uncaused causes

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I gave you a valid deductive argument for this, which you have yet to give any valid refutation of one of its premises.

Which argument did I not refute? I was of the belief I had addressed all your points.

Yes it does. It assumes natural law exist, another way to state that is there are consistent governing principles. It assumes causality hold. It assumes universality. You seriously need to take a good look into the philosophy of science.

No, it doesn't. We discovered those laws through scientific experimentation, and science must always remain open to the idea that our current interpretation is wrong.

Your argument is simply invalid.

Oh? All that a priori empirical evidence huh?

You asked how are a priori synthetic claims justified.... the answer is Empirical Evidence.

Have you looked into the history/philosophy of science? Be honest. Or are you just asserting this yourself.

I'm not convinced you understand the scientific method.

You need to read more into what causality.

Care to elaborate?

Your argument is hard to follow her. Are you claiming that in my argument you can substitute “any random person” with “God”. That isn’t so, belief in the existence of people is verifiable.

If you can't verify the existence of God, you are unjustified in asserting that such a being exists.

Refer back to my invisible, intangible, unscented dragon. Using your exact logic, you would be forced to accept belief in it as well.... Along with every other God in human history, plus leprechauns, fairies, pixies and any other conceivable unverifiable being.
 
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Which argument did I not refute? I was of the belief I had addressed all your points.
Irrelevant isn't a legitimate objection to a deductive premiss. They are relevant by virtue of deduction.

No, it doesn't. We discovered those laws through scientific experimentation, and science must always remain open to the idea that our current interpretation is wrong.

Your argument is simply invalid.
This simply doesn't address my point. I'm not saying our current set of natural laws are an assumption. I'm saying the fact that natural laws exist is an assumption of science.

You asked how are a priori synthetic claims justified.... the answer is Empirical Evidence.
what do you think a priori means?

I'm not convinced you understand the scientific method.
irony.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Irrelevant isn't a legitimate objection to a deductive premiss. They are relevant by virtue of deduction.

If you're using deduction, then you have proven your God is not a first principle. First principles can not be reached through deductive means.

This simply doesn't address my point. I'm not saying our current set of natural laws are an assumption. I'm saying the fact that natural laws exist is an assumption of science.

No, in and of themselves, they aren't. Science works off the best explanations we currently have for phenomena, it never assumes that things are know are absolutely true. The very concept is anti-scientific.

what do you think a priori means?

"From the earlier"


Care to elaborate? You're the one making blatantly incorrect statements about the scientific method.
 
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you're using deduction, then you have proven your God is not a first principle. First principles can not be reached through deductive means.
Again you intentionally misrepresent my argument. My argument aims to show that my belief in God is a first principle. My justification for believing isn't from deduction including this argument. I believe it is by divine providence. I understand that is circular. What you don't understand that circularity isn't a problem in first principles.

No, in and of themselves, they aren't. Science works off the best explanations we currently have for phenomena, it never assumes that things are know are absolutely true. The very concept is anti-scientific.
You again miss the point. Science based on assumptions. Are there governing principles to the universe? If you say yes what is your basis for this belief. If you say no what does science aim to establish.

Is reality objective, rational, and consistent? Do humans have the capacity accurately perceive reality? Justify these beliefs with science please.

"From the earlier"
Again you are being intentionally misleading. What does a priori mean in the context of how it is being used in this thread. You are either intentionally constructing arguments that are attempts at obfuscation or not bothering to gain any type of understanding of the terms being used. Regardless of which you are doing, you need to stop if you want this discussion to continue.

Care to elaborate?
Your understanding of the science is cursory at best as demonstrated by your claims about it in this thread. It also is not the standard view. Science is based on assumptions. That is a fact. I strong suggest you read a book book on the philosophy of science.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, after reading a bunch of your replies, it boils down to:
"I believe it's because I am chosen that I believe in God."

When pushed on why you started believing you keep mentioning this "irresistible grace" doctrine. So, as someone else said from the very first time you mentioned this doctrine: You believe "just because."
You are choosing to ignore everything i've said about beliefs in God being a priori, synthetic, first principles. This is a misrepresentation of my position.

Why do you believe any first principle?
 
