Early Man

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 09:20 AM Jerry Smith said this in Post #136

Whoops, one more thing. I forgot to address the point about logical positivism. If I am getting my terms mixed up, I am open to correction, but my understanding of logical positivism is that it is the notion that that which is not observed does not exist. Contrast this with the philsophical notion that that which cannot be observed in principle does not meaningfully exist. The error of the former is obvious. If there is an error in the latter, I have yet to discover it.

The error in the latter as applied to the theism/atheism debate is whether the tool is capable of observing.  Methodological materialism means that science can't directly observe the supernatural.  This is a limitation of science.  The flaw is in asserting that science is the only way to observe the physical universe and therefore equating what science can't observe to what can't be observed in principle.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 02:33 AM dnich163 said this in Post #134

I think we think too much here.

When we say that 1+1 =2, are you saying that this may not actually be true?

The fact that one rock "may" fall up does not actually make the theory (or reality) of gravity unproven...this may be something specific about the rock, or even a new facet of gravity.

I suggest that what you are doing here by a strict literal interpretation is what some of the fundamentalist scripture scholars apply to the Bible. David

What I am giving you is accepted philosophy of science and is agreed to by all scientists and all philosophers of science. Deductive logic (the logic used by science) cannot "prove". It can only falsify.

1 + 2 = 2 is a mathematical statement. Within the system of mathematics or other logical systems, there are statements that can be "proven" to be true.  However, Godel showed that in any logical system, there are some statements that are taken to be true but cannot be proven to be true within the system.

Scientific theories are not logical proofs.  They may incorporate mathematical statements as part of the theory, but the theory is not mathematics. In science, only the data rules. Logic is subservient to data.

That a rock falls up doesn't make the theory of gravity "unproven", rather it falsifies it. That is, it shows the theory -- as stated -- is wrong.  Now, what you call "a new facet of gravity" is modifying the theory; changing the statements.

Let's give an example using gravity.  The original theory of gravity is that all objects drop.  This worked fine until people got to first hot air and then helium balloons. Release them and they don't drop, they rise.  This falsifies the original statement -- all objects drop.  As you state, these balloons are different in that they invoke Archimede's Principle and displace more air than they mass. Therefore they "float" on the air.  So now the theory of gravity is modified to state: all objects that displace less air than their mass will drop.  Now, that theory continues to be tested and so far hasn't been falsified.  However, if we do find a rock that falls up, then that theory will be falsified.  It is possible the theory can be modified again, or it is possible that the theory will have to be totally discarded.

There are statements in science that are certain.  These are the negative ones; statements that have already been falsified.   The earth is not flat. Absolutely certain. Even if the theory that the earth is round turns out to be wrong, we will never again state that the earth is flat. 

The earth is not the center of the solar system. Again, absolutely certain.

Proteins are not the hereditary material (yes, that was once a theory, around 1900).

Each species was not created separately in its present form.

The earth is not less than 20,000 years old.

Geological strata and fossils are not the result of a world-wide Flood.

IOW, creationism is a falsified theory.

 

[MartinM]

Today at 02:47 PM lucaspa said this in Post #140 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650687#post650687)

Looking over your post, Martin, I realized a couple of new points. Look at the first paragraph, where I eliminated intervening material. The last sentence is Logical Positivism.  You've come full circle.  After first showing that Logical Positivism is untenable, you then assert as true the central conclusion of Logical Positivism.

Of course, atheism must do this.  After all, if you really follow falsification, then deity is possible.  Even though you pretend to be open-minded, you still try to come up with a criteria to eliminate the existence of deity (so much for simple "lack of belief").  Of course, your criteria still lets in deity, because seeing the Red Sea part due to the interference of deity gives you an indirect observation of deity

OK, let me get this straight. First you say that as an atheist I must assert logical positivism because I'm too dogmatic to accept the possibility of a deity. Then you say that my positivist statement does allow a deity! So, you insult me by accusing me of dogma, then compound it by insulting my intellegence - by implying that I don't understand the consequences of my own statements!

Of course, my criteria do allow the possibility of a deity. Thus the agnostic part. I do not claim that there is no god.

Now, have you realized just how arrogant and intolerant your statement "The rational one is clearly atheism" is?  This leaves out theism as rational and all theists as rational. 

Not so. My position consists of two parts - one, that there is insufficient information to determine whether or not there is a God. Two, that in the absence of such information, the rational default position is that there is none. Rational theism is not inconsistent with this position, since the first statement may be wrong. On the other hand, someone who agrees that there is insufficient information to determine whether or not there is a God but believes in one anyway is indeed, IMHO, irrational as far as that topic is concerned.

Atheists usually portray themselves as under attack by theists, but this is just as much an attack on theists as anything I have seen even the most virulent theist put out.  No room for doubt about the validity of your position, is there Martin? Or the invalidity of theism?

Yes, there is. Plenty of doubt. That's why I am agnostic, and that's why I made sure to stress that my atheism is a null hypothesis, a pragmatic assumption. You chose to equate that with belief. Not so.

