideology. Neither philosophy nor theology provides empirical information, as I discussed before. They provide other types of knowledge (or they would be called empirical science).
Certain religions and sects do the same thing: rationalize things that they call truth. That has no bearing on finding the actualities. Rationalizing is a logical fallacy. And that includes scientism as an ideology.
”I thought the UFO quote was a good analog for god. You must admit there is a similarity between the claims of contact with god and contact with UFOs.”
That is the problem in trying to sort truth out of the claims of others. That is not how it is found.
Suggestion: Try this thought experiment: which is more coherent, Hawking’s claims for the spontaneous beginning of the universe, or the existence of a source for that beginning, a source that meets the cause and effect standards (cause is greater than the effect, prior to the effect, etc). Which claim meets with our understanding of logical requirements for the claim? Which claim meets with our observations of how the universe works?
No need to respond to this, it’s just a suggested exercise.
Stan,
Thanks for those responses, I found them honest and enlightening.
My issue with what I am learning is your concept of god is that it is essentially unreachable and unfalsifiable. No matter how honestly or fervently I seek this relationship, if I fail, it is easily laid at my feet that the fault is my own.
As I mentioned I was raised Catholic and hard a very hard time since I was a child accepting the Catholic concept of God. It seemed transparently man-made and contradictory. Despite this I did try very hard to have some sort of relationship with God, praying and whatnot. I certainly went through some incredibly vulnerable and emotional times.
It was not until I honestly investigated the claims of theists (as well as astrologers, palm readers, faith healers, ghost hunters, psychics, etc etc etc) and found them all lacking was the transition from disillusioned theist to atheist made. I'm not bitter about it, I'm happier than I've ever been. I just have such a hard time comprehending how others can hold such seemingly contradictory beliefs.
The quote was from Wikipedia. I also went to a Catholic school, raised in a Catholic home. From my personal experience, from people I actually know, O/O/O is a very common perception of God.
The point is that it is not something to throw in God’s face: “My expectations are X and you failed to meet them”. In reality, your expectations mean nothing, and they get in the way – it is as much up to you, as you declare that it is up to him.
You continue to make assertions that you don’t back up and which you would like to believe despite lack of any evidence.
I feel like your statements contradict each other or you are holding me to a different standard than ourself.
But that's fine, I'm not attempting to force you to defend the O/O/O god, but a god that is powerful beyond imagining (to the extent that it is not self-contradictory) and desirous of a relationship with myself. Furthermore you assert that such a relationship is as much up to me as to God. Well I am searching and continue to do so, as of yet however I have found no reason to believe. Obviously a very powerful god would be aware of what it would take for me to believe. So why is the existence of God not apparent?
I do not see an infinite regress or a conflict with my earlier sentiments.
You are taught these things. It is no more an infinite regress than to say a house is an infinite regress. Where did the bricks come from? The blueprints? The idea of a house?
An infinite regress would be: God created everything. Special pleading too since the next response is that God doesn't need a creator.
I guess I did miss your point. I assumed that your position was that issues such as morality, etc were derived from a divine source. If they are not dependent on God, why mention it?
In other words, did the knowledge of how to pursue knowledge just spontaneously occur?
No I think it is something you learn. It takes time and effort. Like figuring out how to Google (much easier than the Dewey-Decimal system). It's a gradual process.
This is a common error in viewing humanity. The human condition is not defined by science or technology, it is defined by its moral character.
Well you seem to be just asserting that. I wasn't talking about the human condition, but about knowledge (real, working knowledge with tangible results). However in that line of thinking, scientific advancements have given us the luxury of being able to act more morally. As less effort is required to simply sustain ourselves, our energies can be directed towards more humanitarian goals and less towards scratching out an existence.
Wow Stan. You accuse me of making strawman arguments and then throw out this ridiculous accusation of atheistic mass murderers and a quote by Jeffery Dahlmer? That's pretty despicable. I'm not using the epidemic of pedophilic priests, the inquisition or the stultification of school children with the insistence of teaching fantasy in school as an attack against theism.
To further press this point, the tyrannies of Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Stalin and Hitler were distinctly faith-based. The are state religions. No one would suggest what occurred in these lands was the result of too much inquiry and skeptical thinking.
Ignore that Stalin was trained in seminary, ignore that Hitler was an open Catholic and had a truce with the church.
Ignore the Netherlands and Europe which have some of the highest standards of living and lowest numbers of theists..
How about this quote "I've got one life to live this life of mine, one life to love this wife of mine..." There's an atheistic quote I personally think is beautiful.
Wisdom is another measurement of knowledge gained. No one enters this world wise, it is gained via trail and error. By observation and experimentation.
It is and I am. But not until I was humble enough to be spoken to and to accept it for what it was. It took me 40 years to quit telling God who he was and to accept the humble listening part, and even then the process took time; here’s why: Humility is not something that one gains by pursuing it. Nor is it something that gives one bragging rights on his knowledge base. I’m not sure how to tell you how it is achieved except that it is a “backing away” into vulnerability, both intellectual and emotional. If one is not vulnerable to truth, then for him there is no truth.
If this is your experience and your argument, than can you not see how others remain unconvinced? If someone told you this regarding Allah, Ganesha or the FSM would you be convinced?
I'm not disputing that concepts such as justice, wisdom and imagination are not valuable to humanity. I'm disputing that they are derived from theology.
About the UFOs again. Yes I was just reading up on Feynman and say that quote and thought it appropriate. I agree it is much easier to have a coherent discussion when you lay out your position on the table as you have just done.
Here's a couple other Feynman quotes.
“I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.”
“Our imagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to imagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which 'are' there.”
“Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong.”
"There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made."
"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."
Thought experiment: I have to go with Hawking. Not so much because he's a theoretical physicist and this is his area of expertise, (please note that this is not an Argument from Authority. Quoting experts within their field of expertise is not a fallacy), but because proposing a First Cause raises more problems than it solves.
1) There is no concrete reason to suggest such a being exist.
2) Such a being would need it's own explanation for existing.
3) It is argued that Occam's razor can be used against the argument, showing how the argument fails using both the efficient and conserving types of causality.
4) If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained. (Hume/Edwards)
5) Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics.
There are further reasons as well, but I think that's enough to establish firm ground for my point of view.
I'll propose my own thought experiment. What is more plausible, man created god, or god created man? Given that we have numerous example of man creating things both real and imaginary, and no examples of creation that can be unarguably attributed to a theistic God (the creation of the universe points merely to a deistic god, not a theistic god.)
Here's some more information concerning how modern theologists view God. This information comes from the only theology book [note 1] I have (these textbooks are very expensive these days). The book discusses omnipotence ("all powerful") in less than two pages out of 1253. Here are the main points:
”Finally, God’s infinity may also be considered in relationship to what is traditionally referred to as the omnipotence of God. By this we mean that God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power.
…There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of. He can do only those things that are proper objects of his power. Thus, he cannot do the logically absurd or the contradictory. He cannot make square circles or triangles with four corners. He cannot undo what has happened in the past, although he may wipe out its effects or even the memory of it. He cannot act contrary to his nature- he cannot be cruel or unconcerned….”
(emphasis added)
In fact, we have only hints of God's character. I'm sure that what is written above would be cheerfully modified if God were to make his character known to be different from what is discerned so far.
Also note that a theology book such as this one delineates differing discernments by other theologians where they exist; differing opinions get their play. What we think we know about God has the same constraints as science: it is contingent, not absolute.
Note 1: Christian Theology, 2nd ed; Erickson; Baker Academic,1983-98; pgs 302, 303.
I'm too ill to discuss much with you tonight, but I'd like to say this: I'm glad you are sticking around.
Although I don't know what you hope to accomplish since you accept only negative inputs and then wonder why you aren't in direct contact with God. I assume that you do realize that...?
I also should have warned you that my thought experiment was a trick, to see if you put any personal analytical time into assessing Hawking's analogy before accepting it. More on that when I'm better.
I can see that your thought experiment presents a false dichotomy, but I'll have to wait to answer it properly. I hope for tomorrow maybe.
Andrew-
My point is that using science to dismiss god is a mistake. I point out that many of the reasons that people give for believing that science has disproved god come from false beliefs about what scientists actually find.
How am I doing?
The notion that there is either science or god is a false dilemma.
Until that point is clear I'm not sure how it would be possible to see either clearly.
There may be other reasons to dismiss god (I can name many), but what we know from science shouldn't really be on the list IMO. (I realize that there are individual scientists who would disagree with my statement. I'm sure you are aware that there are those who would agree with my statement.)
Andrew:
Let’s compare the issues in the two thought experiments. Let’s take your thought experiment: First choice, did God create man. Valid question on the creation of man. Second choice was not on the same subject which is who or how was man created. The second choice changed the subject entirely to whether God is imagined by man. Entirely different subject, which is obtained by a sarcastic twist of the words in a single sentence, producing entirely different meanings, and in fact, entirely different, non-exclusive subjects.
So the comparison of two different subjects are used in dilemma format in a false comparison (pick only one of the two). The answer, of course is that both choices are plausible, and not mutually exclusive. Such phony logical fallacies fool only the logically unaware. It is plausible, on the subject of the creation of man, that God was involved. It is plausible, on the separate subject of man creating gods, that yes, that has happened. Not exclusive answers.
Now let’s look at my thought experiment for you: I gave you a clear-cut choice on a single question: the beginning of the universe. Choices: it had a cause; or it did not have a cause (spontaneous). Mutually exclusive, must be one or the other. Valid dichotomy.
This thought experiment gave you the opportunity to form a considered opinion on merits or demerits of Hawking’s premises and conditions which he used to draw his conclusion, and to then weigh the pros and cons and their logical viability in his conclusion, then comparing that to the same sort of analysis of the logical viability of a cause for the universe.
But you did not do that. You first chose the answer most compatible with your ideology. Then you sought other, non-related arguments to pack around your answer, arguments entirely unrelated to Hawking’s argument (especially the bit about parsimony – Hawking’s theory is not parsimonious). You chose those statements to support the conclusion, not the argument he made. This is classical Rationalization Fallacy, and is the specific marker for an argument being made from ideology ONLY, not from any attempt at rational analysis.
Ideology and Rationalization "know" the answer without any analysis required or desired, then choose arguments that give an appearance of supporting it.
This serves to decorate your motivations, as shown by your actions: You see no need to even learn, much less use, logical processes – that is not your purpose. You are functioning as an evangelical Atheist, determined to argue regardless of any logic involved or not involved. Your arguments lack the conviction of logical validity, or any attempt at it, or desire for it. For example you deny any knowledge that is not empirical/experimental, yet you use philosophical arguments with wild abandon, even disregarding their fallacies. Blatant ideological lock-down.
So I see no need to continue this discussion with you.
Oh, that's too bad Stan. You went from being glad I'm sticking around to seeing no reason to continuing the discussion with me overnight. Have a bad sleep?
But that's fine, I'm not attempting to force you to defend the O/O/O god, but a god that is powerful beyond imagining (to the extent that it is not self-contradictory) and desirous of a relationship with myself
Yet you responded with an argument addressing the fallacious nature of the O/O/O god concept .. again?
My opinion would be cheerfully modified if God were to make his character known to be different from what is discerned so far.
I also should have warned you that my thought experiment was a trick
Yet you are upset with me because you interpret some sarcasm in my own thought experiment? There was no sarcasm. The topic was not the creation of man but the creation of god. Either god (always existing First Cause) created man, or man created god. It is the origin of god we are concerned with here, I thought that much to be obvious. So .. no false dilemma? Again you appear to be peppering me with accusations of debating fallacies without addressing my actual arguments or rebuttals.
I arrived at the conclusion I considered most valid. I presented reasons for both accepting the authority of a theoretical physicist regarding theoretical physics and gave points why a First Cause is unnecessary. Any theory is parsimonious compared to an intelligent first cause.
Again you level fallacies at me without addressing my actual points.
My central point regarding a First Cause is that it is not an argument for theism.
