'Knowledge' of Existence

[gaara4158]

Did you not say: I find this weakness to be a lesser one than that of a paradigm that does require belief in something that cannot be empirically or logically demonstrated? So now you say materialism is not required to demonstrate anything? That contradicts your own standard.

It is not the role of any paradigm, yours or mine, to demonstrate things to be true. Paradigms themselves are supported by evidence and argument, but they don't ever demonstrate anything.

Doesn't any model of reality need to comport to reality? I believe you believe it should and I most certainly believe it should. As I listed in my last post, those mysteries of which you speak are realities that your paradigm doesn't comport with. The mystery of the origin of the universe, the mystery of life, the mystery of intelligence, the mystery of the LOL. All aspects of reality that your paradigm simply doesn't account for, nor does it follow a logical path. Life from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligent matter and LOL that must be obeyed are all illogical in the fact that we haven't EVER seen life coming from non-life, intelligence arising from non-intelligent matter or changes or variants of the LOL.

It is not correct to say my model does not comport with reality just because it does not contain an exhaustive set of answers to any question about the universe that you may have. For materialism not to comport with reality, you would have to demonstrate that it's actually false, not just point to gaps in our knowledge gathered via methodological naturalism. That's just god of the gaps again. For all those things you listed that we don't see, we also don't see a god, so what good is your solution if it's just another, much greater mystery?

Which consists of what exactly?

Are you asking me what material is?

How is something demonstrated in your worldview?

With empirical evidence and logical argument. Scientifically, basically. That's not to say that all that exists is what's scientifically demonstrable (scientism), just that science is the most reliable method we have for creating predictive models of reality. What about your worldview? Do you have some better way of demonstrating things?

How is it retrofit? We have certain theological necessities that come within our worldview. One is that the universe came from nothing and had a beginning. That was written long before we knew that was the case. In fact, at one time everyone thought the universe was eternal and claimed the Bible was wrong.

Coming from nothing is an incoherent concept, so if that's something that's required under your worldview your worldview is incoherent. "Nothing" cannot be a point of origin, because a point of origin is, itself, something. "From nothing" is a meaningless phrase. It absolutely is not the case that the universe came from nothing.

Not all manner of ad hoc explanations can be made to fit. Just as in the case of the universe needing a beginning from nothing. The universe appears to be designed, I didn't make this claim from the unknown but from scientific findings. Professional cosmologists, and astrophysicists have claimed this. I don't have to fill an unknown, the measurements and necessities of those with the appearance of intelligent life are all scientifically discovered and known.

There is no limit to the number of adhoc explanations that could be made to fit what we observe. It is not a strength merely to have an explanation. Strong explanations are falsifiable, parsimonious, evidence-based, and predictive, among other things. What strengths does your explanation have? It's not falsifiable or predictive, since any inconsistency between what we observe and what a god-hypothesis would predict can ultimately be dismissed as "God's mysterious ways" or "a test from Satan." This takes all meaning away from any lack of such inconsistencies. It's not parsimonious or evidence-based either, since it requires the assumption of an entity that isn't observed. All it is, is a bare assertion. "God did it." It's no stronger than "pixies did it," "it's all a simulation" or "Zeus did it."
You have sidestepped my attempts to get you to really lay out what constitutes design. I know you're not the one who invented the argument from design, but I'm not the first person to reject it, either. I know what those physicists believe. I haven't seen them answer the question either.

I said and have said over and over again, that the Christian worldview is the best explanation for what we find in reality. It is comprehensive, cohesive and reflects what we find in our universe. My revelation is why I am a Christian and not an atheist, but there are reasons that confirm my revelation in the universe and the reality in which we live.

You've said that, yes, but you've never once supported it. You've only pointed to things we don't have scientific explanations for and claimed that your god could explain it, but as I just pointed out, "God did it" is not a strong explanation. In fact, it's worse than no explanation at all, because on top of its explanatory impotence, it requires belief in an entity of a sort that has never been observed. If we're going to believe things without evidence, it's more parsimonious to believe an explanation that doesn't require any new type of entity to exist.

The fact that it is not remarkable is begging the question. We are here, so here has to be just what we need to be here is not an explanation nor an argument against the fundamental constants that allow for intelligent life to exist here. Luck or chance has been rules out by the extensive research done on the constants and the vast number verses the infinitesimal range that they hold.

Luck or chance can never be ruled out, only shown to be less likely than other plausible explanations, and the extensive research done on the universal constants has never established that a designer is a plausible explanation, let alone more likely than chance. The main problem for Intelligent Design hypothesis, aside from a lack of a clear description of what "design" is supposed to look like, is the utter lack of any extant "designer" that could serve as a candidate explanation for the appearance of design that you see.

You ask what constitutes appearance of design, in the fundamental constants the range is so infinitesimal that if gravity for instance was just a sand particle heavier we would not be here. It goes on with those fine tuned ranges throughout the fundamental constants across the board.

So design is... what? Something that results in an otherwise unlikely outcome? That doesn't work. I can shuffle a deck of cards and deal out a hand of five. The odds that the hand I dealt is any particular combination of cards are astronomical, and yet it factually is one of those astronomically unlikely combinations. Does that mean I rigged the deck?

God has all knowledge, knows all truth. The LOL are not created BY God they are of God's nature and we as created in His image follow His thoughts. We can not not follow the LOL, we both agree. All knowledge comes from the LOL and without them there could be no knowledge. Your worldview can not account for the LOL being necessary for all knowledge, as you couldn't acquire knowledge without them and they couldn't evolve if there were not already in force.

Your account for the LOL as a part of God's nature is no more trustworthy than mine as conventions developed as the brain developed the complexity to conceptualize them. You can believe that the LOL get you to truth due to them being grounded in God's nature, but you could never really be justified in believing that because that would only be what God's nature was guiding you to believe in the first place. We're in the same boat, you just have a middleman between yourself and reality you trust to give you truth. I just trust reality to give me truth.

Language doesn't create truth.

Truth is reality described through language, so I'd say language and reality play equal parts in creating truth.

I agreed with that. We have no part of the brain where we know consciousness resides.

And why would it need to be confined to one area of the brain? Some materialism-compatible models have consciousness arising as a result of multiple areas of the brain converging to produce what we experience as consciousness.

