Creation and Causality

[The7thColporteur]

That's merely what you believe / claim.
Your statement, is not evidence of itself.

As stated, it is not incumbent upon me to provide evidence of God. It is incumbent upon God. God already has so done.

 

[HitchSlap]

There is no single dictionary definition of knowledge. "Knowledge" has a different semantic meaning whether you are speaking to a philosopher, scientist, educator, or a theologian. It's not a simple term to unpack:

Knowledge - Wikipedia

As a generic understanding of that term, do you mean that we can see some patterns of reality, remember these, and recognize these later?

In that case, I can certainly agree. If you mean something more than that, then you'd have to tell me how you define knowledge first.

I consider knowledge to be demonstrable, i.e. all objects fall toward earth at 9.81 m/s/s.

Great, moving on. So far we both agree...

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn / know some things about reality.

and #3 Independently verifiable, falsifiable models with predictive capabilities, work best in describing reality.

 

[HitchSlap]

As stated, it is not incumbent upon me to provide evidence of God. It is incumbent upon God. God already has so done.

I've already shown you to be wrong on this. Claiming god wrote the bible doesn't make it so.

 

[The7thColporteur]

I've already shown you to be wrong on this. Claiming god wrote the bible doesn't make it so.

You've made 'that' assumption again.

 

[HitchSlap]

You've made 'that' assumption again.

Unless you can produce a document signed by god himself, you're the one making 'that' assumption. How you fail to recognize your fallacy here, is, well, puzzling to a rational person.

 

[The7thColporteur]

Unless you can produce a document signed by god himself...

This is your assumption. Where did I mention anything about authorship of any writings in my statement about incumbency? You are continually assuming this into what I stated. Correct your error.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is your assumption. Where did I mention anything about authorship of any writings in my statement about incumbency? You are continually assuming this into what I stated. Correct your error.

Either men wrote the bible and claimed god told them what to say, or god his'self wrote it. If you fail to see the tautology in your reasoning, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse.

Have a nice day.

 

[The7thColporteur]

Either men wrote the bible and claimed god told them what to say, or god his'self wrote it. If you fail to see the tautology in your reasoning, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse.

Have a nice day.

Why do you keep mentioning the authorship of the bible, when I never mentioned this in the matter of incumbency?

My statement was clear in response to yours. Read it again:

... I make no claim this deity exists. It's incumbent on you to demonstrate this. ...

No. It isn't. It is incumbent upon God [who said, "I AM"]. And God already has.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why do you keep mentioning the authorship of the bible, when I never mentioned this in the matter of incumbency?

My statement was clear in response to yours. Read it again:



No. It isn't. It is incumbent upon God [who said, "I AM"]. And God already has.

sigh.... where/when did god say "I AM"?

 

[devolved]

I consider knowledge to be demonstrable, i.e. all objects fall toward earth at 9.81 m/s/s.

Well, no. That claim is not demonstrably true in a way that it's formulated. You may not thought through example, or you assumed that I'll fill in the blanks in your intended meaning, but:

1) All objects don't fall towards Earth, especially if they are outside of reach of Earth gravity. I certainly suspect that you've meant to say "in reach of Earth's gravity", but I'm pointing this out to show you that knowledge is a contextual concept.

2) You can't really demonstrate that ALL objects fall to Earth at that rate. We don't have access to all objects in the Universe to test that claim. Even if we did, it would take quite a bit of time to go through all of them.

All you can do in this case is test a few and make a generalized pragmatic assumption. Thus, knowledge can't always be demonstrable apart from our presuppositions and identity labels we can point to.

Nevertheless, let's move on to the next one, because it's more dense of an assumption.

and #3 [Generally, but not always], independently verifiable, falsifiable models with predictive capabilities, work [better] in describing [processes or entities of] reality.

First of all, I'm not sure how you jump from "we can know something" all the way to scientific models and fallibility principle. You are missing quite a few books-on-epistemology-seized gaps in there.

Secondly, such assumption was not in play until Popper came along in 1900s. Such idea was not an inherent assumption of scientific or philosophical thought. In fact, plenty of scientists to this day don't make such assumption, and instead argue that it should be retired as as a methodological presupposition. Take Sean Caroll, for example.

Edge.org

But, before we even get to scientific methodology...

1) I hate to be a stickler for precision, but "describing reality"? Reality is an abstract concept for everything that exists... even something that we may not be aware of as of yet. We can't "describe reality", just like you can't "describe freedom". It's an abstract concept. You can use it as a shortcut to say "everything that exists", but what we end up describing are isolated objects or processes that we assume are real. Reality is too broad to describe. Again, I suspect I understand what you likely mean by "describing reality".

