Noah's Ark

#378
#378
PKT_VOL said:
You keep going around in circles. What are you getting? You are upset that science doesn't just attribute causes to God and be done with it?
Click to expand...

I think I'll just bid you good day. You seem like a smart guy, so I'll just infer that you're being purposefully thick.

It's been fun. :hi:
 
#384
#384
PKT_VOL said:
I wasn't. I was just going off what you posted. Feel free to clarify. :hi:
Click to expand...

I have clarified for six pages, so if you haven't gotten it yet... I don't know what to tell you.

I was not saying which was better, just pointing out that "science" as defined in this discussion has an a priori paradigm of materialism/naturalism. I've posted several times what the positive statements of that paradigm are and challenged anyone to show how they are not statements of faith. No one has been able to do so.

Now, specifically to your question:

You are upset that science doesn't just attribute causes to God and be done with it?
Click to expand...

You are using a fallacy of the excluded middle-- i.e. stating two extremes and not allowing a middle ground as an option. Again, I don't think you are as stupid as you often appear, so I'm beginning to just attribute motives.

One does not have to automatically attribute supernatural causes if supernatural causes are allowed in evidence interpretation. Sir Isaac Newton was a theistic scientist. There were innumerable before and after him. In other words, science got along quite well before naturalism falsely claimed sole possession of the scientific process.

(Is that what you meant by "just attribute to God and be done with it?")


Many scientists and philosophers of science are now coming out and stating the hindrance that materialism/naturalism is to the scientific pursuit. They don't seem to share the fallacious logic that you and so many others do.

Now, just so I'm clear. I always like a good debate. I'll make time for a good debate. You, sir, are not a good debate. So, again... Good day to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#385
#385
PKT_VOL said:
I wasn't. I was just going off what you posted. Feel free to clarify. :hi:
Click to expand...

If you were going off of what I said, you'd understand the actual point that I was making. Apparently you were reading sparingly? I was responding to another poster's assertion. The debate was about whether theist:

Start with faith and then interpret everything from within that faith.

I pointed out the materialistic/naturalistic statements of faith by science as defined in the discussion, and pointed out that they start with faith and then interpret everything from within that faith.

I really made little judgment call as to who should do what better.

Now, I've posted the articles of faith, as stated by materialistic, naturalistic science. If you would like to prove that they are not statements of faith, go for it. Otherwise, you are having a debate that I wasn't having.

So, I'll ask you again, to go reread the thread, try to understand the point I was making, and then only ask for more clarification if you still can't get it.

:hi:
 
#387
#387
Orange_Crush said:
I have clarified for six pages, so if you haven't gotten it yet... I don't know what to tell you.

I was not saying which was better, just pointing out that "science" as defined in this discussion has an a priori paradigm of materialism/naturalism. I've posted several times what the positive statements of that paradigm are and challenged anyone to show how they are not statements of faith. No one has been able to do so.

Now, specifically to your question:

You are using a fallacy of the excluded middle-- i.e. stating two extremes and not allowing a middle ground as an option. Again, I don't think you are as stupid as you often appear, so I'm beginning to just attribute motives.

One does not have to automatically attribute supernatural causes if supernatural causes are allowed in evidence interpretation. Sir Isaac Newton was a theistic scientist. There were innumerable before and after him. In other words, science got along quite well before naturalism falsely claimed sole possession of the scientific process.

(Is that what you meant by "just attribute to God and be done with it?")

Many scientists and philosophers of science are now coming out and stating the hindrance that materialism/naturalism is to the scientific pursuit. They don't seem to share the fallacious logic that you and so many others do.

Now, just so I'm clear. I always like a good debate. I'll make time for a good debate. You, sir, are not a good debate. So, again... Good day to you.
Click to expand...

So I was right that you are challenging the position that science does not accept supernatural causes. In other words, "just attribute to God and be done with it".

The problem, as pointed out several times to you, is that supernatural causes are not testable or falsifiable unless you take the pantheist viewpoint of what "supernatural" entails (like I do, since I am pantheist).