Upvote 0

dcyates

Senior Member
May 28, 2005
1,513
88
58
Calgary, AB.
✟2,162.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I think you've missed his point. You argue that things in the universe have been arranged such that they are "just right" for human life, and that this apparent fine tuning is supposedly reason enough to suspect that some benevolent intelligence has arranged the cosmic arena in such a way to accomodate our existence.
Where have I used the word "benevolent"? I don't pretend to think that such characteristics or attributes can be derived based solely on the amazing fine-tuning of the universe.

Tyson rightly points out the absurdity of such a view. The perimeter of "just right" for human life is around only tiny fractions of a fragile world, in a universe dominated by "not just right" spaces that would result in our instant death. The universe hasn't been fine tuned for our existence.
I'm sorry but this is profoundly silly. Certain conclusions can be legitimately drawn from particular conditions that exist and are operative in one place. However, those conclusions are rendered null and void because those particular conditions don't pertain everywhere?
This is similar to you saying, "Look at this beautiful home. It's warm and comfortable, spacious, and fully stocked with food and everything else one would need. It's great living in such a wonderful house. Whoever designed and built this place sure did a great job." Only to have me respond, "What are you, stupid? Nobody designed or built that home, because all you have to do is step outside the house and you'll quickly see that's it's not that great out there! It's often either too cold or too hot, with way more hard surfaces than not, generally uncomfortable, at times downright hostile, dangerous and deadly, and unless you're wearing clothes all the time at the very least it tends to be awfully itchy. No way! I don't care what you think, there just APPEARS to have been someone who designed and built that otherwise terribly inadequate structure."
 
Upvote 0

dcyates

Senior Member
May 28, 2005
1,513
88
58
Calgary, AB.
✟2,162.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Please explain to me why you think my view introduces an infinite regress. My view is intended to avoid one.


eudaimonia,

Mark
Happy to, Mark. You mentioned a pre-existent "Cosmic Egg" that you claim morphed into the known universe. (Is that fair to say?) Where did that come from? From another "Cosmic Egg" universe? Then where did that one come from? Wouldn't this constitute -- even make necessary -- an infinite regress?
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,733
57
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟119,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Happy to, Mark. You mentioned a pre-existent "Cosmic Egg" that you claim morphed into the known universe. (Is that fair to say?)
Yes, that is fair to say.

Where did that come from?
It could not have "come from" anywhere, since I'm saying that it is the first thing that changed. That's what makes it the Cosmic Egg. If it was the product of change, it would not be the Cosmic Egg.

It exists at the start of change, so there is no infinite regress.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

dcyates

Senior Member
May 28, 2005
1,513
88
58
Calgary, AB.
✟2,162.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
As I said earlier, complex patterns can emerge from natural forces without the need for an intervening intelligence. Wherever there is the appearance of "fine tuning" you may want to invoke an intelligence. A frequently used example is the eye. It has been "fine tuned" so that we can see. But you don't need to invoke an intelligence in order to explain it. If the appearance of "fine tuning" leads you to conclude that there is always an intelligence behind it, then you must see an intelligence behind pretty much everything.
Sorry, Archie, I don't know how I missed this earlier, but here goes...

Even those otherwise naturally occurring complex patterns are only made possible by the underlying (and sometimes overarching) orderly and complex physical laws that govern the universe. That nature often exhibits wonderfully complicated patterns of fantastic near-infinite detail that can only be explained by employing incredibly difficult fractal mathematical formulas is, I think, of awe-inspiring significance.
So, in answer to your final remark, yes, as a Christian, I pretty much by definition see God in everything.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Again you intentionally misrepresent my argument. My argument aims to show that my belief in God is a first principle. My justification for believing isn't from deduction including this argument. I believe it is by divine providence. I understand that is circular. What you don't understand that circularity isn't a problem in first principles.

I am not intentionally misrepresenting your argument, I can't make sense of it. Accusing me of intentionally misrepresenting your argument is disingenuous and rude.

And how can you possibly show that belief in God is a first principle without using some kind of deduction?

Why don't we just cut to the chase and drop the crap... You accept it on blind faith.

You again miss the point. Science based on assumptions. Are there governing principles to the universe? If you say yes what is your basis for this belief. If you say no what does science aim to establish.

Yes, and again, the basis for this belief is empirical evidence. We can determine how the universe works through observation and experimentation. We don't simply assume laws exist and act on them, we must test and verify how things work.

Is reality objective, rational, and consistent? Do humans have the capacity accurately perceive reality? Justify these beliefs with science please.

I would imagine reality is objective, rational and consistent. I have no idea if humans have the capacity to accurately perceive reality. And why would I need to justify a statement you made, and I didn't?

Again you are being intentionally misleading. What does a priori mean in the context of how it is being used in this thread. You are either intentionally constructing arguments that are attempts at obfuscation or not bothering to gain any type of understanding of the terms being used. Regardless of which you are doing, you need to stop if you want this discussion to continue.

I gave you a direct translation of what a priori means. How can I possibly be intentionally misleading when I have no idea where you're trying to go with it? This is an ad hominem, you're trying to discredit me using personal attack.

Why don't you enlighten me to what you mean, because I gave the best possible answer that I was capable of. A direct translation of the Latin phrase. How you can claim that as misleading is beyond me.


Your understanding of the science is cursory at best as demonstrated by your claims about it in this thread. It also is not the standard view. Science is based on assumptions. That is a fact. I strong suggest you read a book book on the philosophy of science.


Likewise, your understanding of science is non-existent. I suggest you read a book on science and learn how it works in a practical sense.

Any scientific principle has empirical evidence and observation to back it. If it can't be proven (for lack of a better term) using empirical evidence, it does not qualify as a Scientific Law, or Scientific Theory.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
You are choosing to ignore everything i've said about beliefs in God being a priori, synthetic, first principles. This is a misrepresentation of my position.

Why do you believe any first principle?


Again, defining him into existence will not work. You have no justification to assume God is any of those things.

And you believe a first principle because it is self-evident, it's an axiom. God is not one of those things.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Happy to, Mark. You mentioned a pre-existent "Cosmic Egg" that you claim morphed into the known universe. (Is that fair to say?) Where did that come from? From another "Cosmic Egg" universe? Then where did that one come from? Wouldn't this constitute -- even make necessary -- an infinite regress?


All your God serves as is one more step in the infinite regress. It solves nothing.... Using Occam's Razor, God can be removed from the argument.
 
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am not intentionally misrepresenting your argument, I can't make sense of it. Accusing me of intentionally misrepresenting your argument is disingenuous and rude.

And how can you possibly show that belief in God is a first principle without using some kind of deduction?
I showed belief in God is a first principle using deduction. There is a huge difference between these two claims:
c1: I believe in God
c2: Belief in God is a first principle.

What you are doing is equivocating c1 and c2.

Yes, and again, the basis for this belief is empirical evidence.
Is your belief in these things based on science? If so demonstrate it scientifically please. Hint: you can't.

We can determine how the universe works through observation and experimentation. We don't simply assume laws exist and act on them, we must test and verify how things work.
Again you are misrepresenting my claims.
My claim: You must assume natural laws exist in the general sense before science.
What you claim my claim is: You must assume natural exist in the specific sense before science.

I would imagine reality is objective, rational and consistent. I have no idea if humans have the capacity to accurately perceive reality. And why would I need to justify a statement you made, and I didn't?
All of these must be assumed in science

I gave you a direct translation of what a priori means. How can I possibly be intentionally misleading when I have no idea where you're trying to go with it? This is an ad hominem, you're trying to discredit me using personal attack.
I have already told you the context i'm using it. I directly asked you earlier if you were familiar with the a priori a posterior distinction, we've been talking about it for pages. If you haven't been clear on the meaning you should of looked it u or asked me.

Why don't you enlighten me to what you mean, because I gave the best possible answer that I was capable of. A direct translation of the Latin phrase. How you can claim that as misleading is beyond me.
A priori and a posteriori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Likewise, your understanding of science is non-existent. I suggest you read a book on science and learn how it works in a practical sense.

Any scientific principle has empirical evidence and observation to back it. If it can't be proven (for lack of a better term) using empirical evidence, it does not qualify as a Scientific Law, or Scientific Theory.
My understanding of science is fine. I never have disagreed with what you are saying here. You seem to be unable to understand my claims about science and are disagreeing with them because you feel they challenge your position. All of the claims i've made about science in this thread have the consensus of both the scientific community and the philosophical community.