2) Let's grant that you meant just that . Just like Caroll, I would disagree with such presupposition without prefacing it with "Generally, but not always". It's a generally good concept, but it can't possibly be applied to all fields of research. Much of our interpretation of history is neither independently verifiable, not it is falsifiable. Likewise, many historical models are viewed in hind-sight, so demanding prediction is somewhat futile. In most cases we are limited to subjective accounts of events, but we have no means to independently corroborating those apart from the authors who record these.

The same goes for a wide variety of sciences that rely on complex data to formulate hypotheses and theories... psychology, sociology, linguistics, etc.

I agree that it's a good principle to follow, given my bracketed amendments. I disagree that it's absolute to the point of the necessity to canonize it as axiom, especially when it comes to broader scope of research and claims that would be difficult to examine.

 

[devolved]

When they make faith based claims and then call that "knowledge" - that is pretending, yes.
..............

I'm operating on evidence and an extreme track record of empirical succes and faith-based failure.
.

I think you'd need to define faith and knowledge first before I can adequately respond to this claim. I'd imagine that your concept of both may be different.

If you are ignorant on a subject, then the amount of potential models you could come up with are practically infinite, only really limited by your imagination.

The chances of stumbling on the "right" model, are worse then winning the lottery 5 times in a row.

And let's not forget that once you settle on one of these models that were pulled out of thin air... you actually stop looking for an actual answer.


But that's not what faith is. You are confusing faith with ignorance. Ignorance is unawareness. Faith simply communicates a "singular way of knowing". Sure, the former will lead to many models, the latter is constrained by trust in certain claim.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, no. That claim is not true in a way that it's formulated. You may not thought through example, or you assumed that I'll fill in the blanks in your intended meaning, but:

Again not a trick question. To your point, we know how to calculate gravity with respect to two bodies of mass.

1) All objects don't fall towards Earth, especially if they are outside of reach of Earth gravity. I certainly suspect that you've meant to say "in reach of Earth's gravity", but I'm pointing this out to show you that knowledge is a contextual concept.

I never said "all." That was your erroneous assumption.

Gravitational calculations can be derived with respect to any environment.

2) You can't really demonstrate that ALL objects fall to Earth at that rate. We don't have access to all objects in the Universe to test that claim. Even if we did, it would take quite a bit of time to go through all of them.

That's the benefit of models having predictive capabilities, measuring the gravitational pull of all objects is unnecessary. A sound plane built in Russia will travel to the U.S., and vice versa.

All you can do in this case is test a few and make a generalized pragmatic assumption.

Incorrect, as 9.81m/s/s is independently verified and found so sound, that at this point in time, it is no longer considered scientific theory, but a "law."

Thus, knowledge can't always be demonstrable apart from our presuppositions and identity labels we can point to.

Knowledge is always demonstrable, otherwise we refer to it as an unfounded claim. Either I have knowledge of purple pixies farting universes into existence, or I don't.

Nevertheless, let's move on to the next one, because it's more dense of an assumption.

Whenever you're ready.

First of all, I'm not sure how you jump from "we can know something" all the way to scientific models and fallibility principle. You are missing quite a few books-on-epistemology-seized gaps in there.

Adding "quite a few books-on-epistemology-seized[sic] gaps in there," doesn't make our basal fundamental assumptions any less prescient.

Secondly, such assumption was not in play until Popper came along in 1900s. Such idea was not an inherent assumption of scientific or philosophical thought. In fact, plenty of scientists to this day don't make such assumption, and instead argue that it should be retired as as a methodological presupposition. Take Sean Carol, for example.

Edge.org

Great link. I like Sean Carol a lot.

"The falsifiability criterion gestures toward something true and important about science, but it is a blunt instrument in a situation that calls for subtlety and precision. It is better to emphasize two more central features of good scientific theories: they are definite, and they are empirical. By "definite" we simply mean that they say something clear and unambiguous about how reality functions."

The above quote doesn't bode well for those making god claims, does it?

(emphasis mine)

But, before we even get to scientific methodology...

1) I hate to be a stickler for precision, but "describing reality"? Reality is an abstract concept for everything that exists... even something that we may not be aware of as of yet. We can't "describe reality", just like you can't "describe freedom". It's an abstract concept. You can use it as a shortcut to say "everything that exists", but what we end up describing are isolated objects or processes that we assume are real. Reality is too broad to describe. Again, I suspect I understand what you likely mean by "describing reality".