Now, have you considered the implications of your position.  If theism is not a rational choice, then those that choose theism are not rational. Therefore their thought processes are flawed and can't be trusted.  Which means that we can't trust Dobzhansky and any of his work that led to the Modern Synthesis.  Worse, Darwin was a theist (and therefore not rational) when he came up with evolution by natural selection.  That means we can't trust natural selection.  And that, in turn, means you lose the only counter to the Argument from Design, which in turn means that atheism is not valid. 

Ouch! Count the fallacies! No, to say that someone who rejects the rational position once will always do so is argumentum ad hominem. Had an atheist made precisely the same argument, word for word, that Darwin did, would it have been more valid? Less valid? If a Raelian had done so? If Ghengis Khan had done so? James T Kirk? No, it is the argument that counts, not who delivers it. Your conclusion is invalid.

And there is also that "agnostic atheism". I've seen creationists twist terms around, such as macroevolution, but this tops any sophistry I've seen from them. 

I provided a neat, two sentence guide to my position above. Some call it agnosticism, some call it soft atheism. I call it agnostic atheism, as do others. Call it what you will. Again, it's the argument that counts.

I think it must be necessary for True Believers to end up with these types of arguments in trying to "prove" a position for which there is insufficient scientific data.

Never mind an absence of scientific data, it is a logical impossibility to prove the non-existence of a deity.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Today at 09:50 AM lucaspa said this in Post #141

The error in the latter as applied to the theism/atheism debate is whether the tool is capable of observing.  Methodological materialism means that science can't directly observe the supernatural.  This is a limitation of science.  The flaw is in asserting that science is the only way to observe the physical universe and therefore equating what science can't observe to what can't be observed in principle.

Then you move us along into a different debate. Is the supernatural unobservable in principle or only due to the limitations of science? I'll sit this one out. Too much else on my plate.

 

[MartinM]

Today at 03:04 PM lucaspa said this in Post #142 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650723#post650723)

There are statements in science that are certain.  These are the negative ones; statements that have already been falsified.   The earth is not flat. Absolutely certain. Even if the theory that the earth is round turns out to be wrong, we will never again state that the earth is flat. 

Perhaps equally important is the fact that the flat Earth theory could ever be asserted at all. That such a theory could be tenable rules out a great number of possible shapes. The Earth was believed to be flat precisely because it very nearly is flat. Thus even a wrong theory such as this threw out a large number of other possibilities. And while it was wrong, it took a relatively small refinement to correct it. The same holds for all theories - so while evolution may well be 'wrong' in some sense, the replacement would be a better theory of evolution.

 

[JohnR7]

11th February 2003 at 11:38 PM lucaspa said this in Post #132 What you have John, are the extinction of a few species of large mammals 12,000 years ago. How you extrapolated that to all organisms is beyond me.

The Gap Theory is not my Theory. There were some people who wanted to talk about it, so I am talking about it. No one wants to talk about my theory, so I put it on the back burner for now.

You claimed you could falsify the Gap theory, so I called you on your claim and now I am waiting for your evidence. In the last 10 years there are people doing DNA research that feel they have positive proof that modern man goes back further than 12,000 years, but even they speculate that the DNA goes back 40,000 up to 180,000 years. Of course there is no way to date DNA so it is all speculation at this point.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 08:05 AM Jerry Smith said this in Post #135

As I stressed before, the statement in question ("only material causes account for material events") is a statement of conclusion drawn logically from premises that are themselves valid under the epistemological framework of metaphysical naturalism or philosophical materialism.

Jerry, what is the difference between premises that can't be substantiated by empirical evidence and statments of faith? All you've done is push your statements of faith back to where I said they were: you have declared the ultimate nature of reality -- only material causes -- without any data to say that this really is the ultimate nature of reality. 

Philosophical materialism or metaphysical naturalism is atheism.  Both of those deny the existence of any supernatural entities or forces!!  What you are doing is trying to justify atheism as not a faith by referring back to atheism as a faith.  It's not exactly circular reasoning, but something just as invalid.

Since that epistemological framework is a perfectly valid one,... Both positions, metaphysical naturalism, and metaphysical supernaturalism, exist at the level of epistemology, which must be considered prior to methodological concerns.

Epistemology is figuring out how you know what you know.  Neither metaphysical naturalism (MN) nor philosophical materialism (PM) is epistemology.  Both of them start out with a priori statements of what what you know, not methods to figure out what is reliable knowledge. 

"Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Practically, this questions translates into issues of scientific methodology: how can one develop theories or models that are better than competing theories?"  http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html

As faith or belief, PM and MN are valid.  I don't know of any way to show absolutely that they are wrong.  But they are neither  knowledge nor epistemological systems.

No one is discussing faith as the abandonment of reason. We are discussing faith as a premise in an epistemological framework, as a means of knowledge that does not rely on reason.

Then you have all the wrong terms.  Now, the faith the the universe does not contain supernatural entities or forces is the premise in both MN and PM.  Yet you say that both of these rely on reason.