Nothing here shows that chimps see themselves looking out of their bodies, as a self inside of a body.

So what? There are human beings who don't consider themselves to be a self inside a body. That has nothing to do with how conscious something is or isn't.

I disagree. I think that when a paradigm holds that life comes from non-living matter and we have never demonstrated that, when intelligence comes from non-intelligent matter and we have never demonstrated that it pretty much demonstrates that it doesn't comport to reality. The reality is that life comes from life and intelligence arises from intelligence. That is what we see in our reality.

As I said before, you can't say something does not comport with reality just because it has not been demonstrated to be true. All hypotheses start out that way. That doesn't mean they don't comport with reality, that just means they haven't been demonstrated to comport with reality. If you're going to take the position that everything is false until proven true, then you have to concede that the Christian worldview is false.

 

[Silmarien]

Coming from nothing is an incoherent concept, so if that's something that's required under your worldview your worldview is incoherent. "Nothing" cannot be a point of origin, because a point of origin is, itself, something. "From nothing" is a meaningless phrase. It absolutely is not the case that the universe came from nothing.

Going to jump in again here, since you seem to have misunderstood the concept of creatio ex nihilo. "Nothing" in the theological sense isn't intended to be taken as a point of origin--it shouldn't be understood as a sort of entity in its own right that then produces something. The idea is instead that God created the universe without making use of previously existing matter. It wasn't a rearrangement; it was entirely new.

Virtually no theist is going to say that the universe literally came from nothing--we don't believe that nothingness is a possible state of affairs; that is really the point of the most powerful of cosmological arguments. You're actually conceding more to the theistic perspective with this response than many atheistic philosophers would, since they're somewhat notorious for arguing that perhaps the universe could have emerged uncaused from nothing. (Which I think is completely irrational, but professional atheism usually leaves something to be desired.)

Note: There are alternatives to the orthodox understanding of creatio ex nihilo out there. One particularly interesting one is the Hegelian model, which effectively collapses being and nothingness into the same thing. Contingent reality actually can be said to be emanating from nothingness in this approach, since that nothingness is associated with Being Itself (i.e., God). It's intentionally paradoxical and an example of one of the other major non-naturalistic contenders out there.

 

[gaara4158]

Going to jump in again here, since you seem to have misunderstood the concept of creatio ex nihilo. "Nothing" in the theological sense isn't intended to be taken as a point of origin--it shouldn't be understood as a sort of entity in its own right that then produces something. The idea is instead that God created the universe without making use of previously existing matter. It wasn't a rearrangement; it was entirely new.

Virtually no theist is going to say that the universe literally came from nothing--we don't believe that nothingness is a possible state of affairs; that is really the point of the most powerful of cosmological arguments. You're actually conceding more to the theistic perspective with this response than many atheistic philosophers would, since they're somewhat notorious for arguing that perhaps the universe could have emerged uncaused from nothing. (Which I think is completely irrational, but professional atheism usually leaves something to be desired.)

Note: There are alternatives to the orthodox understanding of creatio ex nihilo out there. One particularly interesting one is the Hegelian model, which effectively collapses being and nothingness into the same thing. Contingent reality actually can be said to be emanating from nothingness in this approach, since that nothingness is associated with Being Itself (i.e., God). It's intentionally paradoxical and an example of one of the other major non-naturalistic contenders out there.

That’s interesting, because I don’t believe that nothingness is a possible state of affairs either, and that’s precisely why I don’t find God necessary to be the cause for the “something” that exists. But maybe there’s something else I’m missing?

In any case, if she wants to argue that science has confirmed that the universe came from nothing in the sense that you’ve just explained, that’s just not true. We don’t know if the universe emerged ex materia or ex nihilo. We just know of a singularity in the past beyond which our equations in physics output strange infinite values.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do agree, we as human beings are limited in both areas.

And for me, that is where the crux of the main disagreements actually come in---i.e. within our recognition of the limitations of science and of human epistemology, as well as those that are set by God and are meant to delimit our theology.

I believe that we are led to certain authors or certain people to give us insight where we may lack some tidbit or morsel of enlightenment which many times leads to a greater understanding of an area we need addressing. Again, I give deference to the Bible on its own.

Yes, I think there is something to this.........but then we'd also have to remember that Satan [and sometimes just other people] can do the same kind of thing to any one of us.

I don't believe that Paul had in mind the extent of knowledge we would hold, but I also don't believe that Paul was out there all alone in his message and resting on his own knowledge either.

Right. But we're wondering to what extent Paul was incorporating epistemological motifs that might be drawn in from the Greek world along with his reliance upon more or less prophetic statements about Creation we find in the Old Testament.

I genuinely am curious as to where you draw the line in God's hand in Creation of the universe and all we find in it. I don't know if you want to venture there, which is fine if not.

I don't so much "draw a line" as I do to attempt to recognize the limits that I mentioned briefly above. I'm more about deconstructing scientific pretensions (and religious pretensions), and thereby contemplating our existential "spaces," than I am about sporting scientific prowess. Let's just say that I, in a similar vein to what you might lean toward, tend to be awed by the complexity of our universe/world/humanity, but I think the substantive evaluations that may seem to some people to point to a Creator in some kind of Irreducible fashion are not so easily grasped [by me] as being either fully reducible or irreducible.

More specifically, I also think we need to consider the application of N.O.S. a whole lot more than we typically do or than even practicing scientists typically do. As a sort of brief testament to this, remember the gal you and I were both speaking with here a while back? She too was a working scientist, if you remember, and she admitted to me [to us] that she [bless her heart!] didn't find it necessary to think about the following things, particularly for items 4 and 5 below:

1) Something cosmic like what she says...but make it more "Jesusy"! [my thread]

2) On SCIENCE vs GOD: Enderle's Comical Chemistry for Belief. [my thread]

3) She embraced the E Word as she contemplated the F Word....! [my thread]

4) Critique on...The Myths of Science [my thread]

5) Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science [a pertinent website]

We are a very fortunate generation, we can look back into history and see through the 20/20 lens and see what has come to be throughout the span of 2000 years. So, I don't know. God revealed Himself and we would still have that and the interaction of God in our lives but I know that people in that time period were in awe of the world or we wouldn't read it in Psalms and other books that proclaim that wonder. So it is a very good question, one I can't answer with full conviction.