People back in the day, including a religious Newton, would state things we don't understand (yet) are a result of God. Fast forward to such mysterious topics such as abiogenesis, where we don't understand how it happens, the scientific community doesn't write it off to the supernatural creationism of the Bible. Thus far, there is only a weak thesis (as it has not been tested; but is falsifiable) has been put forward with much doubt to it's completeness and accuracy (I don't buy into random chance as you keep pegging me for). The difference is the assertion to caution, acknowledgment of a weak theory, and acknowledgment of uncertainty. Meanwhile, you preach certainty in a non-testible and non-falsifiable theory of Biblical creationism.

Another fallacious point in your reasoning is that science doesn't allow for supernatural causes. If all "naturalistic" causes or explanations are exhausted, then supernatural causes would still remain as the default. Supernatural causes, like non-genetic ALS diagnosis, is a matter of process of elimination. The fact that we continue to have better instruments of measure/observation, better understanding, better mathematics, better computers, etc we are able to increase the not only the scope of knowledge/observable/measurable phenomena but falsifiability of existing theories only helps get to that point faster.

As to your debate comment, I agree, this conversation could have went a lot better. You wielded the sword of skepticism well in cutting science off at the knees but did not want to continue that sword on your own argument. You did not want to build the argument back step by step and eventually abandoned it. Now, we are to this crossroad after a lot of posts of chasing your tail around. You could have started at this point (like you alluded to) but that wasn't your original intent as you could have articulated such from the beginning and skipped/saved us from the skepticism BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#388
#388
PKT_VOL said:
So I was right that you are challenging the position that science does not accept supernatural causes. In other words, "just attribute to God and be done with it".

The problem, as pointed out several times to you, is that supernatural causes are not testable or falsifiable unless you take the pantheist viewpoint of what "supernatural" entails (like I do, since I am pantheist).

People back in the day, including a religious Newton, would state things we don't understand (yet) are a result of God. Fast forward to such mysterious topics such as abiogenesis, where we don't understand how it happens, the scientific community doesn't write it off to the supernatural creationism of the Bible. Thus far, there is only a weak thesis (as it has not been tested; but is falsifiable) has been put forward with much doubt to it's completeness and accuracy (I don't buy into random chance as you keep pegging me for). The difference is the assertion to caution, acknowledgment of a weak theory, and acknowledgment of uncertainty. Meanwhile, you preach certainty in a non-testible and non-falsifiable theory of Biblical creationism.

Another fallacious point in your reasoning is that science doesn't allow for supernatural causes. If all "naturalistic" causes or explanations are exhausted, then supernatural causes would still remain as the default. Supernatural causes, like non-genetic ALS diagnosis, is a matter of process of elimination. The fact that we continue to have better instruments of measure/observation, better understanding, better mathematics, better computers, etc we are able to increase the not only the scope of knowledge/observable/measurable phenomena but falsifiability of existing theories only helps get to that point faster.

As to your debate comment, I agree, this conversation could have went a lot better. You wielded the sword of skepticism well in cutting science off at the knees but did not want to continue that sword on your own argument. You did not want to build the argument back step by step and eventually abandoned it. Now, we are to this crossroad after a lot of posts of chasing your tail around. You could have started at this point (like you alluded to) but that wasn't your original intent as you could have articulated such from the beginning and skipped/saved us from the skepticism BS.
Click to expand...

All that is a great debate for whoever would like to have it.

Are you posting to deny that scientific materialism interprets evidence within statements of faith?

Oh, and if you'd like to begin a dialogue that seeks to attribute your atheistic skepticism to my theistic worldview, I'd be happy to have that conversation. I didn't push it too far because you were making obviously fallacious, nonsensical statements.

Like:

No human can ever attain objective truth. (Or full truth, or whatever...)

You were the skeptic. My worldview does not profess such skepticism. Just the opposite. You seemed to agree with this several posts ago when you said it was the point we part on.
 
Last edited:
#390
#390
Orange_Crush said:
All that is a great debate for whoever would like to have it.
Click to expand...