If you are really talking about faith as a premise in an epistemological framework, then science does indeed have statements of faith.  These statements are about the nature of the physical universe essential to do science in the first place.  They are that the universe is: 1. rational, 2. accessible, 3. contingent, 4, objective, and 5. unified.  These are assumptions (statements of faith) about the nature of the universe. So far, we have found nothing to indicate these assumptions are wrong, but the assumptions themselves cannot be reached by science.

nothing that science says can in principle have any bearing on the structure of those frameworks.

Thank you. You have just said that metaphysical naturalism is a faith. 

You seem to feel that no idea that cannot be derived from science can have any status other than that of "faith".

I'm saying that ideas without knowledge are beliefs/faiths.  Specifically, I am also classifying knowledge that is not intersubjective and objective among beliefs/faiths.

Theism offers conclusions, if you will, about the nature of the physical universe.  Butler gave those.  They are logically derived from the premises of his "epistemological system".  What's more, they are also derived from the personal observations of millions of people. You call that faith.  You also give "conclusions" about the nature of ultimate reality. But your "conclusions" are themselves premises about ultimate reality. What's more, they are based on what you consider the absence of evidence.  Now, we know that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  So, you don't have the epistemological basis Butler has, and I'm not supposed to call that faith?   

Science tells me that I will be injured by putting my hand in the fire, but (according to your view) it gives me no more certainty than the belief that, because my hand has magical properties, I will be able to put it in the fire and instead of being injured, my hunger will be sated. Both, under your view, are positions of faith. According to your view the idea that science tells us something true about the world is faith.

Huh?? How in the world can you say above that You seem to feel that no idea that cannot be derived from science can have any status other than that of "faith". which means that science is not a faith and then try to twist this that what we find by science is a faith?

What you are saying is that knowledge derived from philosophical premises is as reliable as the knowledge gained from objective, intersubjective data derived from the physical universe.

Now, why and how does science tell you that putting your hand in the fire will result in injury? By the formulation of a theory based on objective, intersubjective experience.  That is the theory: fire causes injury.  Putting your hand in the fire tests that theory. The theory has been tested enough that we accept is as (provisionally) true.

At the extremes we find religious epistemologies that take great certainty from faith, and atheistic epistemologies that give very little or no credence to beliefs that stem from faith. Faith itself is belief that does not derive from reason.

Ah, I see that atheists love to redefine terms even more than creationists.  Your first statement only makes sense if you presume the conclusion: atheism is not a faith.  But since that is the subject under discussion, you can't take it as a given.

I would say instead that we have a continuum of faiths from one extreme that faith in the existence of deity is taken with great certainty through a middle position of agnosticism where the existence of deity is not known to the other extreme where the non-existence of deity is taken with great certainty.  Both extremes rely equally on faith, since neither have the intersubjective, objective data that knowledge that fire will injure you has. 

Now, I totally disagree with that last statement: Faith itself is a belief that does not derive from reason.  The basic statments of faith underlying science do derive from reason, for instance.  So does my faith in the abilities of political candidates. Based on my observations of their actions and their statements, I reason what they will do once in office.  But, I don't know that they will behave that way, do I?  I simply have faith when I vote that they will behave that way.

I don't find your definition of "faith" anywhere in the dictionary. That's what I meant by your making up new defintions.  The relevant defintions of faith in Merriam-Webster are:
"b (1) <B>:</B> firm belief in something for which there is no proof (<B>3</B> <B>:</B> something that is believed especially with strong conviction"

Notice "no proof", not "not derived from reason".

Since we are trying to decide if atheism is a faith, I insist that we use the agreed upon definitions and not try to make up your own so that you can gain your point within your own definition.

Faith is empthatically not any belief that is not a conclusion from empirical investigation. Faith is any belief that is not a conclusion from reason[/i].

See above.&nbsp; Don't change the definition.&nbsp;

You completely miss the point: it is reason, not science, and not faith, that allows you tobelieve that PDGF has anything to do with mitosis in smooth muscle cells.

I never said it was faith. That is your misrepresentation of what I said.&nbsp; It is objective, intersubjective experience&nbsp;and the epistemology of science that allows me to conclude that PDGF is a material cause of smooth muscle cell mitosis.&nbsp;

Hume first realized that all knowledge is based on personal experience.&nbsp;

But we don't disbelieve only in those hypothetical forms of Santa and Leprauchans which have been specifically falsified. We disbelieve in all forms of Santa and Leprachauns, except those which have positive evidence for them.

Yes, you may "disbelieve" (believe they do not exist) in all forms but as you said, that is your belief/faith that all forms of Santa and leprechauns do not exist.&nbsp; Not your knowledge. That is the whole point of the discussion, Jerry. To make you realize where your knowledge ends and your beliefs begin.&nbsp; Thank you again for showing that believing something doesn't exist is a positive faith.