Look i honestly think you are now trying. Before i thought you were being a contrarian. I'm not trying to be mean or rude but my assessment is you are confusing several topics because some of them are new to you. You are confusing things like the scientific process with science itself, what a priori and a posteriori are, what a first principle is, logical inference, etc.

If you really want to have a real discussion about these things I suggest you do some reading or research because about half of your responses don't even make sense. Typically it goes like this: I make a claim about one of those topics and you respond with something unrelated or simply makes no sense.

If you tell me what terms/concepts you aren't familiar with maybe I can define them for you or give you a link to an article. But only if you are gonna actually try and read them neutrally, i linked an article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy earlier and you apparently didn't make an effort to see how it related to the topic and dismissed it out of hand.
 
Upvote 0

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I just reread the end of my post there and realized you may take it as rude. Look, i'm honestly trying not to be mean there. I have no agenda here. A central belief in my doctrine is I can't offer proof for my faith because my proof is both internal and a priori. So i'm not interested in converting you or any such thing. But you do seem to have knowledge gaps in a lot of the concepts we've been talking about which is leading to confusion. I'd like to see them filled so we can actually have a meaningful discussion. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you aren't familiar with some concepts so you can learn about them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dcyates

Senior Member
May 28, 2005
1,513
88
58
Calgary, AB.
✟2,162.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Apparently you failed to read the part after I said you're wrong, explaining why you were wrong....
Sure I did. I even quoted it. You next stated, and I quote -- again:
It's clear that's how things are.

Now if that's not an unsubstantiated assertion, I don't know what is.
Next you claimed:
You have no justification whatsoever to jump to the conclusion that an intelligence did it, or those numbers could have come out any other way than they did.

I don't mean to be this blunt, ellis, but this is nonsense. We discern and legitimately ascribe intelligent design to things around us all the time -- even in the "absence" of the designer. If we see flowers arranged in such a way as to spell out "Welcome," even though flowers are naturally occurring and there's no one around, we don't have a problem surmising that they didn't do that on their own; that there was an intelligence behind it.

I never asserted they did.
No, but it's definitely the implied result.
If you happen across a Boeing 747 parked in a junkyard that for all intents and purposes really had been assembled solely by a passing tornado, I kinda doubt your reaction would be, "Oh well. It's clear that's just how things are," and then justifying such a statement with, "After all, we have no legitimate reason whatsoever to jump to the conclusion that any other intelligent, purposeful forces were at work here."

The reason you are able to identify the CD as designed, is because you can contrast it with all the natural features around it that aren't.
The reason we're able to identify the CD as designed is because, by it's very nature, it evinces a designer. You can't tell me that if our memories were erased so that we had no prior knowledge of CDs, computers, or anything, but were still reasonably intelligent, and we were then placed in a completely empty space with absolutely nothing else around but the CD, that we wouldn't still rationally surmise that an intelligence designer lay behind it. Throw in a computer that we could enter the CD into and then actually see what it does, then -- Bob's your uncle -- there would be no question about it. (Or rather, "God's your Creator -- there would be no question about it.";))

Bill Gates is a computer programmer, not a biologist.
Are you either one? (Just wondering.)

I would guess his knowledge of DNA is comparable to the general population.
Lol! Ellis, I'm not going to pretend to know the complete context in which Gates made this statement, but I think it's probably safe to assume that he wasn't simply tossing it out there out of the blue. He probably said it in response to his looking into how DNA is structured and how it functions.

DNA is not a code per se, we write it as a code so we can easily perceive it... But to condiser it as some kind of encoded data is incorrect.
Again, nonsense. But I really don't care what term YOU want to use. Even microbiologists use the term 'code' because it describes the inner functions of a cell rather well.

Without comparable data, you can not generate odds. You'd need to have access to many universes to determine what the statistic probability of things turning out like they did in this universe is. They had a sample size of one, everything they did statistics-wise is speculation. Proper statistics don't work that way.
Hey, when it comes right down to it, ellis, your argument isn't with me, but instead with who knows how many astrophysicists and cosmologists (many of them non-believers) who have worked all this out and have come to basically the same conclusions I have.

I'm sure the scientific figures are accurate. But again, there's no reason to assume they could be "tuned" any other way.
Same as above.

That's basically what you're doing. We've explained to you why the fine tuning argument is nonsense, and you continue arguing it.
What have you explained? You haven't explained anything. All you've done is denied.
I think it was actually in response to you on another thread that I noted, "None are so blind as those who WILL not see."

Who hates God on here? Can you name names?


Oh, I don't have to go through the whole list, do I? Suffice it to say, everybody here with a little dark gray head beneath their 'names'.

Again, if you only read "and you're wrong", and ignore the explanation why afterwards.... then it's pretty weak.
Again, there were no explanations, other than insubstantial assertions, often totally divorced from either logic or reality.;)

If you actually read the full response, you could address the counter-argument, which is the strong part.
Hmmm. Maybe if I pull out my magnifying glass I'll see something.

No, he didn't... and I explained why.

Yeah, that's exactly what you'd need to create reliable statistics.

You're mistaking speculation with assertion. Nobody on here has asserted multiple universes do, or do not exist. There's nothing wrong with speculation though.

But it's not the best explanation. Even if the universe was indeed "finely tuned".... you still have absolutely no justification to assume it was an intelligent force, or God that did it. There is simply no evidence whatsoever to tie the two concepts together.
I'm sorry, I've got to hurry here. Perhaps I'll address any of these later. But for now I'll end with...
Yes, it is the best explanation, for all the reasons I've previously stated. It's not my fault if anybody simply refuses to acknowledge the result merely because they don't like what it would entail for them personally.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I showed belief in God is a first principle using deduction. There is a huge difference between these two claims:
c1: I believe in God
c2: Belief in God is a first principle.

What you are doing is equivocating c1 and c2.

By definition, you can't use deduction to determine first principles. First principles are self evident. They are axiomatic, the starting point of reasoning.

If you use reason, or deduce the existence of God.... then God is not a first principle. I fail to see what you're missing here?

Is your belief in these things based on science? If so demonstrate it scientifically please. Hint: you can't.

Be more specific, what things are you referring to? Every scientific law and theory is backed by empirical evidence. That's how science works.... What scientific law or theory is not backed by empirical evidence?

Again you are misrepresenting my claims.
My claim: You must assume natural laws exist in the general sense before science.
What you claim my claim is: You must assume natural exist in the specific sense before science.

All of these must be assumed in science

Again the reason we assume natural laws exist, is because we can observe the effect of the laws. If you drop a pen on the ground, you must assume there is a reason behind why it fell.... By the way, that is an example of a first principle... The beginning point of reasoning.

I have already told you the context i'm using it. I directly asked you earlier if you were familiar with the a priori a posterior distinction, we've been talking about it for pages. If you haven't been clear on the meaning you should of looked it u or asked me.

A priori and a posteriori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My understanding of science is fine. I never have disagreed with what you are saying here. You seem to be unable to understand my claims about science and are disagreeing with them because you feel they challenge your position. All of the claims i've made about science in this thread have the consensus of both the scientific community and the philosophical community.

The problem is you are considering the views of the philosophical community valid when it comes to justifying a truth claim about God. Philosophy is irrelevant, empirical evidence must be provided to justify a positive belief in the existence of anything.

If you can not show evidence, then what reason do you have to assume it's any more than a made up concept? There is no reason to assume it's true.

Look i honestly think you are now trying. Before i thought you were being a contrarian. I'm not trying to be mean or rude but my assessment is you are confusing several topics. You are confusing things like the scientific process with science itself, what a priori and a posteriori are, what a first principle is, logical inference, etc.

Ok, however the scientific process is what we use in determining the validity of a truth claim. That is why I am arguing from that angle. You can use all the philosophy you want, however without evidence, belief is still unjustified.

If you really want to have a real discussion about these things I suggest you do some reading or research because about half of your responses don't even make sense. Typically it goes like this: I make a claim about one of those topics and you respond with something unrelated or simply makes no sense.

I suggest you do the same, because your reasoning is flawed and nonsensical. We likely can't see eye to eye because we are arguing completely separate angles.

If you tell me what terms/concepts you aren't familiar with maybe I can define them for you or give you a link to an article. But only if you are gonna actually try and read them neutrally, i linked an article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy earlier and you apparently didn't make an effort to see how it related to the topic and dismissed it out of hand.

I am familiar with every term you have brought up, however I am arguing you have no justification for many foundational principles you are using to argue your point. We do not use philosophy to justify belief in the tangible existence of something. You are attempting to use philosophy in an area that is not applicable.

This is a scientific matter, and the scientific method should be used to justify belief. For the scientific method to be used, you require observation and evidence. If you can not provide empirical evidence, I am perfectly justified in not accepting your claims, and calling them unsubstantiated.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I just reread the end of my post there and realized you may take it as rude. Look, i'm honestly trying not to be mean there. I have no agenda here.

No problem.

A central belief in my doctrine is I can't offer proof for my faith because my proof is both internal and a priori.

Thank you, this is exactly what I have been arguing all along.

I reject your "internal" proof as baseless, due to your admitted lack of evidence. You are accepting this on faith, which is not compelling (or scientific).


So i'm not interested in converting you or any such thing. But you do seem to have knowledge gaps in a lot of the concepts we've been talking about which is leading to confusion.

It's not a matter of knowledge gaps, it's a rejection of how you are trying to justify your beliefs. I know what the terms mean, I just feel you are using them where they are not applicable.

I'd like to see them filled so we can actually have a meaningful discussion. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you aren't familiar with some concepts so you can learn about them.

Again, I am familiar with the concepts.

The fact you have admitted you can not provide evidence for your beliefs really is the end of the debate for me. If you can not demonstrate why your beliefs are true, I am not going to accept them as such.

Trying to use philosophy in place of tangible evidence is a complete waste of time when trying to determine the actual tangible existence of a thing, or being.

My invisible dragon scenario is an example why. Using your reasoning, you must put my dragon, your God, and Russell's Teapot on equal footing. If you accept God, and not the dragon or teapot, you are not being logically consistent... You are invoking special pleading for God.
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟52,315.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Now if that's not an unsubstantiated assertion, I don't know what is.


Are you saying the observable universe is not how the observable universe is? That's the point I am making..... And you're calling that unsubstantiated?


Next you claimed:

I don't mean to be this blunt, ellis, but this is nonsense. We discern and legitimately ascribe intelligent design to things around us all the time -- even in the "absence" of the designer. If we see flowers arranged in such a way as to spell out "Welcome," even though flowers are naturally occurring and there's no one around, we don't have a problem surmising that they didn't do that on their own; that there was an intelligence behind it.

You are perceiving things as intelligently designed, then asserting it as truth. What is your justification for tying anything that is naturally occurring to an intelligent force?

No, but it's definitely the implied result.
If you happen across a Boeing 747 parked in a junkyard that for all intents and purposes really had been assembled solely by a passing tornado, I kinda doubt your reaction would be, "Oh well. It's clear that's just how things are," and then justifying such a statement with, "After all, we have no legitimate reason whatsoever to jump to the conclusion that any other intelligent, purposeful forces were at work here."

The Boeing 747 argument is actually one of the strongest arguments against intelligent design when you analyze it.

God is by definition far more complex than the universe, and the ultimate perfection of intelligence. If it's unlikely that the universe could naturally come into being, it's even more unlikely that God could.

In short, God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.

The reason we're able to identify the CD as designed is because, by it's very nature, it evinces a designer. You can't tell me that if our memories were erased so that we had no prior knowledge of CDs, computers, or anything, but were still reasonably intelligent, and we were then placed in a completely empty space with absolutely nothing else around but the CD, that we wouldn't still rationally surmise that an intelligence designer lay behind it. Throw in a computer that we could enter the CD into and then actually see what it does, then -- Bob's your uncle -- there would be no question about it. (Or rather, "God's your Creator -- there would be no question about it.";))

If our memories were totally erased, we'd have no way of determining if the CD were designed or not. Furthermore, we'd certainly have no reason to justify a belief it was.

Are you either one? (Just wondering.)

I've done some computer programming. I also have a working knowledge of biology, however I am by no means a biologist.

Are you any of those things?


Lol! Ellis, I'm not going to pretend to know the complete context in which Gates made this statement, but I think it's probably safe to assume that he wasn't simply tossing it out there out of the blue. He probably said it in response to his looking into how DNA is structured and how it functions.

Perhaps

Again, nonsense. But I really don't care what term YOU want to use. Even microbiologists use the term 'code' because it describes the inner functions of a cell rather well.

That's not inconsistent with what I said. The code is a description of how the DNA functions. The code is how we perceive it.

