What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

Fervent · Saturday at 6:59 PM

Hans Blaster said:
That's how science works. It only considers the natural. If someone can't handle that, perhaps they should stay away from discussions of science or the relationship between science and alternative explanations.

And how is "the natural" defined?

Hans Blaster said:
Anti-theists aren't part of a "faith".

Sure they are, their faith is in materialist metaphysics that they justify circularly through methodological materialism.

Hans Blaster said:
At least you recognize that.\

That anti-theists typically rely on circular reasoning? It's not me who needs to recognize.

Hans Blaster said:
Not from the science.

Sure there is, Libet's experiments, commisutory studies, Penfield's experiments all fit more comfortably with aa dualist framework but metaphysical baggage biases the field from being able to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Hans Blaster said:
I've seen no evidence to back this claim. There is absolutely nothing in QM that "challenges materialism". I don't know neuroscience nearly as well, but I've seen nothing from that field that does either.

Oh? Then why do materialists now retreat to a less-specified "physicalism" rather than mainting historic materialism? QM makes the typical claims of spatial extension untenable, as well as the notion that there is a fundamental physical to call "matter". Materialism has been undermined by QM by exposing that atomistic models aren't true and that the universe may very well be infinitely divided. That is also not considering the role that the observor plays in QM with challenges to mterialism like Wigner's friend. It's quite clear that metaphysics plays far more of a role in interpretating the evidence than naturalists are willing to admit, so they rely on a circular argument pointing to metaphysical naturalism to defend methodological naturalism and then defending methodological naturalistm on the metaphysics. It's a position that is impervious to evidential correction, and describing it as faith seems perfectly appropriate to me.

Bradskii · Saturday at 7:04 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
...an atheist may subjectively say, "I do not believe in the existence of God." But this is a faith based claim.

I don't have faith that there's no dragon in your basement. It's simply that I don't except the evidence.

Oompa Loompa · Saturday at 7:07 PM

Bradskii said:
I don't have faith that there's no dragon in your basement. It's simply that I don't except the evidence.

What if I showed you a picture of a what appears to be a dragon in my basement?

Fervent · Saturday at 7:08 PM

Bradskii said:
I don't have faith that there's no dragon in your basement. It's simply that I don't except the evidence.

Considering you deny that you have an immaterial will, your ability to evaluate evidence is suspect.

Bradskii · Saturday at 7:31 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
What if I showed you a picture of a what appears to be a dragon in my basement?

I'd think that you have a very low bar for what constitutes evidence.

Bradskii · Saturday at 7:35 PM

Fervent said:
Considering you deny that you have an immaterial will, your ability to evaluate evidence is suspect.

I think that you're confusing free will with the ability to logically determine the validity of a truth claim.

No, correction. I know it as a fact.

Fervent · Saturday at 7:37 PM

Bradskii said:
I think that you're confusing free will with the ability to logically determine the validity of a truth claim.

Without free will you don't "logically determine" anything.. You just happen to believe things that chemical and electrical signals demand you to believe. There is no "you" under materialism, only a collection of cells.

Bradskii said:
No, correction. I know it as a fact.

"I"? What is this "I" you speak of?

Bradskii · Saturday at 7:49 PM

Fervent said:
Without free will you don't "logically determine" anything.. You just happen to believe things that chemical and electrical signals demand you to believe. There is no "you" under materialism, only a collection of cells.

"I"? What is this "I" you speak of?

I see you're still having problems grasping this subject. I can't help you I'm afraid.

Fervent · Saturday at 7:53 PM

Bradskii said:
I see you're still having problems grasping this subject. I can't help you I'm afraid.

Uh huh...likely excuse. I'm having no trouble grasping anything, simply pointing out the obvious weaknesses in materialism that anti-theists are willing to swallow. If you can't recognize the evidence of your own thought life, how can any of your evaluations of evidence be trusted? You strain at gnats while swallowing camels whole.

SelfSim · Saturday at 7:58 PM

Fervent said:
Without free will you don't "logically determine" anything.. You just happen to believe things that chemical and electrical signals demand you to believe. There is no "you" under materialism, only a collection of cells.

Logic (and testing it) provides the reason basis for not having to be driven to believe. It is then a matter of choice.
I don't care much about philosophical imperatives like materialism when I can more easily test stuff.

Fervent said:
"I"? What is this "I" you speak of?

Self awareness is a fundamental for both sides of this equation you're advocating, I think(?)

Oompa Loompa · Saturday at 8:00 PM

Bradskii said:
I'd think that you have a very low bar for what constitutes evidence.

So I take it that a picture of a dragon like creature in my basement isn't evidence for you. Without physically going into my basement and seeing for yourself, what evidence would convince you that there is, in fact, a dragon in my basement?

Fervent · Saturday at 8:04 PM

SelfSim said:
Logic (and testing it) provides the reason basis for not having to be driven to believe. It is then a matter of choice.
I don't care much about philosophical imperatives like materialism when I can more easily test stuff.

Tests can only go so far, and I wasn't addressing you.

SelfSim said:
Self awareness is a fundamental for both sides of this equation you're advocating, I think(?)