Continued in next post. Read that one before you answer, please

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 08:05 AM Jerry Smith said this in Post #135[/i]

But despite the fact that it has never been falsified, we disbelieve the idea that there is a Santa who brings toys to all of the children who have been good every year at Christmas.

But it has been falsified. And continues to be falsified every year.&nbsp; That's where you completely ignore data and sound like creationists ("there has never been a transitional fossil").&nbsp; Every year&nbsp;my parents put presents under the Christmas tree.&nbsp; And every year there were no presents that they could not account for.&nbsp; That falsifies that Santa brings toys to all the children (even falsifies it if you add the qualifier "who have been good" because I was a good kid ). And this experiment has been repeated millions of times in millions of households.

We don't doubt that the front of our Lucky Charms cereal box has the image of a small person with Irish features and a top hat wearing a clover on his lapel and waving a wand. However, despite the fact that it has never been falsified, we disbelieve that there are diminuitive people living amongst the heather in Scotland who are exceedingly crafty and difficult to see, and who will magically grant our wish if we should succeed in capturing them.

The image is an acknowledged work of fiction.&nbsp; That right there provides knowledge.&nbsp; Now, haven't there been empirical tests of having people live amongst and searching the&nbsp;fields of Ireland (leprechauns are Irish not Scottish) for centuries and failing to come across any leprechauns? Also, people have been at the ends of rainbows and there are no pots of gold, are there? Another empirical test.

Disbelief of this kind is not faith, nor is it derived from empirical investigation.

Well, I've just shown that these beleifs in the non-existence of entities are derived from empirical observation.&nbsp;However, let's grant for the sake of argument your statement that the idea of non-existence does not derive from empirical investigation.&nbsp; Then the "disbelief" is indeed faith.&nbsp; The idea that Santa and leprechauns don't exist is, according to you, not proven. Believing something that is not proven is exactly the definition of faith.&nbsp; (not your definition, but yours is biased based on your faith)&nbsp;

Now, the question you should be considering is whether these faiths are accurate.&nbsp; What degree of uncertainty is in these faiths that entities don't exist.

What you should also be asking yourself is that the situation you have just described -- rejecting the existence of supernatural entities without proof -- has been done by theists over the centuries.&nbsp; After all, theists have rejected thousands of versions of deity and the supernatural.&nbsp; HOW??&nbsp; How did they do that?&nbsp; What criteria did they use?&nbsp; Now, since these theists are capable of rejecting supernatural entities and are therefore rational according to your lights, why don't they reject Yahweh or Allah or the other current versions of deity?&nbsp; Or, put another way, although they are willing to reject particular versions of deity, why aren't they willing to reject the idea of deity in general?

When you get to the answer to that, you will realize that theism and theists fulfill your criteria that they accept entities for which there is evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:14 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #146

The Gap Theory is not my Theory. There were some people who wanted to talk about it, so I am talking about it. No one wants to talk about my theory, so I put it on the back burner for now.

You claimed you could falsify the Gap theory, so I called you on your claim and now I am waiting for your evidence. In the last 10 years there are people doing DNA research that feel they have positive proof that modern man goes back further than 12,000 years, but even they speculate that the DNA goes back 40,000 up to 180,000 years. Of course there is no way to date DNA so it is all speculation at this point.

John, what the data shows is that the divergence of sequences in DNA indicates that the divergences of all the people living on earth converge about 100,000 years ago.&nbsp; That is, it took 100,000 years for the divergence in DNA sequences to arise.&nbsp; If man were only 12,000 years old (especially starting with only one pair), those divergences could not be there.

I've given you evidence.&nbsp; Rings from successive bristlecone pines going back over 12,000 years, ocean cores showing no disruption of life or extinctions for 100,000 years at least, fossils of animals and plants (including anatomically modern humans) that are older than 12,000 years ago;&nbsp;peat bogs and cyclic depositions of organic deposits in lakes having an uninterrupted deposition for 40,000 years; coral reefs that show continuous growth for over 100,000 years with no interruption.&nbsp; None of these could be there if all life on earth were exterminated 12,000 years ago and replaced with a fresh creation. &nbsp;Therefore there is no "gap" in the continuity of life on the planet over the last 15,000 years.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 10:04 AM lucaspa said this in Post #142
IOW, creationism is a falsified theory.

Creationism has not been falsified. That is just wishful thinking on your part. Around 100 years ago, science decided to throw away their Bible, becasue they did not want to rewrite creation theory. They did not want to update the theory of Creationism to reflect the new things they were finding.

Science tried to put it off on the theologians and the theologians pretty much told them to take a hike, that they were busy with their own work, and that science should do their own job.

If Science is going to continue to come up with a bunch of nonsense that just does not line up with the Bible, then common people are either going to ignore them, or laugh at them.

Far to often science comes up with nonsense that the most uneducated of people knows is nonsense, because it does not follow common sense at all. That is why so much of the speculation of science is falsified.

People have been laughing at science for over 100 years now, because of this man evolved from the ape theory. So science to try and resume some degree of integerity changed the theory to say man evolved from a common whatever with the ape. Again, a laughable theory.