Which scenario better describes reality, in your opinion:

1. People who intentionally seek to illegally defraud the IRS, risk being prosecuted for it, and possibly spending time in jail.

2. People who intentionally seek to defraud the IRS, risk being rewarded with an annual income of @300K per year, for the rest of their life, tax free.

2) Let's grant that you meant just that . Just like Carol, I would disagree with such presupposition without prefacing it with "Generally, but not always". It's a generally good concept, but it can't possibly be applied to all fields of research.

Other than theoretical physics, please describe a situation in which a model making unpredictable predictions is preferred.

Much of our interpretation of history is neither independently verifiable, not it is falsifiable.

Like Jesus Christ rising from the dead? All we can do is provide likely explanations, those that comport with reality. In the case of a dead man resurrecting, well, as they say, extraordinary claims require...

Likewise, many historical models are viewed in hind-sight, so demanding prediction is somewhat futile.

You fail to understand what having "predictive value" means. For instance, when an ancient text claims that millions of Hebrews were lost in a ten square mile of desert for forty years, yet zero archaeological evidence exists to support such a claim, the claim can be considered as having zero predictive capabilities.

In most cases we are limited to subjective accounts of events, but we have no means to independently corroborating those apart from the authors who record these.

Which is why science is better than religion for predicting reality, as it doesn't depend on one person alone. This is what "independently objectively verifiable" means.

The same goes for a wide variety of sciences that rely on complex data to formulate hypotheses and theories... psychology, sociology, linguistics, etc.

I agree that it's a good principle to follow. I disagree that it's absolute to the point of the necessity to canonize it as axiom, especially when it comes to broader scope of research and claims that would be difficult to examine.

Which is why Hume's Maxim and the like are necessary, lest we get carried away and suggest Thor throws lightning bolts from the heavens.

 

[devolved]

I never said "all." That was your erroneous assumption.

Please go back and look at what you have written.

 

[HitchSlap]

Please go back and look at what you have written.

This is what you're going to hang your hat on?

Either you think I don't understand how gravity works, or you prefer pedantry.

 

[The7thColporteur]

sigh.... where/when did god say "I AM"?

In several times/locations.

Did you need it to be presented in a written down format to be considered a factual account, or would you also accept oral?

For instance, since you seem to continually refer to the Bible [and its authorship], in Exodus 3:14 KJB, it is recorded as written testimony, that Moses personally witnessed God say this, but this was done before any such written account existed.

Therefore, I am simply asking you, are you limiting the evidence you accept to only that which is written, and only to the Bible's account?

Since it is incumbent upon God, to make God known, in what ways would you expect for God to make God known? Would you accept something which is outside of what you would expect?

 

[HitchSlap]

In several times/locations.

Did you need it to be presented in a written down format to be considered a factual account, or would you also accept oral?

For instance, since you seem to continually refer to the Bible [and its authorship], in Exodus 3:14 KJB, it is recorded as written testimony, that Moses personally witnessed God say this, but this was done before any such written account existed.

Therefore, I am simply asking you, are you limiting the evidence you accept to only that which is written, and only to the Bible's account?

Since it is incumbent upon God, to make God known, in what ways would you expect for God to make God known? Would you accept something which is outside of what you would expect?

He’s free to use any sufficient method it chooses.

 

[The7thColporteur]

He’s free to use any sufficient method it chooses.

Ok.

What did you mean by 'sufficient', as it sounds exclusive; and refers to only that which you will accept and expect, and nothing outside of such. Hence my question, about accepting that which is outside of your expectation.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ok.

What did you mean by 'sufficient', as it sounds exclusive; and refers to only that which you will accept and expect, and nothing outside of such. Hence my question, about accepting that which is outside of your expectation.

An omniscient god would know what it would take to convince me of it’s existence.

 

[The7thColporteur]

An omniscient [G]od would know what it would take to convince me of [God's] existence.

Truly.

[As a side note, I know of no one who claims of [lowercase] 'gods' who have omniscience].

 

[The7thColporteur]

Let's look at this from another angle.

Do you believe in beings [somewhat like yourself], but are non-human, that are benevolent and others malevolent? [ie. what are called 'angels' and 'devils', and 'a leader of devils']

An "angel*" or a "devil" would not be "God", neither omniscient. Is it easier for you to accept these, and the evidence for these?

Just asking.