It is the debate your making from your argument. You just don't want to face it.

Orange_Crush said:
Are you posting to deny that scientific materialism interprets evidence within statements of faith?
Click to expand...

Common man, we have went over the "faith" issue numerous times. Everything past Descartes's cogito takes "faith" of some kind. We have went over how "faith" is not universal but in fact different and unequal given what we are talking about; specifically the difference in "faith" between science (testable and falsifiable) and religious faith of all kinds (which cannot be tested or falsified).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#391
#391
PKT_VOL said:
It is the debate your making from your argument. You just don't want to face it.



Common man, we have went over the "faith" issue numerous times. Everything past Descartes's cogito takes "faith" of some kind. We have went over how "faith" is not universal but in fact different and unequal given what we are talking about; specifically the difference in "faith" between science (testable and falsifiable) and religious faith of all kinds (which cannot be tested or falsified).
Click to expand...

And you still haven't proven your point. I am saying you are wrong. Period. I am not talking about what faith we may have in trusting our senses. I am talking about faith in the statements of truth that our worldviews make. I posted the statements of truth that scientific materialism operate within. None of them had anything to do with faith in trusting our senses. To paraphrase, they included:

  1. The supernatural does not exist.
  2. All that exists is matter and energy
  3. etc...

Those are the statements of scientific materialism. Go back and reread. I quoted from within the scientific community.

Naturalism is

"a species of philosophical monism according to which whatever exists or happens is natural in the sense of being susceptible to explanation through methods which, although paradigmatically exemplified in the natural sciences, are continuous from domain to domain of objects and events...[thus, there cannot] exist any entities or events which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific explanation" (Danto, 1967, p. 448);

"the view that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature" (Audi, 1984, p. 372);

"the twofold view that (1) everything is composed of natural entities--those studied in the sciences--whose properties determine all the properties of things, persons included, ...abstract entities... like possibilities...and mathematical objects...and (2) acceptable methods of justification and explanation are commensurable, in some sense, with those in science" (Post, 1995, p. 517);

"the view that everything is natural, i.e. that everything there is belongs to the world of nature, and so can be studied by the methods appropriate for studying that world..." (Lacey, 1995, p. 604);

"the philosophical movement that "wishes to use the methods of science, evidence, and reason to understand nature and the place of human species within it"..."skeptical of the postulation of a transcendental realm beyond nature, or of the claim that nature can be understood without using the methods of reason and evidence"... and "the philosophical generalization of the methods and conclusions of the sciences" (Kurtz, 1990, p. 7, 12).

In my own definition, a synthesis of those above, naturalism is the philosophy that maintains that (1) nature is all there is and whatever exists or happens is natural; (2) nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal material elements--matter and energy--and non-material elements--mind, ideas, values, logical relationships, etc.--that are either associated with the human brain or exist independently of the brain and are therefore somehow immanent in the structure of the universe; (3) nature works by natural processes that follow natural laws, and all can, in principle, be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and (4) the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernature is non-real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical position opposed mainly by supernaturalism. It is not an ethical system, although a variety--pragmatic naturalism, a synthesis of pragmatism and naturalism--does develop ethical positions. Furthermore, naturalism is a subset of metaphysical realism.
Click to expand...

Note to above, the above is quoted and was linked from a paper defining the scientific process and scientific materialism.

Now, read the bolded above and either tell me that they are not statements of faith, or prove them.

Either way, stop equivocating while accusing me of equivocation.

Now, back to the chasing of my tail thing... And applying your skepticism to my theistic worldview...

I'd like to hear more about that.

You stated that no one can have objective truth.

Are you stating that as an objective truth? If someone did have objective truth, how would you test if they did or not, since you can't have objective truth and thus could not recognize of someone did have objective truth?

Why should I trust your statement that no one can have objective truth, since I can't trust that that statement is objectively true?

I claim that God is objective truth and He created us with the ability to understand and comprehend truth. I further state that Jesus Christ was the only person to ever have full, objective truth and thus I will listen to His testimony of objective truth and comprehend it to the best of my abilities.

Now, you may not believe that, and that's OK. But at least a person can believe that my worldview is believable and trustworthy from an internal consistency perspective.

Who would you believe first?

The person that states, "A person can recognize, understand and communicate truth. Come hear my truth claims."

Or the person that states, "It is the truth that no one can know the truth."
 
#392
#392
PKT_VOL said:
It is the debate your making from your argument. You just don't want to face it.



Common man, we have went over the "faith" issue numerous times. Everything past Descartes's cogito takes "faith" of some kind. We have went over how "faith" is not universal but in fact different and unequal given what we are talking about; specifically the difference in "faith" between science (testable and falsifiable) and religious faith of all kinds (which cannot be tested or falsified).
Click to expand...

Again... There's my point. Test and/or falsify the truth claims made by scientific materialism-- i.e that matter and energy are all that exists, etc... That is my point! It is the same kind of faith made in two different sides of the same question!

How can you not understand this?
 
#394
#394
:) This is one good thread that has been going on. I love reading all this from what OC has posted here in this thread. I've come to feel like I know a little bit more than I did before I started reading this debate. I hope there's no pop quiz at the end of the thread because I'm sure :loco: I couldn't answer the questions correctly from all the back & forth from different posters.
 
#395
#395
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
:) This is one good thread that has been going on. I love reading all this from what OC has posted here in this thread. I've come to feel like I know a little bit more than I did before I started reading this debate. I hope there's no pop quiz at the end of the thread because I'm sure :loco: I couldn't answer the questions correctly from all the back & forth from different posters.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I am just chasing my tail.

I literally give up. Would anyone else like to break through the forced equivocation and explain to PKT that:

  • The supernatural exists.
  • The supernatural does not exist.

Are competing statements about the same fact, thus both express the same type of faith. That they are at the very least, equally untestable and equally unprovable...

But, for that matter, the statement:

  • The supernatural exists and interacts with nature.

Would be more testable than:

  • The supernatural does not exist.
  • The supernatural may exist but does not interact with nature.

If the supernatural exists and interacts with nature, then we could test nature for its footprints. If it does not exist, or does not interact with nature, then we could never test for its footprint in nature.

So, in actuality, scientific materialism is expressing faith in less testable and less falsifiable statements than supernaturalists.

PKT will either purposefully miss the point, or genuinely miss the point because I am chasing my tail in all this. Would anyone else like to give it a try? Please?
 
#396
#396
OC....assume the last several pages of what you are saying is true. You have gone on at length about naturalism and supernatural vs natural, how science must prove this and that, how faith is needed, schooling the rest of us on logic, etc...fine. Take it the next step....

Apply all that on Christianity....put it to use. Why Christianity? What makes it different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#397
#397
Been there done that w/PKT_Vol a time or two in past threads. He seems too hard-headed at times to just really get down & humble himself to ask the Christian God to lead him to experience the rebirth of the spirit man that's inside all of us. I think he feels like he would be too embarrassed to tell anyone that he actually got saved through faith in Jesus Christ & it's actually really true. But the way some people are wired in their brains they won't allow themselves to let go & let God show the Love that only He has for those that come to Him & receive Him by FAITH.
 
#398
#398
And I still contend all this weeded conversation about philosophy is silly.

I have flat out said that there is evidence that would be more than enough to get me to disregard a previously held belief. Furthermore, I can come up with even more evidence that would get me to believe in a God, even Christianity.

You have flat out said you're not sure if there is anything that would get you to change your mind either way. If I'm mistaken, please include it in your response.

It all boils down to that. And comparing those two modes of thought as being cut from the same cloth is silly and absurd.



rjd970 said:
Specific? Many biologists have stated finding a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rocks would throw a serious wrench in theory. I'll even settle for any mammal to make it easier, but you wanted specific.

As far as abiogenesis, I still say a reproducible experiment showing a different alternative would be huge, but if that isn't good enough, a supernatural intervention for all of us to see would work too, and I'm being serious.
Click to expand...