 

[MartinM]

Today at 05:42 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #150 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650937#post650937)

Creationism has not been falsified. That is just wishful thinking on your part

Kaboom! Another irony meter consigned to silicon hell.

Around 100 years ago, science decided to throw away their Bible, becasue they did not want to rewrite creation theory. They did not want to update the theory of Creationism to reflect the new things they were finding

No, they threw out Creationism because it was falsified. They kept their Bibles.

Far to often science comes up with nonsense that the most uneducated of people knows is nonsense

'Look at me, ma! I done got me edumacated!'

because it does not follow common sense at all. That is why so much of the speculation of science is falsified

Common sense doesn't come into it. If we followed common sense we'd still be scared of falling off the edge of the world.

People have been laughing at science for over 100 years now

Psst...John...they're laughing at you, not with you.

because of this man evolved from the ape theory. So science to try and resume some degree of integerity changed the theory to say man evolved from a common whatever with the ape. Again, a laughable theory.

There was no change, silly personage. Your inability to understand evolution does not invalidate it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Today at 12:25 PM lucaspa said this in Post #148

Yesterday at 08:05 AM Jerry Smith said this in Post #135[/i]

But despite the fact that it has never been falsified, we disbelieve the idea that there is a Santa who brings toys to all of the children who have been good every year at Christmas.

But it has been falsified.

No it hasn't. It has actually been partly&nbsp;confirmed by the fact that almost all children receive Christmas presents. Yes, Santa "uses" parents to bring those presents, but the hypothesis that it is Santa who is responsible is not falsified. Now if you could prove that a particular child who received no presents was not good, then you could falsify that hypothesis, but I don't think you can prove that. We have an unfalsified hypothesis that most of us disbelieve, and who do not account for that disbelief as "faith".

We don't doubt that the front of our Lucky Charms cereal box has the image of a small person with Irish features and a top hat wearing a clover on his lapel and waving a wand. However, despite the fact that it has never been falsified, we disbelieve that there are diminuitive people living amongst the heather in Scotland who are exceedingly crafty and difficult to see, and who will magically grant our wish if we should succeed in capturing them.

The image is an acknowledged work of fiction.&nbsp; That right there provides knowledge.&nbsp; Now, haven't there been empirical tests of having people live amongst and searching the&nbsp;fields of Ireland (leprechauns are Irish not Scottish) for centuries and failing to come across any leprechauns?

The leprachauns are very crafty. The icompetence of those searching for them to actually locate and capture one cannot falsify the hypothesis that they exist &amp; will provide the gold upon capture. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also, people have been at the ends of rainbows and there are no pots of gold, are there? Another empirical test.

No, not any detectable to the unfaithful. But yes, there are pots of gold there. You cannot falsify my statement, yet I am keen to know whether you are agnostic about it, or whether you disbelieve it on the basis of pure faith.

If you are agnostic about my hypothesis that there are pots of gold there, then I think you are loony. If you only disbelieve me on the basis of faith, then I think you are grasping. If you disbelieve me because of your application of reason, then you see what we all mean when we disagree with your assessment that weak atheism is faith. I believe that with regard to Santa and the leprauchans you will find yourself a weak atheist, and that faith will have nothing to do with your position.

Disbelief of this kind is not faith, nor is it derived from empirical investigation.

Well, I've just shown that these beleifs in the non-existence of entities are derived from empirical observation.&nbsp;However, let's grant for the sake of argument your statement that the idea of non-existence does not derive from empirical investigation.&nbsp; Then the "disbelief" is indeed faith.&nbsp; The idea that Santa and leprechauns don't exist is, according to you, not proven. Believing something that is not proven is exactly the definition of faith.&nbsp; (not your definition, but yours is biased based on your faith)

I think my definition is&nbsp;in standard use. Certainly&nbsp;more so than&nbsp;the "proof" requirement you have&nbsp;begun to espouse with this&nbsp;post. Reason and faith are&nbsp;two different modes of knowledge. Science is&nbsp;a tool of reason, but it is not the end all of reason.&nbsp;

What you should also be asking yourself is that the situation you have just described -- rejecting the existence of supernatural entities without proof -- has been done by theists over the centuries.&nbsp; After all, theists have rejected thousands of versions of deity and the supernatural.&nbsp; HOW??&nbsp; How did they do that?&nbsp; What criteria did they use?&nbsp; Now, since these theists are capable of rejecting supernatural entities and are therefore rational according to your lights, why don't they reject Yahweh or Allah or the other current versions of deity?&nbsp; Or, put another way, although they are willing to reject particular versions of deity, why aren't they willing to reject the idea of deity in general?

When you get to the answer to that, you will realize that theism and theists fulfill your criteria that they accept entities for which there is evidence.

Many theists do believe there is evidence for their particular deity. To the extent that they do, they are not engaged in science, per se, but they are applying a rational program to their construction of knowledge. However, the backbone of theism is faith that there is one particular deity, and a&nbsp;reasoned deduction from that faith that there are no other deities.