And that's what I would expect to hear from an honest person such as yourself.

Nor do I. I've spoken to Michael Behe through emails and he is a nice guy and I think his work is important but I don't think it is well understood or more correctly is misunderstood. I haven't read much on Dembski so I have nothing to say really about him.

I've read a little bit from both, although it sounds like you've had a lot more interaction with Behe's ideas than I've ever had, especially since you've corresponded with him. I'll bet that has been some very interesting conversation.

You have a good point and have articulated it very well.

Nice.

Thank you. And I always enjoy reading the things you have to say as well.

 

[Silmarien]

That’s interesting, because I don’t believe that nothingness is a possible state of affairs either, and that’s precisely why I don’t find God necessary to be the cause for the “something” that exists. But maybe there’s something else I’m missing?

Oh, yes. The Kalam is actually the weakest of the cosmological arguments, except perhaps insofar as it has power against the traditional non-Abrahamic belief in an eternal universe. I haven't studied Islamic philosophy too closely, but I think it was first formulated in the context of the encounter between Islamic revelation and Aristotelian metaphysics, where matter actually is viewed as eternal. But the eternity of the universe has always been a secondary debate, so I think William Craig may have done theism something of a disservice by focusing all attention upon it.

There are plenty of considerations that can be brought up with someone who already accepts Necessary Being, though. You're more empirically minded than I am, so I don't think my more ontological approach is going to be too useful to you, but one interesting thing to consider would be why there is something instead of nothing, why it is the case that nothingness is not a possible state of affairs. If you believe in Necessary Being, then you need to examine that further, and this is where modal ontological logic can be helpful: there is no world, neither our actual one nor any logical possible world, where nothingness could have been a state of affairs. We cannot really say that there are different fundamental "somethings" in each possible world, though, since in that case it would be logically possible for a world to exist which lacked all of those particular fundamental "somethings." What we are taking about is a Necessary Being that grounds all logically possible worlds.

We can't get to the divine properties with this alone, of course, but you basically need a treatise to get all the way to that. If you already accept Necessary Being, though, I think the best next step is to start considering what precisely that means metaphysically and logically. Is it just an accidental fact of reality that there has never been nothing, or does it go deeper than that? If it doesn't, then can we really say that nothingness is not a possible state of affairs?

In any case, if she wants to argue that science has confirmed that the universe came from nothing in the sense that you’ve just explained, that’s just not true. We don’t know if the universe emerged ex materia or ex nihilo. We just know of a singularity in the past beyond which our equations in physics output strange infinite values.

There is a second theologically relevant fact that physics seems to imply: time is a property of the universe and not a fundamental aspect of reality. We've reasoned that this is the case since at least Augustine, but now we have empirical evidence as well. Can we conceive of physical causation occurring outside of time? You can only get so far with a multiverse theory in which temporal universes create other temporal universes--at some point you need a non-temporal point of origin.

Otherwise, I agree with you. I'm fond of pantheism; I just think it's wrong. I'm stuck at the conclusion that flies in the face of all modern reason, lol.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is not the role of any paradigm, yours or mine, to demonstrate things to be true. Paradigms themselves are supported by evidence and argument, but they don't ever demonstrate anything.


It is not correct to say my model does not comport with reality just because it does not contain an exhaustive set of answers to any question about the universe that you may have. For materialism not to comport with reality, you would have to demonstrate that it's actually false, not just point to gaps in our knowledge gathered via methodological naturalism. That's just god of the gaps again. For all those things you listed that we don't see, we also don't see a god, so what good is your solution if it's just another, much greater mystery?

I think you have missed the point, your paradigm or worldview has many, many things that are not demonstrated to be true empirically or logically. In fact, the number of 'things' that are not empirically demonstrated are numerous. Not only are they not empirically demonstrated nor logically so, many are opposite of what we see in reality. We see life coming from living matter, we see intelligence arising from intelligence and the LOL necessarily coming a priori for any knowledge to be possible. All of these elements of reality are opposite to those beliefs in your worldview.

I must ask, are the questions that your worldview leaves open really gaps of knowledge or simply evidence against your paradigm? Take life from non-living matter...the earliest fossilized life already shows complexity. The only gap to be filled is if you start with the assumption of materialism. The fact that life already was complex very early in the planet's history doesn't propose that there were other simpler life forms before the fossilized forms we have in evidence. Only if we assume materialism does a gap exist. Intelligence arising from non-intelligent matter is not in evidence. Only if we assume materialism is there a gap to be filled. The Laws of Logic had to be in force prior to the ability to acquire knowledge at all, to evolve they had to be already in force. No gap, just necessary a priori truth about what is true or false. Something completely necessary to develop understanding of the world around us.

Are you asking me what material is?

No, what is demonstrated that provides you with evidence for your paradigm that explains the cosmos, life, intelligence and the LOL?

With empirical evidence and logical argument. Scientifically, basically. That's not to say that all that exists is what's scientifically demonstrable (scientism), just that science is the most reliable method we have for creating predictive models of reality. What about your worldview? Do you have some better way of demonstrating things?

I believe science is important in many ways to civilization. I believe that we can provide insight in the way the material universe operates. I believe that to say it is the most reliable method to bring understanding to us by means of its methodology, I would agree. I don't agree however with the premise it is the most reliable way for creating predictive models of reality. Science was born in the mindset of Theology, without which modern science would not have began. Modern science still depends on Christian theology by assuming theological premises a priori to any methodology. Science and Christian religion are not opposing worldviews. Only materialistic atheistic science opposes the Christian religion. That being said, scientific findings show support from the very birth of its methodology to present day discoveries that God is a reasonable and logical explanation for reality.

Coming from nothing is an incoherent concept, so if that's something that's required under your worldview your worldview is incoherent. "Nothing" cannot be a point of origin, because a point of origin is, itself, something. "From nothing" is a meaningless phrase. It absolutely is not the case that the universe came from nothing.

Perhaps you can summarize what you believe why it is absolutely not the case that the universe came from nothing? If you can tell me why you feel that is incorrect, I can better determine what brings you to that assessment.