This serves to decorate your motivations, as shown by your actions: You see no need to even learn, much less use, logical processes – that is not your purpose. You are functioning as an evangelical Atheist, determined to argue regardless of any logic involved or not involved.
This from the guy who yesterday lumped me in with all the mass murderers of the 20th century and Jeffery Dahlmer. And then total ignored my refutation of it.
And I've learned lots in the last couple weeks. I actually read the webpages referenced here. I read up on Feynman. I read up on the philosophy of science. It'd be nice if you actually faced my points and acknowledged my rebuttals instead of jumping on what you are frequently interpreting (incorrectly) as logical fallacies.
Shrug. I'm fine if you don't want to continue the discussion. I feel my viewpoint remains valid and there remains no rational reason to live as though a theistic god exists. I'll just continue to go about living a happy life without being worried that a fairy in the sky is judging me.
Sonic,
Science and/or logic cannot disprove a god does not exist. But it can demonstrate that any specific God logically cannot exist or is at best superfluous. For this reason I should have insisted on a concise and inclusive description of whatever god I am supposed to be not believing in at the beginning of the debate.
Of course it would be a false dilemma to say there is either science or god. Certainly there could be both. Hypothetically.
There may be other reasons to dismiss god (I can name many), but what we know from science shouldn't really be on the list IMO
I agree there are many who would both agree and disagree with your conclusion. I hold both positions myself.
I agree that it is impossible to disprove a god exists.
However, claims of any specific God necessarily create a definition of that God. Such a definition can always be pointed out as being invalid, and specific claims of this God's actions (raising the dead, flooding the earth, healing the sick, rescuing miners, a literal seven day creation, etc etc etc - there are no shortage of God claims) can be either disproved or shown that the hand of god was not necessary to create the resulting claim.
To the extent of my knowledge, all such claims fall into the later category, and the former category is a retreat from the claims of theism used to claim (correctly) that you cannot prove a god does not exist.
How am I doing?
Well, I'm enjoying the back and forth! But I think most of your points can be easily explained naturally. By the sensitivity of the instruments (gravitational constant) and uncontrolled variables and bias errors (scatter patterns).
So we seem t have returned to Laplace..
You say you have many reasons to not believe in a god that do not reference science? Care to share?
For our casual readers, here is what I said about Jeffrey Dahmer:
"The moral character is defined within an individual, and that has definitely not been an area of scientific advance, nor of empirical contribution. In fact, the murderous cultures that exist – 250 Million murdered in Atheist tyrannies last century alone – still abide around the world. The common character traits that were once accepted as “decent and valuable” are now derided by a Darwinian culture that thinks it “came from slime and will return to slime” to quote Jeffery Dahmer."
And my last words to Andrew are this: you are an ideological shill for Atheism; and you are a liar.
Adios.
In a moment that should have been much more well guarded, I indulged in the bit of intemperance demonstrated in my last comment, above. Now I am musing on whether to accede to a need for comity on the blog by either erasing or modifying the comments. Which brings me to consider the purpose of this blog, the post in question and to weigh the needs for commodious commenting vs rational behaviors and, what is actual and true.
The purpose of this blog has been to consider, within the boundaries of good logic on the one hand, and fallacy on the other, the propositions and premises of Atheism. We have been successful in being able to have conversations, many of them lengthy, debating various issues within those boundaries while maintaining an atmosphere of learning in a back and forth manner.
With the advent of the original post, Challenge to Atheists, I have been unable to corral the conversation back into its intended limits. The problem arises when a blogger wishes to maintain certain limits but commenters arrive who insist on dragging it beyond the limits of rational discourse into the arena of anti-rationality. This is acceptable for a time, while trying to explain what the limits of rationality are, and why they are needed. But when failing at that, and when the attempts to drag the comments back out of the rational arena evolve into fallacious charges, then the limit has truly been reached, and the conversation must be stopped. Otherwise, to accede to the demands of anti-rationalist would ultimately consume the blog in absurdity.
After considering the nature of the blog and the problems within the individual post, I mulled on the nature of my – shall we say – infelicitous response of exiting the conversation: Was it politically correct? Was it necessary for the blog? Was it an emotional response? Or was it valid and true, if blunt? I conclude that it was not, of course, politically correct. It was necessary, but poorly executed. It was an emotional response, but it was not logically incorrect nor invalid.
What to do? (If anything…) While I do rather regret the intemperate emotional aspect of my response, I do not take back the underlying meaning, which would much better have been like this:
When faced with false charges across the board, it only makes sense to respond gently and to quit the conversation. This is because the conversation is irreparably rent by lack of honest response and especially by dishonest charges. Thus there is no reason to continue, because honesty is necessary in an intellectual exchange, and there is none to be had in this conversation.
Yes, I think that is better said.
Andrew-
I just read Stan's last couple posts, and while I think they maybe overly harsh, I have to admit I think we are having similar difficulties.
The definition of god is 'first cause'.
If you agree that it is impossible to disprove a god exists, then you would have to admit that Stan's challenge "Prove that there is no God" is beyond your capability.
If you want to claim that there is no God without proof or evidence-- the existence of the universe is the evidence for first cause-- admit to yourself that is what you are doing.
If you want to attack a particular notion of God, that is fine with me, but realize this is what people do-- learn and change ideas over time. (Showing that Zeus doesn't live on a mountain doesn't disprove god anymore than pointing out that electrons don't always act like particles disproves the existence of electrons-- be consistent in your thinking).
One thing that I find interesting-- you seem to want to use 'intuitively obvious' when it suits, but then you want to use science (intuitively obvious doesn't work so well- just ask Feynman) when it suits. You may want to take a look at that.
Good luck.
Well.
I agree I think it is past time to end this conversation. It seems for some time we have been talking past each other instead of to each other.
A couple of parting shots if I might?
1) The original challenge was to an Atheist. Thus the challenge to provide evidence for the non-existence of a god surely must be a theistic god and not a deistic god. The goal posts have been moved. A first cause is not a theistic god.
2) I admit that you cannot demonstrate with 100% certainty that some incarnation that someone might call god may somehow exist in some form. I have freely admitted this multiple times throughout the conversation. If that is what you want to cling to, clutch it to your breast.
3) My original argument was to assert that any concept of god is supernatural in nature and since nothing supernatural has been demonstrated to exist, it is reasonable to act as though supernatural beings do not exist.
(The arguments for the demonstration of even a reasonable possibility for the existence of the supernatural have been .. unconvincing to say the least)
I was told that I was making a category error.
Now I then attempt to make more philosophical arguments and I am accused of being a liar and a shill.
All the instances of my use of the word intuit were responses to yourselves.
4) Stan. I have no idea what you are thinking. That quote does lump atheists in with mass murderers. That's EXACTLY what it does. To say I'm a liar and a shill because I say this is despicable not to mention demonstrably false is ridiculous. And ideological.
Any "charges" I have made have been in direct response to claims made or questions asked. I have attempted to respond to every point made, within reason. Your response has been to attack my tone, my 'category' and level (frequently inaccurate) fallacies at me while dodging actually answering any of my questions.
I'm quite comfortable with the arguments I've made quite happy to end the conversation and allow any readers to draw from it what they might.
Here, I will address just one of your persistent issues, above.
You say,
"My original argument was to assert that any concept of god is supernatural in nature and since nothing supernatural has been demonstrated to exist, it is reasonable to act as though supernatural beings do not exist.
BTW this is just the primary argument for categories and empirical testing of expectations within categories. If we can't come to agreement here, then we can't possibly communicate at any further level.
(The arguments for the demonstration of even a reasonable possibility for the existence of the supernatural have been .. unconvincing to say the least)
I was told that I was making a category error.
Do you not see that "super-natural is outside of natural? It is a separate category. The name and the category were created to accommodate things that are not natural (not within the category called "natural"). Hence they are in a separate category, which we call "super"-natural. Two categories, exclusive of each other.
If there are two categories which are exclusive sets, and something exists in one set and not the other, then it is a category error to expect to find it in the second category where it does not exist.
Natural and Supernatural are two separate categories where one cannot expect to find a supernatural entity by exclusive investigation of the natural category, where the supernatural entity does not exist.