To say that atheism is based on&nbsp;reason is not to preclude the&nbsp;possibility that theism may also be based on reason. I have never claimed that theism must not be based on reason, though I do claim that the real backbone of theism is faith, because faith is a mode of knowledge that theists normally&nbsp;give&nbsp;a favored&nbsp;place to in their epistemologies. My statement has never been about theism and to what extent it is based on reason, but about atheism and to what extent it is based on reason. And in my case, my atheism is based entirely on reason, and not at all on faith, despite the fact that I cannot empirically falsify every conception of God.

&nbsp;

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 12:33 PM lucaspa said this in Post #149&nbsp;&nbsp; If man were only 12,000 years old (especially starting with only one pair), those divergences could not be there.

Civilized man is less than 12,000 years old. There still is no accepted scientific theory as to how stone age man "evolved" into a civilized man. Also in my opinion, there is not enough of a acceptable theory as to why civilized man has so many more diseases than stone age man did.

But now we are getting away from the GAP theory and getting more into my theory that the man God created on day 6 is different from the man God formed from the clay on day 8 of creation. The day 6 man was a "food gather" even if he did plant a few seeds here and there as he traveled around. But the day 8 man was without a question a "food producer".

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 12:48 PM MartinM said this in Post #151
Kaboom! Another irony meter consigned to silicon hell.&nbsp;

Is that the best you can do? O well, at least you tired.

 

[MartinM]

Today at 05:59 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #154 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650967#post650967)

Is that the best you can do? O well, at least you tired.

It's the best your drive-by assertions deserved. Come up with something of substance, and we'll discuss it.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 12:42 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #150 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650937#post650937)
If Science is going to continue to come up with a bunch of nonsense that just does not line up with the Bible, then common people are either going to ignore them, or laugh at them.

Translation: People would rather remain ignorant than be educated.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:43 AM MartinM said this in Post #143

OK, let me get this straight. First you say that as an atheist I must assert logical positivism because I'm too dogmatic to accept the possibility of a deity. Then you say that my positivist statement does allow a deity! So, you insult me by accusing me of dogma, then compound it by insulting my intellegence - by implying that I don't understand the consequences of my own statements!

I'm simply following the logical and testable consequences of your statements.&nbsp; I'm sorry if you take the results as insulting.&nbsp; You started out asserting the failure of Logical Positivism and then asserted as true the central claim of Logical Positivism.&nbsp; I can't help it if your statements are inconsistent.&nbsp;

It did occur to me that your statement did allow the possibility of deity because you (unlike Logical Positivism) had included indirect effects of deity.&nbsp; Logical Positivism didn't include indirect effects but only observation.&nbsp; That atoms were asserted to exist but could not be (directly) observed was another fallacy of Logical Positivism.&nbsp; Therefore, the way you worded your criteria did allow not only the possibility of deity, but may also have provided the "proof" of deity by admitting indirect effects. Now if you want to deny the existence of deity, you are going to have to attack the accuracy of any observation of indirect effects attributed to deity. That puts you in the unenviable position (shared by creationists) of having to deny data.

What I am saying is that atheism has to find a way to eliminate deity without the use of scientific falsification.&nbsp; Because science has no data that will falsify the existence of deity.

Of course, my criteria do allow the possibility of a deity. Thus the agnostic part. I do not claim that there is no god[/i].

You are confusing your personal position with the general idea of atheism.&nbsp; It could be that your position is not athiesm.

Let's go back to basics, Martin.&nbsp; The basic question is:&nbsp; Does a deity(ies) exist?&nbsp; There are 3 possible answers:
1. I believe deity exists.&nbsp; This is theism, deism, polytheism.
2. I believe a deity does not exist. This is atheism.
3. I don't know whether a deity exists or not.&nbsp; This is agnosticism.

Now, the "lack of belief" stated "I do not believe a deity exists" is the same as saying "I believe a deity does not exist."&nbsp; Although Jerry wants to deny the semantic equivalence, I can't find a way around it and all Jerry's attempts have failed.

Not so. My position consists of two parts - one, that there is insufficient information to determine whether or not there is a God. Two, that in the absence of such information, the rational default position is that there is none.

"Insufficient information" to whom?&nbsp; You?&nbsp; Orahlicon?&nbsp; Lewis Wildermuth?&nbsp; Those two consider the evidence to be sufficient.&nbsp; So there is obviously a judgement call on your part on what consists of "sufficient information". However, I don't want to argue you out of your personal beliefs, but to point out to you that you are already making a judgement call and not a statement of fact.&nbsp; Your premise is open to&nbsp;doubt.

Now, why would the "rational default position" be that there is no deity?&nbsp; Why is that any more rational than that there is one?&nbsp; Let's take this outside of religion and see if we use this criteria elsewhere.&nbsp; In science, there is insufficient information to determine whether there are tachyons.&nbsp; Is the rational default position that there are none? Why? Why should tachyons not exist any more than they do exist?&nbsp; If we applied this criteria to the 4 hypotheses on the origin of the universe that don't involve deity, we would rationally conclude, by your criteria, that those hypotheses are false.&nbsp; But if we do that, then we are left with nothing to counter the hypothesis that deity created the universe.&nbsp; So using your criteria, we would have to be theists.