There is no limit to the number of adhoc explanations that could be made to fit what we observe. It is not a strength merely to have an explanation. Strong explanations are falsifiable, parsimonious, evidence-based, and predictive, among other things.

The theory of Evolution has accommodated a great deal more than what was predicted, it can be made to fit where it wasn't predicted to fit...life from non-living matter is not evidence based...I don't even think it could be falsified considering it isn't already, because we don't find any evidence that non-living matter begins to be living.

What strengths does your explanation have? It's not falsifiable or predictive, since any inconsistency between what we observe and what a god-hypothesis would predict can ultimately be dismissed as "God's mysterious ways" or "a test from Satan."

It is predictive, as I've already presented, the fact that the universe is uniform and intelligible is a prediction that comes from Christian theology. The fact that the universe is invariant is again predicted from Christian theology. The fact that humans have the cognitive ability from the LOL to understand the cosmos and make predictions at all is predicted by Christian theology. I'm not sure what you mean by God's mysterious ways? If you mean we as humans don't understand all of God's thoughts that is predicted as well. Satanic interference is also a prediction. I don't know how that is incorporated into evidences that support God's existence though.

This takes all meaning away from any lack of such inconsistencies. It's not parsimonious or evidence-based either, since it requires the assumption of an entity that isn't observed. All it is, is a bare assertion. "God did it." It's no stronger than "pixies did it," "it's all a simulation" or "Zeus did it."
You have sidestepped my attempts to get you to really lay out what constitutes design. I know you're not the one who invented the argument from design, but I'm not the first person to reject it, either. I know what those physicists believe. I haven't seen them answer the question either.

This disappoints me. You have argued with reason and thoughtful responses and then you blow it with the categorical error of pixies/Zeus fallacy. Are you going to claim pink unicorns and the Great Spaghetti Monster next? If this discussion is going to devolve into this it will go nowhere fast.

What is observed in an atheistic materialism? I've shown that there is no evidence for life from non-living matter, no evidence of intelligence arising from non-intelligence, and no evidence that the a priori nature of the LOL could evolve to being absolute, invariant and universal truths about what is true or false in the world.

If we were to go to Mars and we found a stuff animal, we would not believe that it was a natural occurring element in the environment of Mars. If we found a cliff with the inscription of "I was Here" written on its wall we wouldn't believe that this was a natural occurring element in the Mars environment. In the same way, when we find information of any kind that is meaningful such as measurements that are necessary for the universe and life itself which are so exact that if they were changed by even the smallest way would prohibit the universe/life it is meaningful and informative. It is recognized in the way that if it were a radio and the radio had to be tuned exactly right to have the ability to make sound and if that knob is turned even the smallest way it would prohibit sound. We know they don't have to be this way because we can simulate universes that could exist but would not have the ability for life. So we call this fine tuned for life, because that is exactly what it appears to be. This is why so many scientists have promoted the multi-verse because it is too fine tuned to be explained by mere chance and too fine tuned not be "fixed" for intelligent life to exist at all. Your Anthropic Principal is just a truism. It doesn't explain anything, nor does it do away with the fine tuning that is in evidence.

You've said that, yes, but you've never once supported it. You've only pointed to things we don't have scientific explanations for and claimed that your god could explain it, but as I just pointed out, "God did it" is not a strong explanation. In fact, it's worse than no explanation at all, because on top of its explanatory impotence, it requires belief in an entity of a sort that has never been observed. If we're going to believe things without evidence, it's more parsimonious to believe an explanation that doesn't require any new type of entity to exist.

God is a parsimonious explanation and one that fits with reality. God did it, explains nothing but how God did it does. Your paradigm looks at the pen and paper of the elements of the world and only that. Mine looks at the pen and paper and explains why the pen and paper exist at all. Your pen and paper has all the words on it already before you even begin to write. Requiring a belief in an entity that explains the reason for a universe...the reason we find the fine tuning for intelligent life...the reason life exists...the reason the LOL exist are all more reasonable and in evidence rather than a universe that has no reason for its existence, no evidence for life from non-life or for intelligent arising from non-intelligent matter from which the LOL are necessary to understand any of this explains nothing and has almost zero evidence to explain it. We haven't ever observed life from non-living matter, we have never observed intelligence arising from non-intelligent matter, we have never "observed" the LOL which are necessary, invariant, and universal evolving. These are all assumptions that are not observed. None of them. Yet you want to discount my worldview for God not being observed. You are asking of me something that you can't even do with your own paradigm. If Christianity is true as I claim, God has been observed in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is in evidence, historically proven to exist. So in actuality, God has been observed and was documented in history. So in conclusion, the Christian worldview starts with an observed God, a universe that has purpose (life), with fine tuned parameters that allow for intelligent life, intelligence by image of God, laws that govern not only the universe but thought as well. It is cohesive and coherent and in evidence. Now whether or not you believe that Jesus was God, whether or not you believe that the universe is fine tuned to allow intelligent life, whether or not you believe that God explains all this; it remains consistent and cohesive within the Christian worldview and is supported by scientific evidence. It is not an illogical or unreasonable worldview that has evidence to support it.


[QuoteLuck or chance can never be ruled out, only shown to be less likely than other plausible explanations, and the extensive research done on the universal constants has never established that a designer is a plausible explanation, let alone more likely than chance. The main problem for Intelligent Design hypothesis, aside from a lack of a clear description of what "design" is supposed to look like, is the utter lack of any extant "designer" that could serve as a candidate explanation for the appearance of design that you see.[/Quote]
While God didn't sign His creation with His name, no scientist that I am aware of believes the parameters of the fundamental constants are a result of chance. Chance can't ever be ruled out but the immense magnitude of these numbers makes it incomprehensible to believe it is due to chance. I think that there is a limit perhaps of human ability to define design, but we do recognize design as I've presented. Design is meaningful, purposeful, and informative.

So design is... what? Something that results in an otherwise unlikely outcome? That doesn't work. I can shuffle a deck of cards and deal out a hand of five. The odds that the hand I dealt is any particular combination of cards are astronomical, and yet it factually is one of those astronomically unlikely combinations. Does that mean I rigged the deck?

Unlikely by chance, most likely. This analogy like most is categorically in error.

Your account for the LOL as a part of God's nature is no more trustworthy than mine as conventions developed as the brain developed the complexity to conceptualize them. You can believe that the LOL get you to truth due to them being grounded in God's nature, but you could never really be justified in believing that because that would only be what God's nature was guiding you to believe in the first place. We're in the same boat, you just have a middleman between yourself and reality you trust to give you truth. I just trust reality to give me truth.

Why would reality give you truth? How would reality give you truth? Explain?

Truth is reality described through language, so I'd say language and reality play equal parts in creating truth.

You believe truth is created? Explain?

And why would it need to be confined to one area of the brain? Some materialism-compatible models have consciousness arising as a result of multiple areas of the brain converging to produce what we experience as consciousness.

There is no evidence to confirm that this is possible. No evidence of what we call consciousness confirmed by any models currently. Perhaps this could be a gap in knowledge and we might find it, but it does nothing to explain why we have it and other known species do not. Yet again, it is only a gap if atheistic materialism is assumed to be true.

So what? There are human beings who don't consider themselves to be a self inside a body. That has nothing to do with how conscious something is or isn't.

What constitutes consciousness to you?

As I said before, you can't say something does not comport with reality just because it has not been demonstrated to be true. All hypotheses start out that way. That doesn't mean they don't comport with reality, that just means they haven't been demonstrated to comport with reality. If you're going to take the position that everything is false until proven true, then you have to concede that the Christian worldview is false.

What you have is assumptions of atheistic materialism which do not comport with reality. You haven't shown any evidence that supports your paradigm/worldview. The only gaps are those created by the assumption that atheistic materialism is true and yet you have nothing to support that by way of evidence because you claim they are gaps from which no evidence is known. Do you see the problem?

 

[Oncedeceived]

And for me, that is where the crux of the main disagreements actually come in---i.e. within our recognition of the limitations of science and of human epistemology, as well as those that are set by God and are meant to delimit our theology.

Yes, I think there is something to this.........but then we'd also have to remember that Satan [and sometimes just other people] can do the same kind of thing to any one of us.

Right. But we're wondering to what extent Paul was incorporating epistemological motifs that might be drawn in from the Greek world along with his reliance upon more or less prophetic statements about Creation we find in the Old Testament.

I think your view has merit, and the problems are real but I think I am not convinced. Agree to disagree on this point?

[Quote I don't so much "draw a line" as I do to attempt to recognize the limits that I mentioned briefly above. I'm more about deconstructing scientific pretensions (and religious pretensions), and thereby contemplating our existential "spaces," than I am about sporting scientific prowess. Let's just say that I, in a similar vein to what you might lean toward, tend to be awed by the complexity of our universe/world/humanity, but I think the substantive evaluations that may seem to some people to point to a Creator in some kind of Irreducible fashion are not so easily grasped [by me] as being either fully reducible or irreducible.

More specifically, I also think we need to consider the application of N.O.S. a whole lot more than we typically do or than even practicing scientists typically do. As a sort of brief testament to this, remember the gal you and I were both speaking with here a while back? She too was a working scientist, if you remember, and she admitted to me [to us] that she [bless her heart!] didn't find it necessary to think about the following things, particularly for items 4 and 5 below:

1) Something cosmic like what she says...but make it more "Jesusy"! [my thread]

2) On SCIENCE vs GOD: Enderle's Comical Chemistry for Belief. [my thread]

3) She embraced the E Word as she contemplated the F Word....! [my thread]

4) Critique on...The Myths of Science [my thread]

5) Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process of science [a pertinent website][/Quote]
I am certainly a fan of Ted! I've never seen his video's before so it was fun. I wanted to look at all of these so that is why I took my time replying. I have a hard time actually differentiating from these to my view, so I'm not sure I grasped what you were wanting me to.

And that's what I would expect to hear from an honest person such as yourself.

Thank you.

I've read a little bit from both, although it sounds like you've had a lot more interaction with Behe's ideas than I've ever had, especially since you've corresponded with him. I'll bet that has been some very interesting conversation.

I find him very interesting and intelligent. He helped me understand better his arguments even if I don't use irreducible complexity as one of mine.

Thank you. And I always enjoy reading the things you have to say as well.

Well thank you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think your view has merit, and the problems are real but I think I am not convinced. Agree to disagree on this point?

Ok. I disagree. But really, in my own philosophical position, it's not supremely important to our identities in Christ that we agree on all of the "finer points" involving the ideological commerce between our Christian faith and modern science. I know that some Christians, like the YEC advocates, will assert that it makes "all the difference in the world," but I personally don't think the Lord is as concerned with our abilities to perfectly measure out, decipher and then met out doctrine as they are.

So, I agree to disagree.

I am certainly a fan of Ted! I've never seen his video's before so it was fun. I wanted to look at all of these so that is why I took my time replying. I have a hard time actually differentiating from these to my view, so I'm not sure I grasped what you were wanting me to.

...I'm glad you at least found something interesting in these videos. In a general kind of way, my thinking is in line with Bryan Enderle and with Dr. April Maskiewicz Cordero, but I don't expect anyone else's thinking to line up with mine.

I find it interesting that you say that you don't differentiate your views much from those of the individuals in the videos I've posted. Well, that may be because the BioLogos type view is more or less a much lighter version of 'creationism' than is that which is advocated by Michale Behe or other fellow Christians who promote the epistemological and ontological implications of Intelligent Design theory, or of any other more biblically literal form of creationism. The difference will lie not so much in the common appreciation we all have for the intricate and seemingly God-given structure of the universe in which we exist, but rather in the ways and the extent to which we think that the evidences of science involve themselves in providing indications of God's "thumbprints." Advocates of BioLogos, while representing a small variety of paths for exploration between science and issues of faith, tend to see the relationship between science and our faith as a "dialogue" between separate spheres, whereas proponents of Intelligent Design tend to see these as connected, overlapping spheres in which science definitively and directly "points" through the evidences to the presence of Designer Craftsmanship.

