Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sorry, but it is highly ironic to use a phrase such as "logically and reasonably" when discussing ID and creationists. Now we can understand why the real world threatens their beliefs, but that does not make their beliefs logical nor reasonable.I'm not debating that you must accept the premise that God working in time and space is plausible. Certainly we all have our own pet rules of epistemology that guide us. I'm just saying that rationally, it is clear that all creation and ID understanding of origins is predicated on believe in a Supreme Being. That logically and reasonably goes to cause.
The rainbow I gave you earlier was a accident of my thumb. I didn't mean anything by it.Physics and chemistry being real...is agreed upon. But how do you go from the human-developed fields of physics and chemistry, to a god?
If you can make an ontological claim about God, what is to stop anyone else from making an ontological claim about observable phenomena?The rainbow I gave you earlier was a accident of my thumb. I didn't mean anything by it.
Physics and Chemistry make no claim to what is real, it only describes what is happening. The fact that I can exhaustively describe a rock, doesn't mean it is really there.
I'm not going from physics and chemistry to God. I am postulating God to go from analytic truths about how the external world behaves to synthetic truths about how the world behaves. You need a premise to be reasonable in traversing that gap.
But creation and ID being predicated upon a god, does not mean they are valid nor factual about reality. They can be internally logical within theology, but that doesn't make them fact about realityI'm not debating that you must accept the premise that God working in time and space is plausible. Certainly we all have our own pet rules of epistemology that guide us. I'm just saying that rationally, it is clear that all creation and ID understanding of origins is predicated on believe in a Supreme Being. That logically and reasonably goes to cause.
Why do postulations about a god provide explanatory power about facts about reality?The rainbow I gave you earlier was a accident of my thumb. I didn't mean anything by it.
Physics and Chemistry make no claim to what is real, it only describes what is happening. The fact that I can exhaustively describe a rock, doesn't mean it is really there.
I'm not going from physics and chemistry to God. I am postulating God to go from analytic truths about how the external world behaves to synthetic truths about how the world behaves. You need a premise to be reasonable in traversing that gap.
Nor is the assumption that all adaptive evolution can be explained by natural law, when clearly it often isn't.But creation and ID being predicated upon a god, does not mean they are valid nor factual about reality. They can be internally logical within theology, but that doesn't make them fact about reality
What is it that you dispute with respect to how biological evolution occurs and is demonstrated?Nor is the assumption that all adaptive evolution can be explained by natural law, when clearly it often isn't.
Nothing. You can postulate anything you want so long as the premise let's you rationally traverse the gap, meaning that if the premise is true, the conclusion follows about reality.If you can make an ontological claim about God, what is to stop anyone else from making an ontological claim about observable phenomena?
If you want to. I refer you to my old philosophy professor.Nothing. You can postulate anything you want so long as the premise let's you rationally traverse the gap, meaning that if the premise is true, the conclusion follows about reality.
The molecular basis for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes.What is it that you dispute with respect to how biological evolution occurs and is demonstrated?
I'm not talking about explanatory power. I am talking about the traversal from the analytic to the synthetic. God is the only premise that I know of that can rationally allow that conclusion to follow.Why do postulations about a god provide explanatory power about facts about reality?
That is pretty much a nothingburger. Why do you think that human evolution cannot be explained?The molecular basis for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes.
Why is that something you take issue with? I mean the specifics. What "molecular basis" are you referring to? Are you asking for what natural selection could have selected for that would have had a genetic relation to brain development among our ancestors?The molecular basis for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes.
I think I still need a more specific example. To me, that gives the best perspective of what you are saying.I'm not talking about explanatory power. I am talking about the traversal from the analytic to the synthetic. God is the only premise that I know of that can rationally allow that conclusion to follow.
In other words, if God exists, then observable phenomena are objectively real--an analytic statement in your terminology. But I really don't see how that gets you anywhere.I'm not talking about explanatory power. I am talking about the traversal from the analytic to the synthetic. God is the only premise that I know of that can rationally allow that conclusion to follow.
You asked for it:Why is that something you take issue with? I mean the specifics. What "molecular basis" are you referring to? Are you asking for what natural selection could have selected for that would have had a genetic relation to brain development among our ancestors?
Because God is real.Why do postulations about a god provide explanatory power about facts about reality?
Think of it in the analogy of the Brain in a vat thought experiment. Or perhaps it might be easier to see this using a more modern example like the matrix. In the matrix there is a periodic table, which explains much about the world in the matrix but may or may not explain anything at all about the real world outside the matrix. The level of explanatory power says nothing about whether something is real or notI think I still need a more specific example. To me, that gives the best perspective of what you are saying.
Let's take an agreed upon chemical fact, the periodic table. Can we agree on this as a fact about our reality? If so, how do the facts of the periodic table become better (or more sufficiently explained or enhanced in any way) through the assumption of a connection to a god?
Somewhat mangled but yeah. It gets you a rational reason to hold to the external world as reality. A rational reason for ones beliefs about the world is a good thing to have and shouldn't be trivialized.In other words, if God exists, then observable phenomena are objectively real--an analytic statement in your terminology. But I really don't see how that gets you anywhere.
Somewhat mangled but yeah. It gets you a rational reason to hold to the external world as reality. A rational reason for ones beliefs about the world is a good thing to have and shouldn't be trivialized.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?