Since your criteria is not used elsewhere and its use elsewhere would result in countering your "rational default position", I have to conclude that your criteria is flawed.

But the fact that Rational theism is not inconsistent with this position, since the first statement may be wrong. On the other hand, someone who agrees that there is insufficient information to determine whether or not there is a God but believes in one anyway is indeed, IMHO, irrational as far as that topic is concerned.

Yes, there is. Plenty of doubt. That's why I am agnostic, and that's why I made sure to stress that my atheism is a null hypothesis, a pragmatic assumption.

If you are agnostic, then you are not atheist.&nbsp; Go back to the basic question. The two positions are separate.

Now, if you really choose atheism on pragmatism, then you are immediately confronted by questions concerning the physical universe.&nbsp; And these questions make your "pragmatic assumption" untenable.&nbsp; In particular, when looking at the material causes discovered by science, we are confronted by the question: are these the only causes?&nbsp; Is there also another cause?&nbsp; Or put another way, you have Butler's statement:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once."&nbsp; Butler:&nbsp; Analogy of Revealed Religion.

If you agree with Butler, you are a theist.&nbsp; If you look at Bulter's statement and say "I don't know whether the natural requires an intelligent agent to render it so" you are agnostic.&nbsp; If, however, you disagree with Butler and say that natural causes do not have a supernatural component, then you have just made a positive staement of faith.&nbsp; The next question is: why isn't an intelligent entity required for the natural?&nbsp; One answer is: there is no intelligent agent or supernatural, at which poiint you are an atheist.&nbsp; Or you could say, an intelligent agent or the supernatural just doesn't affect anything "natural".&nbsp; But that itself is a belief, because you don't know that and you are implying belief in the supernatural.&nbsp; You then are faced with the further question: just what does the supernatural do then?

You chose to equate that with belief.

I choose to conclude it is belief based on the reasons I've given you.


No, to say that someone who rejects the rational position once will always do so is argumentum ad hominem. Had an atheist made precisely the same argument, word for word, that Darwin did, would it have been more valid? Less valid? If a Raelian had done so? If Ghengis Khan had done so? James T Kirk? No, it is the argument that counts, not who delivers it. Your conclusion is invalid.

A good reply. However, it relies on the premise that rationality is compartmentalized.&nbsp; Also, I'll throw those questions back at you: would the argument Darwin made be more valid if made by an atheist?&nbsp; Then you would have known that the individual was rational, wouldn't you?&nbsp; Hugh Ross makes an argument for the existence of deity based on the Big Bang. Do you consider that argument more or less valid because Ross is a theist?

You gave no indication that rationality is compartmentalized. If a person is incapable of rational thought in one area, doesn't that call into suspicion his rationality elsewhere? DNAUnion certainly thinks so when he rejects all claims by Miller based on&nbsp;Miller's supposed flawed arguments&nbsp;against Behe.&nbsp; So do atheists when they argue that if one part of the Bible is wrong, then all of it is wrong.

What we also have to consider&nbsp;is that&nbsp;in Origin Darwin used a lot of data as justification of his theory.&nbsp; If Darwin was not rational, could he rationally and objectively observe?&nbsp; After all, all data is personal experience, which relies on the person making the observation to be sane (rational).&nbsp; So, can we rely on Darwin's and Dobzhansky's data supporting evolution?

Call it what you will. Again, it's the argument that counts.

Since the argument is flawed, I guess it doesn't matter what we call it as long as we call it wrong.

Never mind an absence of scientific data, it is a logical impossibility to prove the non-existence of a deity.

Why? Science has proved the non-existence of hundreds of entities: aether, devils causing disease, a world-wide Flood, the Loch Ness monster, etc.&nbsp; Why is deity different?&nbsp;

 

[Jerry Smith]

Now, the "lack of belief" stated "I do not believe a deity exists" is the same as saying "I believe a deity does not exist." Although Jerry wants to deny the semantic equivalence, I can't find a way around it and all Jerry's attempts have failed.

On the contrary, I believe that your attempts to conflate the two have failed. Do you remember our conversation where I showed you that the disbelief of an hypothesis is not a statement about the universe, but rather a statement about the hypothesis?

We could set up the rules and terms the way you would like to, but no one would want to debate any more. I could easily force you to remain agnostic about a ludicrous proposition (invisible pink unicorn, for instance), or force you to admit your disbelief in such is merely a matter of faith, simply by postulating it. Of course under those terms, much or all of what is now considered reason would become faith, and reason would diminish in relative importance because it would no longer be defined individually and uniquely as separate from faith.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:42 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #150

Creationism has not been falsified. That is just wishful thinking on your part.