To make it simpler, we might say that BioLogos sees God's Creation "indirectly" while Intelligent Design theory sees it as "direct." As for myself, and as a more philosophical kind of guy, I am even more hesitant to claim that we can readily "see" indirect evidence, let alone direct evidence, but despite my philosophical "drifting," I do lean more toward the BioLogos frame of thought since atheistic materialism seems too .......... nihilistically drab and insolent for my taste. (Blyuck!!! Pa-tooey!!)

Interestingly enough, these are points which I don't think we even talked about with our mutual friend last year...

Thank you.

I find him very interesting and intelligent. He helped me understand better his arguments even if I don't use irreducible complexity as one of mine.

...well, if there's one thing I know about a mouse-trap, it's that you know when it's design has done its job (assuming you put enough cheese on the trap-bar! ....ouch!)

Well thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok. I disagree. But really, in my own philosophical position, it's not supremely important to our identities in Christ that we agree on all of the "finer points" involving the ideological commerce between our Christian faith and modern science. I know that some Christians, like the YEC advocates, will assert that it makes "all the difference in the world," but I personally don't think the Lord is as concerned with our abilities to perfectly measure out, decipher and then met out doctrine as they are.

So, I agree to disagree.

Good to go then.

...I'm glad you at least found something interesting in these videos. In a general kind of way, my thinking is in line with Bryan Enderle and with Dr. April Maskiewicz Cordero, but I don't expect anyone else's thinking to line up with mine.

Generalities seem to be the flavor of your positions, which is not a bad thing. Vanilla I find quite yummy.

I find it interesting that you say that you don't differentiate your views much from those of the individuals in the videos I've posted. Well, that may because the BioLogos type view is more or less a much lighter version of 'creationism' than is that which is advocated by Michale Behe or other fellow Christians who promote the epistemological and ontological implications of Intelligent Design theory, or of any other more biblically literal form of creationism.

I believe and of course this is just my opinion, so take it as you will, it comes down to how much power we give evolution. Some feel that the process is devoid of any action or purpose by the hand or mind of God; and others will claim that while evolution happens it doesn't jive with a purposeless, unguided mindless process. I fit more in line with the second one. I also find it unlikely that evolution could begin to happen without the order we find in the universe and that order I find to make much more sense to be from the mind of God.

The difference will lie not so much in the common appreciation we all have for the intricate and seemingly God-given structure of the universe in which we exist, but rather in the ways and the extent to which we think that the evidences of science involve themselves in providing indications of God's "thumbprints." Advocates of BioLogos, while representing a small variety of paths for exploration between science and issues of faith, tend to see the relationship between science and our faith as a "dialogue" between separate sphere, whereas proponents of Intelligent Design tend to see these as connected, overlapping spheres in which science definitively and directly "points" through the evidences to the presence of Designer Craftsmanship.

This view I feel suffers from the same affliction that unbelievers claim of the definition of design only the opposing side of it; where do you draw the line between what God is responsible for and what isn't He?

To make it more simply, we might say that BioLogos sees God's Creation "indirectly" while Intelligent Design theory sees it as "direct." As for myself, and as a more philosophical kind of guy, I am even more hesitant to claim that we can readily "see" indirect evidence, let alone direct evidence, but despite my philosophical "drifting," I do lean more toward the BioLogos frame of thought since atheistic materialism seems too .......... nihilistically drab and insolent for my taste. (Blyuck!!! Pa-tooey!!)

I so agree, the basis for it is so much more in need of faith to my mind than the faith they propose we depend upon.

Wow, that made my head spin. I don't know if I want to see that. I hate when I get lost on a country road let alone drifting in space...unimaginable.

Interestingly enough, these are points which I don't think we even talked about with our mutual friend last year...

Is she no longer on here?

...well, if there's one thing I know about a mouse-trap, it's that you know when it's design has done its job (assuming you put enough cheese on the trap-bar! ....ouch!)

Poor things, I am one that hates to kill anything but I simply can't tolerate mice in my house. So snap it goes around here. I also poison them which even sounds much more terrible, but I do it.

You're welcome.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good to go then.

Generalities seem to be the flavor of your positions, which is not a bad thing. Vanilla I find quite yummy.

Yes, vanilla can be quite tasty all by itself, but if we're talking ice-cream, I definitely won't knock the presence of a few nicely placed bits of chocolate within the creamy textures. I supposed, though, that the expectancy of finding chocolate bits actually in the vanilla ice cream will depend upon the brand of chocolate-chip ice cream that one feels he can buy into.

I believe and of course this is just my opinion, so take it as you will, it comes down to how much power we give evolution. Some feel that the process is devoid of any action or purpose by the hand or mind of God; and others will claim that while evolution happens it doesn't jive with a purposeless, unguided mindless process. I fit more in line with the second one. I also find it unlikely that evolution could begin to happen without the order we find in the universe and that order I find to make much more sense to be from the mind of God.

I'd say that I fit somewhere in-between, but I could go in for a position like the one that Howard J. Van Till held about 20 years ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Views-Creation-Evolution-Counterpoints/dp/0310220173

This view I feel suffers from the same affliction that unbelievers claim of the definition of design only the opposing side of it; where do you draw the line between what God is responsible for and what isn't He?

...in my more existential view, one doesn't have to feel compelled to "draw" a line between demonstrating what God can be shown to be responsible for versus that which He might not be. Besides, as a Christian, I don't feel it's not my job to get other people to believe. It's only my job to try to encourage them to walk themselves over to the watering-hole "over yonder" for their own drink of the Living Water.

I so agree, the basis for it is so much more in need of faith to my mind than the faith they propose we depend upon.

Yes, I agree.

Wow, that made my head spin. I don't know if I want to see that. I hate when I get lost on a country road let alone drifting in space...unimaginable.

Lol! Yes, it's supposed to be a disorienting experience, at least during the first quarter of the movie. [It's one of my favorites! And Sandra Bullock is really good in her role.....]

Is she no longer on here?

I haven't seen her here since last May. Maybe she's just busy.

Poor things, I am one that hates to kill anything but I simply can't tolerate mice in my house. So snap it goes around here. I also poison them which even sounds much more terrible, but I do it.

Lol! Yes, I feel about the same. But it sure beats stepping in mouse poop.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, vanilla can be quite tasty all by itself, but if we're talking ice-cream, I definitely won't knock the presence of a few nicely placed bits of chocolate within the creamy textures. I supposed, though, that the expectancy of finding chocolate bits actually in the vanilla ice cream will depend upon the brand of chocolate-chip ice cream that one feels he can buy into.