It's not a matter of self-awareness, but determining what "self" is...under materialism there is no true "self" just a clump of cells following physical laws with momentary awareness. The persistence conditions of the "self" can't be met under a maaterialist paradigm, because our physical bodies are continually being changed. It is only by allowing for an immaterial thinker in some fashion that the self persists asa anything more than a momentary illusion. Complex theories of self are bound to fail, only an ontologically simple self separable from our physical bodies can justifiably be defended as existing.

SelfSim · Saturday at 8:11 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
So I take it that a picture of a dragon like creature in my basement isn't evidence for you. Without physically going into my basement and seeing for yourself, what evidence would convince you that there is, in fact, a dragon in my basement?

There isn't one though .. What there is, is a picture.

SelfSim · Saturday at 8:17 PM

Fervent said:
Tests can only go so far, and I wasn't addressing you.

Sure .. fair enough .. but I'll personally stand by those points, (as an aside from the one you're making), until someone shows me otherwise.

Fervent said:
It's not a matter of self-awareness, but determining what "self" is...under materialism there is no true "self" just a clump of cells following physical laws with momentary awareness. The persistence conditions of the "self" can't be met under a maaterialist paradigm, because our physical bodies are continually being changed. It is only by allowing for an immaterial thinker in some fashion that the self persists asa anything more than a momentary illusion. Complex theories of self are bound to fail, only an ontologically simple self separable from our physical bodies can justifiably be defended as existing.

Ok .. I understand. Thanks for showing the limitations of believing in philosophical positions such 'materialism'.
Science doesn't need that philosophy where it can't make it return practical value.

Bradskii · Saturday at 8:28 PM

Oompa Loompa said:
So I take it that a picture of a dragon like creature in my basement isn't evidence for you.

True. And it wouldn't be enough to convince you either. I'm not sure why you thought it might convince me.

Oompa Loompa said:
Without physically going into my basement and seeing for yourself, what evidence would convince you that there is, in fact, a dragon in my basement?

I'd need to examine it myself. And to save you some time, if you said there was a cat in your basement then I'd have no reason to disbelieve you. An ordinary claim needs no extraordinary evidence. Whereas the first actual example of a supernatural creature will need more than your say so.

As I said, It's a lack of evidence. Adragonism is not a faith position.

Bradskii · Saturday at 8:30 PM

Fervent said:
Uh huh...likely excuse. I'm having no trouble grasping anything, simply pointing out the obvious weaknesses in materialism that anti-theists are willing to swallow.

I'm not an anti theist. Some of my best friends are theists. I'm going out for lunch with one of them later.

Bradskii · Saturday at 8:35 PM

Fervent said:
...under materialism...

What would convince you about this dragon? Would you need some...how shall I put it...material evidence? Some physical proof?

AV1611VET · Saturday at 8:58 PM

Bradskii said:
What would convince you about this dragon? Would you need some...how shall I put it...material evidence? Some physical proof?

Will this do?

1. the dragon's documentation
2. time divided into Before Dragon and After Dragon
3. organizations such as the Red Dragons and Dragon Army
4. hospitals built by dragon worshippers
5. dragon artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
6. IN DRAGON WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER DRAGON in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments for Dragons and other literature displayed in public
9. dragon birthdays & dragon resurrections
10. dragon symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of dragons
12. garages and billboards erected to testify of dragons
13. two major nations founded on the existence of dragons
14. martyrs
15. dragon worshippers

Fervent · Saturday at 8:58 PM

SelfSim said:
Sure .. fair enough .. but I'll personally stand by those points, (as an aside from the one you're making), until someone shows me otherwise.

Ok .. I understand. Thanks for showing the limitations of believing in philosophical positions such 'materialism'.
Science doesn't need that philosophy where it can't make it return practical value.

I agree, science doesn't need such commitments and ideally would be open to non-materialist explanations. But science is done by people who are prone to biases and implicit metaphysical understandings. The hostility towards philosophy and metaphysics that is en vogue in academia only serves to reify the scientific model by adding metaphysical restrictions without due criticism. In theory, science will go with the best explanation. In practice, it serves to insulate naturalist philosophy from criticism through an embedded physicalism.

And the issues that are at hand between theists and anti-theists are precisely those smuggled in metaphysical commitments via the beliefs of scientists. In practice, naturalism=physicalism=materialism.

Defining what exactly science is, is itself a dicey question. Is philosophy of mind a science? Seems to me it involves the study of living beings and can be informed by other sciences and has implications on how we interpret numerous scientific datum, including how we understand QM.or neuroscientific studies. So it brushes up against life sciences. But few people delve into the challenges of creating clear demarcations of science.

Fervent · Saturday at 9:00 PM

Bradskii said:
What would convince you about this dragon? Would you need some...how shall I put it...material evidence? Some physical proof?

Personal encounter doesn't require "material evidence" and I have yet to be presented a clear definition of "physical" that doesn't either presume a naive(and false) understanding of physical, or is vacuous because it is so malleable it can mean anything at all. So perhaps you could take a shot at defining what you mean by "physical"?

What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads