Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[Kylie]

The day you understand Embedded Age Creation, is the day you can start calling me AV1611VET, and not Genghis Khan.

That's why I think you (and everyone else here) go after the YECs so much.

They're an easy target.

But as the saying goes:

If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

(No offense meant to Corgis! )

We understand your embedded age creation, AV.

We just think it's wrong.

 

[Kylie]

Multiple posts caused by connection issues.

 

[stevevw]

We all had to be taught to be christian. But what does this have to do with evolution?

Actually the evidence shows that we are born natural believers in divine concepts like a creator God. If anything it seems to be that it is non-belief that is taught and indoctrinated into us.

 

[Kylie]

Multiple posts caused by connection issues.

 

[Kylie]

Actually the evidence shows that we are born natural believers in divine concepts like a creator God. If anything it seems to be that it is non-belief that is taught and indoctrinated into us.

That proves little more than we are inventive creatures who will make up an answer if we can't figure out the actual answer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Depends on what you're trying to explain.

Not really. Whatever you're trying to explain, it seems to me that a good explanation should satisfy as many of the criteria below as possible:

1. make testable predictions (so you can find out if it's wrong).
2. it should have specificity, so it gives an insight into and understanding of the particular phenomenon it explains.
3. it should preferably have some unifying scope so that the underlying principles from point 2 can give an insight into and understanding of other phenomena.
4. it should be parsimonious so that it introduces no unnecessary entities (Occam's razor).
5. it should not raise more questions than it answers, particularly unanswerable questions.
6. it should preferably be consistent with our existing body of knowledge.
7. an 'explanation' that can explain anything is not an explanation at all, but a label indicating ignorance.

You're welcome to question the criteria and add more if you like, and you're welcome to see how well or poorly the 'explanations' I mentioned satisfy them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What's the reasonable criteria.

See my post #1146.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And many disagree as well. It also depends on which discipline of science you talk about say biology as opposed to psychology. Often the theory is cited as the "true" meaning and aim of science but as you mention its the actual people, the scientists and philosophers who are determining what happens.

In reality science is used as a blunt tool to control the narrative of what is regarded as real or not. As we see in this forum and in many mainstream articles its not just about the cold hard facts if you can call scientific measurements that. Its the interpretation of this and the practical application. When a new particle is found in physics its claimed a greater insight into reality has been found like its the God particle for example. Ontologically this is claiming what reality is and this is more than science but is metaphysics.

Any philosopher of science or well-informed scientist will understand that the models we make by interpreting our observations are indirect and limited descriptions of reality, at best.

The 'God Particle' is a popular media meme based on a misinterpretation. Leon Lederman wrote a book about the Higgs particle, that he wanted to call 'The Goddam Particle' but his publisher wouldn't accept that title. So he changed it to 'The God Particle'.

But its the type of inference in the first place that restricts encloses things to naturalistic causes. The observations are inferred as something natural or at least the methodology restricts it to this because that's the only way things can be determined. So its fundamentally skewed to begin with and there's no neutral inference that considers all possibilities including something non natural.

But if those assumptions are only measured in what is natural or physical then the only outcome that can possibly be found is in accordance with the assumptions. So of course the method is going to confirm the assumptions.

Its an enclosed and circular measure that will always confirm itself even if that means coming up with more ideas and explanations that inevitably lead to further confirmation according to those assumptions whether they are correct or not ultimately. Hypotheses become more and more complex to accommodate the assumptions.

I've explained this misconception to you more than once before. I'm sorry you haven't grasped it. Briefly, you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

But its the prior assumption of the methodology that nature must behave a certain way that makes the exceptions and those exceptions are based on the assumptions.

There is no prior assumption of nature behaving a particular way. Observations are made and explanatory hypotheses are tested. Well-tested, successful hypotheses may become theories about which we can say that they appear to be good descriptions of how nature behaves when observed.

If that's the case then this opens the door for ideas beyond direct scientific observation and it follows that ideas can possibly be beyond the natural. But as mentioned above this does not happen. The default view is to find a naturalistic explanation no matter what.

You said above that the methodology of science, "restricts it to this because that's the only way things can be determined". Once again, I invite you to suggest a method or methodology that can determine what you say science can't.

It may be that experience is something fundamental that influences reality and this has been proposed by many. If you want to deny this based on methodological naturalism then this only proves my point that the method is being used beyond a neutral position and insisting that this is the only way to prove reality and is used as a tool to disprove all other possible alternatives.

That's not how it works, your logic is skewed. I'm not denying that "experience is something fundamental that influences reality" - and if I did, it wouldn't prove your point in any case. What I am saying is that, in my opinion (and that of many others), it's not a good explanation by reasonable criteria.

But if you think it is a good explanation, by all means, show how that is the case. Your claim, your 'burden of proof'.

 

[Astrid]

This level of hubris is truly remarkable.

FYI the USA is not the entire world, does not govern the entire world and has a lot less influence on the entire world than you think.

Americans are as a group remarkably full
of themselves.

It kind of funny- their Heros of the Revolution
are the commoners, the patriots who defeated the
Empire with their grit. Humble men with
courage and self respect.
The Christian virtues of humility and taking
up what's right, whatever the cost.

I don't think we see much of that from high
mighty and self righteous USA.

And humility is the last thing we see from
creationists. Every one of them claims to know
more than any scientist on earth.
If any can show me one exception, let them step forth.

 

[Astrid]

Not really. Whatever you're trying to explain, it seems to me that a good explanation should satisfy as many of the criteria below as possible:

1. make testable predictions (so you can find out if it's wrong).
2. it should have specificity, so it gives an insight into and understanding of the particular phenomenon it explains.
3. it should preferably have some unifying scope so that the underlying principles from point 2 can give an insight into and understanding of other phenomena.
4. it should be parsimonious so that it introduces no unnecessary entities (Occam's razor).
5. it should not raise more questions than it answers, particularly unanswerable questions.
6. it should preferably be consistent with our existing body of knowledge.
7. an 'explanation' that can explain anything is not an explanation at all, but a label indicating ignorance.

You're welcome to question the criteria and add more if you like, and you're welcome to see how well or poorly the 'explanations' I mentioned satisfy them.

You dare to call for intellectual rigour?

You just chose those " criteria," to rule out any
ad hoc supernatural explanations!

 

[AV1611VET]

And humility is the last thing we see from
creationists. Every one of them claims to know
more than any scientist on earth.
If any can show me one exception, let them step forth.

Sure.

Here's a guy that has said fifty-two times here since 2011: "eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit."

Here's his first time saying it:

This may hurt your pride, creationists...

And he doesn't just say it, he means it too.

And has demonstrated it many times.

In fact, he even claims to wear his ignorance like a badge.

So, Estrid, consider yourself wrong.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This seems more like an argument for a supernatural creator. If there has always been time and space which have no creative ability itself then this may be the realm of that creative agent.

Quantum mechanics tells us that spacetime does have a 'creative' capacity (I prefer 'generative').

As time and space are nothing without some spark of material existence that causes the laws to come into play then there has to be some creative agent to initiate or spark that material reality that gives time and space its meaning or substance. Otherwise how did that spark of existence and laws come about.

Spacetime is quantum-mechanical, the 'rules' of QM make it what it is.

Whatever you posit to have always existed, whether spacetime, something more fundamental, or some arbitrary supernatural entity, you can ask what makes it what it is, but ultimately you will always end up with some brute fact. IOW, if it's fundamental, it's not made of anything else, and if it's always existed it's not made by anything else.

Are you now claiming some sort of quantum vacuum and the laws that govern this has always existed as well.

It's quite a popular option.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That would make our conscious experience a fundamental factor in what makes reality.

A fundamental factor in our reality, i.e. our personal experience of whatever's 'out there'. That's self-evident. But unless you believe that whatever's 'out there' goes away when we're unconscious (solipsistic realism?), then no.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You dare to call for intellectual rigour?

It's just a suggestion

You just chose those " criteria," to rule out any
ad hoc supernatural explanations!

Not at all; they just happen to do so

As I said, I welcome any critique of the criteria - the exercise is pointless unless we can agree on the criteria for a 'good explanation'

It's rather sad that not only has no one been willing or able to use those criteria to show how the supernatural or God is a better explanation for the unexplained than magic (!), but no one has challenged the criteria either... I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

ps. I do realise you were being ironic.

 

[Mountainmike]

Not really. Whatever you're trying to explain, it seems to me that a good explanation should satisfy as many of the criteria below as possible:

1. make testable predictions (so you can find out if it's wrong).
2. it should have specificity, so it gives an insight into and understanding of the particular phenomenon it explains.
3. it should preferably have some unifying scope so that the underlying principles from point 2 can give an insight into and understanding of other phenomena.
4. it should be parsimonious so that it introduces no unnecessary entities (Occam's razor).
5. it should not raise more questions than it answers, particularly unanswerable questions.
6. it should preferably be consistent with our existing body of knowledge.
7. an 'explanation' that can explain anything is not an explanation at all, but a label indicating ignorance.

You're welcome to question the criteria and add more if you like, and you're welcome to see how well or poorly the 'explanations' I mentioned satisfy them.

Sadly, I am back from abroad, with time on hands.... so.

Your entire list of points always restrict to well ordered things not beings, and only then to those which repeat, or are repeatable and to the patterns we normally observe.

So having restricted only to those that have testable predictions, you then conclude with the non sequitur that ALL things must have testable predictions etc etc etc... yet that is only because of the restriction you put on the things you can add to the axiomatic model (6)

You then confuse "inclusion in the axiomatic model" with "explanation" which is no explanation at all. Gravity does what it normally does. That does not explain it. All you can do is characterise observations of it.

The same science finds it hard to model beings, because they do not behave to pattern, and even harder to model consciousness it does not understand at all.

From a previous post, the "grow a limb back" regards miracles, you cannot impose your belief on what you will accept as evidence - it is a straw man - any more than you can demand that you will only believe relativity if you see your watch run backwards when you move fast. Relativity does not do that, and I cannot impose that on it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do notice you (and most others) seem to enjoy dissing YECs, but won't touch Embedded Agers.

In what are these Agers embedded?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sadly, I am back from abroad, with time on hands.... so.

Your entire list of points always restrict to well ordered things not beings, and only then to those which repeat, or are repeatable and to the patterns we normally observe.

So having restricted only to those that have testable predictions, you then conclude with the non sequitur that ALL things must have testable predictions etc etc etc... yet that is only because of the restriction you put on the things you can add to the axiomatic model (6)

You then confuse "inclusion in the axiomatic model" with "explanation" which is no explanation at all. Gravity does what it normally does. That does not explain it. All you can do is characterise observations of it.

The same science finds it hard to model beings, because they do not behave to pattern, and even harder to model consciousness it does not understand at all.

From a previous post, the "grow a limb back" regards miracles, you cannot impose your belief on what you will accept as evidence - it is a straw man - any more than you can demand that you will only believe relativity if you see your watch run backwards when you move fast. Relativity does not do that, and I cannot impose that on it.

Now you've got that out of your system, do you have anything to say about what makes a good explanation?

 

[partinobodycular]

So having restricted only to those that have testable predictions, you then conclude with the non sequitur that ALL things must have testable predictions etc etc etc... yet that is only because of the restriction you put on the things you can add to the axiomatic model (6)

And yet it does say Catholic in your bio, and Catholicism does indeed make testable predictions, i.e. intercessory prayer.

So although you rail against testable predictions your beliefs about the nature of reality are in fact testable.

 

[AV1611VET]

In what are these Agers embedded?

Cute.

 

[stevevw]

That proves little more than we are inventive creatures who will make up an answer if we can't figure out the actual answer.

I think that's a simplistic way to see belief and in some way dumbs down our capacity as humans. Belief is more interesting and complex than just made up answers.

In fact belief is a normal and natural part of human cognition. Studies show children's belief is more sophisticated than make believe. Children understand the difference between human made beliefs and divine concepts like the soul, life after death and someone behind what we see.

Imagination and belief form the foundation of all our endeavors including science. Without it we could not be 'inventive' and creative to think outside the box and discover greater insights into ourselves and our world.
Humans are spiritual beings and to reduce this to fairy tales devalues the role belief plays.