Oh my yes, chocolate makes everything better! Top that concoction with hot fudge and nuts and you have near perfection! Buying into brands, samples of many bring us to our desired or at least our preferred taste. It is a journey is it not?

I'd say that I fit somewhere in-between, but I could go in for a position like the one that Howard J. Van Till held about 20 years ago.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Views-Creation-Evolution-Counterpoints/dp/0310220173

You tempter. I want to read it. I searched for articles from him and I scanned through one (it was rather long) and found it interesting. When I have time I'll finish it.

...in my more existential view, one doesn't have to feel compelled to "draw" a line between demonstrating what God can be shown to be responsible for versus that which He might not be. Besides, as a Christian, I don't feel it's not my job to get other people to believe. It's only my job to try to encourage them to walk themselves over to the watering-hole "over yonder" for their own drink of the Living Water.

We aren't that far apart here. My motivation while equally encouraging the walk to the ol' watering-hole; is to illuminating the reason within the Christian worldview. So many find Christianity lacking a logical and reasonable foundation.

Yes, I agree.

We may agree on more than we recognize.

Lol! Yes, it's supposed to be a disorienting experience, at least during the first quarter of the movie. [It's one of my favorites! And Sandra Bullock is really good in her role.....]

I like most things she does.

I haven't seen her here since last May. Maybe she's just busy.

She is pretty busy most of the time. I always worry about people that go missing from here. Do you?

Lol! Yes, I feel about the same. But it sure beats stepping in mouse poop.

Or finding it the silverware drawer. Yuck. I don't have them that bad presently though. They have stayed in the adjoining garage and only one has ventured in. Its gone.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh my yes, chocolate makes everything better! Top that concoction with hot fudge and nuts and you have near perfection!

...if I could actually have that on a scientific as well as a theological level, I probably think I'd be in Heaven. So, I'm not quite expecting something of quite that magnitude here. But, your definitely right: hot fudge and nuts, and maybe some whipped cream with a cherry on top, would make near perfection!

Buying into brands, samples of many bring us to our desired or at least our preferred taste. It is a journey is it not?

For me, the journey of comparison is part of what makes it all so interesting.

You tempter. I want to read it. I searched for articles from him and I scanned through one (it was rather long) and found it interesting. When I have time I'll finish it.

Take your time, Sis!

We aren't that far apart here. My motivation while equally encouraging the walk to the ol' watering-hole; is to illuminating the reason within the Christian worldview. So many find Christianity lacking a logical and reasonable foundation.

Oh, I think you're definitely oriented in the right direction in thinking this. It's just that in line with the philosophical ruminations made by my friend @Silmarien here at CF, I like to appropriate some aspects of Deconstruction and Philosophical Hermeneutics, maybe a touch of Scholasticism, along with a few scoops of apophatic chocolate chips, and put all of this into the generous vanilla recipe of analysis which I tend to buy into and eat up.

We may agree on more than we recognize.

Oh, I'm sure we do, actually.

I like most things she does.

Me too.

She is pretty busy most of the time. I always worry about people that go missing from here. Do you?

Yes, I do get concerned from time to time, but then I have to pull the reigns back and realize there's only so much I can do, especially for those who I encounter who have two PhDs.

Or finding it the silverware drawer. Yuck. I don't have them that bad presently though. They have stayed in the adjoining garage and only one has ventured in. Its gone.

...Oh no! You didn't just say all that! [Time to buy some new silverware.........................unless you think we can fully trust the techno-science of the dishwasher. ]

 

[Oncedeceived]

...if I could actually have that on a scientific as well as a theological level, I probably think I'd be in Heaven. So, I'm not quite expecting something of quite that magnitude here. But, your definitely right: hot fudge and nuts, and maybe some whipped cream with a cherry on top, would make near perfection!

Ok, I have to have this for dessert. Flung a cravin' on me. Luckily I have everything in the house.

For me, the journey of comparison is part of what makes it all so interesting.

Indeed.

Take your time, Sis!

Thanks.

Oh, I think you're definitely oriented in the right direction in thinking this. It's just that in line with the philosophical ruminations made by my friend @Silmarien here at CF, I like to appropriate some aspects of Deconstruction and Philosophical Hermeneutics, maybe a touch of Scholasticism, along with a few scoops of apophatic chocolate chips, and put all of this into the generous vanilla recipe of analysis which I tend to buy into and eat up.

Nothing wrong with that.

[QuoteOh, I'm sure we do, actually.[/Quote]But bottom-line...we are saved by Jesus Christ. That is the main issue.

Me too.

The Heat is one of my favorites.

Yes, I do get concerned from time to time, but then I have to pull the reigns back and realize there's only so much I can do, especially for those who I encounter who have two PhDs.

I meant actually, worried if something happened to them. We wouldn't know, you know.

...Oh no! You didn't just say all that! [Time to buy some new silverware.........................unless you think we can fully trust the techno-science of the dishwasher. ]

Unfortunately yes, we lived on a ranch and they overran everything. We lived there just a while but while we did I found baby mice in one of my coat linings in my out of season clothing which were in a tote that had somehow got opened and in the silverware drawer. I cleaned it (the silverware) with clorox and wrapped it up and stored it in the cupboard which they didn't get access to. It was nasty to say the least. We lived next to a field that seemed to be their habitat but they still moved in with us! Luckily we didn't have children at the time and we didn't live there very long. So I've always made certain to look into cupboards and behind furniture when house shopping to make sure there were no signs of mice before making it home. Nasty little creatures when they move inside.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, I have to have this for dessert. Flung a cravin' on me. Luckily I have everything in the house.

Indeed.

Thanks.

Nothing wrong with that.

But bottom-line...we are saved by Jesus Christ. That is the main issue.

THAT I'm fairly confident we're on the same or close to the same page..........I'm just more 'vanilla' about it.

The Heat is one of my favorites.

I actually haven't seen that one. My wife and I have seen The Proposal. That was a cute movie!

I meant actually, worried if something happened to them. We wouldn't know, you know.