It's the data, John.&nbsp;For instance, the world-wide Flood that creationism depends on for the geologic column and existence of the fossil record, is falsified. We've gone over specific data in a number of threads that simply can't be there iif a Flood happened.&nbsp;

Around 100 years ago, science decided to throw away their Bible, becasue they did not want to rewrite creation theory. They did not want to update the theory of Creationism to reflect the new things they were finding.

Ah, another creationist myth.&nbsp; Since a lot of these scientists were ministers, John, like Sedgwick and Buckland, why would they want to do that? They had been modifying creationism for 150 years the reflect the new things they were finding, but could no longer do so.&nbsp; Instantaneous formation of species in present form just could not have happened.

Science tried to put it off on the theologians and the theologians pretty much told them to take a hike, that they were busy with their own work, and that science should do their own job.

Put what off on theologians? And who told scientists to take a hike? Be specific, John.&nbsp; Theologians were delighted because creationism had backed them into some pretty tight corners. Examples include Charles Kingsley, when corresponding with the author of Oomphalos, a book advocating creationism:
Shall I tell you the truth?&nbsp; It is best.&nbsp; Your book is the first that ever made me doubt the doctrine of absolute creation, and I fear it will make hundreds do so.&nbsp; Your book tends to prove this - that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes God-the-Sometime-Deceiver.&nbsp; I do not mean merely in the case of fossils which pretend to be the bones of dead animals; but in ...your newly created Adam's navel, you make God tell a lie.&nbsp; It is not my reason, but my conscience which revolts here ... I cannot ...believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie for all mankind.&nbsp; To this painful dilemma you have brought me, and will, I fear, bring hundreds.&nbsp; It will not make me throw away my Bible.&nbsp; I trust and hope. I know in whom I have believed, and can trust Him to bring my faith safe through this puzzle, as He has through others; but for the young I do fear.&nbsp; I would not for a thousand pounds put your book into my children's hands."&nbsp; Garret Hardin, ""Scientific Creationism'" - Marketing Deception as Truth" in Science and Creationism edited by Ashley Montagu, 1982.

Kingsley had his puzzle solved by becoming a theistic evolutionist and one of the first theologians to endorse Origin of the Species.

If Science is going to continue to come up with a bunch of nonsense that just does not line up with the Bible, then common people are either going to ignore them, or laugh at them.&nbsp; Far to often science comes up with nonsense that the most uneducated of people knows is nonsense, because it does not follow common sense at all.

And here you show magnificent denial of the true effects of creationism.&nbsp; People haven't been laughing at science; they have been delighted with it. They have seen the beneficial effects on their lives. They may not understand quantum mechanics, but they can appreciate the the new televisions and radios and the new chemicals made by quantum chronodynamics.&nbsp; The expanse of the universe captures their imagination and they don't deny the existence of spaceflight.&nbsp; They see the new medical treatments only made possible by the acceptance of evolution and can appreciate evolution in action in the formation of antibiotic resistance and new strains of HIV.&nbsp;

It is the "explanations" of creationists that provoke laughter and derision.&nbsp; I know 3 medical students just in the last 3 years that came to medical school creationists and left evolutionists.&nbsp; And know 4 more that became evolutionists in college.

What you should be panicking over, John, is that two of the 3&nbsp; also left as atheists.&nbsp; When faced by a religion that insisted that they believe creationism or believe what they could see for themselves, they chose what they could see for themselves.&nbsp; Since their denominations insisted that they couldn't be Christian and evolutionists, they left Christianity.&nbsp;

Want to know why atheism is gaining in this country, John?&nbsp; Creationism.&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:55 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #153

Civilized man is less than 12,000 years old. There still is no accepted scientific theory as to how stone age man "evolved" into a civilized man.

Sure there is. Why don't you spend 5 minutes at Google and find the theory?&nbsp; A lot of work has been done on the transition from a hunter-gatherer society to an agricultural one.&nbsp; Evolution was not involved because there was no change in the genes, only technology.&nbsp; Various existing cultures around the world document the stages of that transition.

Also in my opinion, there is not enough of a acceptable theory as to why civilized man has so many more diseases than stone age man did.

First, please document that civilized people have "many more diseases" than prior to 12,000 years ago.&nbsp; Second, read MacLean's&nbsp;Plagues and&nbsp;Peoples.&nbsp;&nbsp;The answer is simple. As humans domesticated animals they came in closer contact with them and it was easier for microbes to jump from species to species.&nbsp; All of our infectious diseases are either mild or non-diseases in other species.&nbsp; Also, the agricultural diet is not as diverse as hunter-gatherers and therefore early agricultural societies were subject to malnutrition diseases that hunter-gatherers don't get.

But now we are getting away from the GAP theory and getting more into my theory that the man God created on day 6 is different from the man God formed from the clay on day 8 of creation.

There is no such theory. That is a speculation of you alone.&nbsp; In a previous post you stated that it is no wonder that so many speculations are falsified, because they go against common sense. This one fits your own criteria of lacking common sense as well as being falsifed by both&nbsp;scientific data&nbsp;and Biblical exegesis.