Orange_Crush said:
I'm not sure there's much that could, to be honest with you. Having become a Christian, I have years of experience to call upon that proves it to me. None of it is sufficient to prove it to you, and I'm OK with that. You're OK with that. I promise. We're both OK with that. :)

I have years of miraculously answered prayers that defy the idea of chance. I have a relationship with Him that you have not experienced. So... (And I mean no disrespect by the comparison)

Your question is like a blind person asking me, "What would it take for you not to believe in the Sun?" Or a person in prison in Turkey writing me a letter and asking, "What would it take for you not to believe in your wife?"

It is what it is. Reread my posts. I have not once tried to prove to you that God exists. I believe in and value of faith. I'm just saying that my faith is well placed, and I don't expect you to believe it.

:hi:
Click to expand...
 
#399
#399
rjd970 said:
OC....assume the last several pages of what you are saying is true. You have gone on at length about naturalism and supernatural vs natural, how science must prove this and that, how faith is needed, schooling the rest of us on logic, etc...fine. Take it the next step....

Apply all that on Christianity....put it to use. Why Christianity? What makes it different?
Click to expand...

First, let me clarify... I do not consider this a pissing contest, and I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just point out when faulty arguments have been expressed. My expectation is that others will do the same, at which time I will clarify, amend or withdraw my point.

I never really said that "science must prove this and that". I've actually made the point that the scientific process is in essence agnostic to worldviews. I've redrawn the line between worldviews (supernaturalism/naturalism) as opposed to your statement that the line is between supernaturalism and science.

I spent a great deal of time explaining why I chose Christianity. I'm, not sure I understand your question. Can you please clarify?

I mean, I discounted many worldviews because they were logically contradictory and internally self-contradictory. Eastern Monism started its sacred text by basically saying, "What you are about to read is not "The Way", for "The Way" can never be known..." Yah. OK. That one went out.

Atheism did not fulfill some basic logical needs as I saw them around me.

I waded through a lot to get to Theism. I waded through quite a bit more to get to Christianity.
I'm not sure I am answering your question. Can you please clarify?
 
#400
#400
rjd970 said:
And I still contend all this weeded conversation about philosophy is silly.

I have flat out said that there is evidence that would be more than enough to get me to disregard a previously held belief. Furthermore, I can come up with even more evidence that would get me to believe in a God, even Christianity.

You have flat out said you're not sure if there is anything that would get you to change your mind either way. If I'm mistaken, please include it in your response.
Click to expand...

I actually said that I couldn't think of an evidence that you could give that would make me disbelieve. I never said that I refused to disbelieve. But I followed that later by saying that I would disbelieve if you gave me evidence. It's in the post I'll quote below.

rjd970 said:
It all boils down to that. And comparing those two modes of thought as being cut from the same cloth is silly and absurd.
Click to expand...

An addendum:

From materialistic scientists:

I am interpreting all of this within the preformed naturalistic philosophy. If my theory is disproved by evidence, I will change to a different theory within my naturalistic philosophy. If the evidence totally abolished my naturalistic philosophy (paradigm), then I may or may not change to a different philosophy/paradigm.

From the theistic POV:

I am interpreting all of this from within my theistic philosophy. If I come across rational evidence that threatens my theory, I will change my theory within my theistic philosophy. If the evidence totally abolishes my theistic philosophy, I may or may not change to a different philosophy/paradigm.

See how much different your example looks when the dividing line changes from science/theistic to naturalistic/theistic. When the dividing line is correctly drawn at the worldview level, then they don't look so different in practice, and you are not left to improperly grasp for yourself the "harbinger of truth".

Note: One of the reasons that I spend so much time studying the world around me is that I am very open to my theory of reality being challenged and amended. Even within my theistic worldview, my understanding of the Universe and God have changed greatly over the years due what I see around me. I expect they will again.

I am completely open to my theories being challenged and changing.
Click to expand...

I think that it doesn't seem so absurd a comparison when stated as it is in the above post.

It may seem less absurd when you consider that Christianity's claims are more testable than naturalist claims, as I mentioned a couple of posts ago.

:hi:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top