Do you deny this? If so, on what grounds?
BTW, this is just a primary level of understanding of category levels. If we can't agree at this level, then it won't be possible to communicate further into the subject.
Ah! Very good Stan I will readily agree to this.
To clarify:
Super-natural is completely outside the natural and the two are exclusive of each other.
You seem to be saying god does not exist in the natural. I will agree to this.
How do you investigate the super-natural from the natural world? Two categories, exclusive of each other.
You seem to be saying you cannot. For all intents and purposes, this is my position as well. However I will not claim to have any knowledge whatsoever of anything that can be interpreted as super-natural.
If reality is natural, and super natural is outside nature, then the super-natural is not-real.
Put this way, our positions seem very similar, except for your assertion that you can indeed know the super-natural. Clarification would be most illuminating.
Here I will briefly discuss some of the other issues.
Jeffrey Dahmer was clearly influenced by both Atheism and by Evolutionary theory, as is the culture. And that is what I said. I did not mention you in the same sentence or the same paragraph.
When I point to a fallacy I give it a name which can be looked up if it is not understood. Usually I try to also demonstrate the applicability of the text in question to the type of fallacy. I believe I did so reliably in your case. I went into great detail in describing a false dichotomy and how it applied; your response was to re-interpret the words in a way not even suggested by the actual statement.
Your response to the category error issue was essentially: no it's not.
I am unaware of any questions I have not answered, repeat them if you wish.
I am unaware of you answering the original challenge, which was addressed to Atheists - who reject deity, per your own reference to the wiki definition in the more recent comment, above. No one that I know of calls himself an a-deist; the term a-theist serves to reject deity, deism, and theistic deities and theism. Your charge of moving the goal posts is not valid. It's this type of charge that brings question to your seriousness here. It is, frankly, a waste of my time to engage such silly things.
Now I will engage an issue you had earlier; to wit, I had encouraged you to stay around, then I wanted to stop the conversation.
Yes. Stay around - and read and go to the library, buy all the reference books you can afford, make learning a lifestyle. I had thought when I made that statement that our conversation might lead to actual analysis. But I quickly found that I would become embroiled in word games and definitional issues that were so far outside the bounds of logic that they were intractable. It is a waste of time to deal with such things as denial of obvious category errors and charges of slander.
I remain skeptical of the value of continuing this, but I will watch for your response.
OK, now that we have two categories, how would you define items that fall into the natural category? In other words, what definitive characteristic makes something "natural"?
Stan,
OK, now that we have two categories, how would you define items that fall into the natural category? In other words, what definitive characteristic makes something "natural"?
Personally, I would define items that fall into the natural category as "real" and things which do not as "imaginary".
Obviously you are not in agreement with this so I will ask:
Having two categories of existence which are exclusive of each other, you yet claim to be aware of the super-natural. I ask only that you substantiate your claim without contradicting your premise.
Let's stick with the argument and go one step at a time.
Real and imaginary are not measurable characteristics. E.g. what is "real", and how is it measured? We will need measurable characteristics in order to satisfy any empirical experiments that will need to be done. What are these characteristics that are testable, empirically, that are to be deemed "natural"?
Let's stick with the argument and go one step at a time.
That is why I split my posts up, one addressing your main point and the other addressing your secondary points. Not sure why you didn't post the secondary.
Something is 'real' if it actually exists. If it is measurable, observable, tangible and/or verifiable or has the potential to be so.
Imaginary things can of course exist, as concepts. But we are not talking about the existence of ideas, but of a personality, power and intelligence. ie: god
You cannot define God into existence.
I am unaware of any questions I have not answered, repeat them if you wish.
Having two categories of existence which are exclusive of each other, you yet claim to be aware of the super-natural. I ask only that you substantiate your claim without contradicting your premise.
C'mon Stan. You asked for a question you haven't answered. I responded and you still haven't answered.
This is the ultimate question here. If you can substantiate your claim of the existence of the super natural .. wow! I would be all over that.
It's so exciting hearing a claim like that, I can't wait for your response!
Post a Comment