Hey, when it comes right down to it, ellis, your argument isn't with me, but instead with who knows how many astrophysicists and cosmologists (many of them non-believers) who have worked all this out and have come to basically the same conclusions I have.

Who cares what astrophysicists and cosmologists have to say about statistics? In this realm, we should care about what statisticians have to say.

We have no reason to assume the universe could have been tuned any other way than it is. Please provide evidence that shows it's possible it could have been tuned differently.


Same as above.

Ditto

What have you explained? You haven't explained anything. All you've done is denied.
I think it was actually in response to you on another thread that I noted, "None are so blind as those who WILL not see."

We have explained why we have rejected the argument... You have given no reason to show why it's valid.

Oh, I don't have to go through the whole list, do I? Suffice it to say, everybody here with a little dark gray head beneath their 'names'.

So you're claiming we hate something we don't believe exists?

Ok.... Why do you hate Zeus?

Again, there were no explanations, other than insubstantial assertions, often totally divorced from either logic or reality.;)

It's good to see you are proof-reading your own posts. I would suggest you fix this base flaw in them though.

I'm sorry, I've got to hurry here. Perhaps I'll address any of these later. But for now I'll end with...
Yes, it is the best explanation, for all the reasons I've previously stated. It's not my fault if anybody simply refuses to acknowledge the result merely because they don't like what it would entail for them personally.


How can you possibly call it the best explanation with a total lack of evidence to back your case?

Your entire argument is "It looks designed, so God must have done it". That's the definition of the argument from ignorance.

Back it up with proof, or simply accept it's unjustified.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JonF

Sapere Aude!
Supporter
Dec 25, 2005
5,093
147
40
California
✟51,047.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
By definition, you can't use deduction to determine first principles. First principles are self evident. They are axiomatic, the starting point of reasoning.

If you use reason, or deduce the existence of God.... then God is not a first principle. I fail to see what you're missing here?
Again you confuse c1 and c2. I claim c1 is a first principle, i make no claim that c2 is a first principle like you are claiming. Are you even reading what i'm writing?

Be more specific, what things are you referring to? Every scientific law and theory is backed by empirical evidence. That's how science works.... What scientific law or theory is not backed by empirical evidence?
I'm not talking about scientific laws or theories, i'm talking about the fundamental assumptions of science. You claim science doesn't have fundamental assumptions. Here are a few. If they aren't assumptions as you claim justify them with science.
1) The world is rational
2) The world is consistent
3) The world is uniform
4) There exist unifying principles that explain phenomena (also called natural laws)
5) Human observations can be accurate
6) Causality holds

Again the reason we assume natural laws exist, is because we can observe the effect of the laws. If you drop a pen on the ground, you must assume there is a reason behind why it fell.... By the way, that is an example of a first principle... The beginning point of reasoning.
How do you know that is the effect of a natural law, or there is a natural law governing that phenomena at all? You ASSUME you are observing the effects of a natural because you presuppose natural laws exist. You use this to justify natural laws exist. That is circular reasoning. All evidence for first principles is circular.

BTW what you claim a first principle isn't. A first principle isn't an observation.

The problem is you are considering the views of the philosophical community valid when it comes to justifying a truth claim about God. Philosophy is irrelevant, empirical evidence must be provided to justify a positive belief in the existence of anything.
You don't know what claims fall under the prerogative of science. Your belief that all existence claims are only justifiable by empirical evidence is a minority view. Justify the existance of logic or math with science.

Ok, however the scientific process is what we use in determining the validity of a truth claim. That is why I am arguing from that angle. You can use all the philosophy you want, however without evidence, belief is still unjustified.
science is not the only thing used to determine the validity of a truth claim. There are other types of evidence that is apart from science. You would know this if you were willing to actually look up the a priori a a posteriori distinction

I am familiar with every term you have brought up
except ones like a priori, a posterior, first principle, philosophy of science, etc.

however I am arguing you have no justification for many foundational principles you are using to argue your point.
that's what make them first principle. I gave you a list of 6 first principles you hold to if you believe science generates truth. You have no justification for any of them either.

We do not use philosophy to justify belief in the tangible existence of something. You are attempting to use philosophy in an area that is not applicable.
this just shows your ignorance of the topic
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0