Oh, 'that' kind of worried............well, yeah! I've had plenty of people come and go in my life over whom I've been concerned, and there's been a few here on CF over the years that I've thought, "They're not here anymore. I'm sure hoping they're ok." And like you said, we wouldn't know, and that is concerning.

Unfortunately yes, we lived on a ranch and they overran everything. We lived there just a while but while we did I found baby mice in one of my coat linings in my out of season clothing which were in a tote that had somehow got opened and in the silverware drawer. I cleaned it (the silverware) with clorox and wrapped it up and stored it in the cupboard which they didn't get access to. It was nasty to say the least. We lived next to a field that seemed to be their habitat but they still moved in with us! Luckily we didn't have children at the time and we didn't live there very long. So I've always made certain to look into cupboards and behind furniture when house shopping to make sure there were no signs of mice before making it home. Nasty little creatures when they move inside.

Oh my!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Indeed.

Thanks.

Nothing wrong with that.

THAT I'm fairly confident we're on the same or close to the same page..........I'm just more 'vanilla' about it.

I actually haven't seen that one. My wife and I have seen The Proposal. That was a cute movie!

We've watched The Proposal like three or four times! Love it.

Oh, 'that' kind of worried............well, yeah! I've had plenty of people come and go in my life over whom I've been concerned, and there's been a few here on CF over the years that I've thought, "They're not here anymore. I'm sure hoping they're ok." And like you said, we wouldn't know, and that is concerning.

Right.

Oh my!

Sorry I grossed you out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I meant actually, worried if something happened to them. We wouldn't know, you know.

And just so you know, I was wondering where you had disappeared to for a while not too long ago. So, there's that, too...

 

[Oncedeceived]

And just so you know, I was wondering where you had disappeared to for a while not too long ago. So, there's that, too...

I do that. Summers are so busy that many times I don't post much during that time, but thanks for thinking of me.

 

[gaara4158]

I think you have missed the point, your paradigm or worldview has many, many things that are not demonstrated to be true empirically or logically. In fact, the number of 'things' that are not empirically demonstrated are numerous. Not only are they not empirically demonstrated nor logically so, many are opposite of what we see in reality. We see life coming from living matter, we see intelligence arising from intelligence and the LOL necessarily coming a priori for any knowledge to be possible. All of these elements of reality are opposite to those beliefs in your worldview.

That's not true at all, and I'm concerned as to how I must be coming across that you'd say something like that. I do not hold a worldview that precludes the possibility of life coming from life, intelligence from intelligence, and the reliable utility of logical reasoning. I'm having a hard time understanding how you got that from what I said. My worldview allows for a great many possibilities that have not yet been demonstrated to be true, but that does not mean I actually hold them all to be true. You seem to think that if I can't prove something is true, then the position that it's even possible is completely unsupported by reality. I would be careful with this kind of reasoning, because your worldview is vulnerable to the exact same line of attack.

I must ask, are the questions that your worldview leaves open really gaps of knowledge or simply evidence against your paradigm? Take life from non-living matter...the earliest fossilized life already shows complexity. The only gap to be filled is if you start with the assumption of materialism. The fact that life already was complex very early in the planet's history doesn't propose that there were other simpler life forms before the fossilized forms we have in evidence. Only if we assume materialism does a gap exist. Intelligence arising from non-intelligent matter is not in evidence. Only if we assume materialism is there a gap to be filled. The Laws of Logic had to be in force prior to the ability to acquire knowledge at all, to evolve they had to be already in force. No gap, just necessary a priori truth about what is true or false. Something completely necessary to develop understanding of the world around us.

I don't know where to begin here. You're making a god of the gaps argument while simultaneously denying that you're doing so, and even then some of the "gaps" you're pointing to aren't even there under a materialistic worldview. First, pointing out that gaps exist in one paradigm where they don't exist in a theistic one is textbook god of the gaps argumentation. Second, the fossil record starting out complex is easily explained by the fact that their earlier, softer-bodied predecessors didn't really lend themselves to fossilization. They completely decomposed after death. There was nothing left to get encased in mud. Luckily, fossils aren't our only clues to biological history. Third, I don't even know what you mean when you say the LOL had to be "in force" prior to our evolution of the ability to use them. You previously agreed that the LOL apply to statements, not things, so how could they be in force before anyone was around to make statements?

No, what is demonstrated that provides you with evidence for your paradigm that explains the cosmos, life, intelligence and the LOL?

The "special sauce" of the cosmos, life, intelligence, and the LOL under nontheistic materialism is material, which has been demonstrated to exist, even if the exact mechanism hasn't been identified. The "special sauce" of the cosmos, life, intelligence, and the LOL under Christianity is God, which has not been demonstrated to exist and so cannot be demonstrated to be a part of any mechanism. Neither of these paradigms is inescapable, but nontheistic materialism is the stronger of the two for having fewer assumptions and a better track record. You can say that materialism makes numerous assumptions if you itemize all the unsolved philosophical questions whose possible solutions would be restricted under materialism, but ultimately you make the same number of assumptions in your worldview, yours are just different.

I believe science is important in many ways to civilization. I believe that we can provide insight in the way the material universe operates. I believe that to say it is the most reliable method to bring understanding to us by means of its methodology, I would agree. I don't agree however with the premise it is the most reliable way for creating predictive models of reality. Science was born in the mindset of Theology, without which modern science would not have began. Modern science still depends on Christian theology by assuming theological premises a priori to any methodology. Science and Christian religion are not opposing worldviews. Only materialistic atheistic science opposes the Christian religion. That being said, scientific findings show support from the very birth of its methodology to present day discoveries that God is a reasonable and logical explanation for reality.

You never actually supported the sentence I've highlighted in bold. Instead, you went on to a non sequitur about how early scientists were mostly theists. That doesn't mean science rests on theistic premises. In fact, the opposite is the case: modern science operates based on methodological naturalism which deliberately places the supernatural outside of the realm of that which we can detect. You can believe that God is the grounding for the intelligibility of the universe, but don't pretend science shares this contention. It doesn't. So, you need to either support your claim that science isn't the most reliable method of creating predictive models of reality, or retract it.

The theory of Evolution has accommodated a great deal more than what was predicted, it can be made to fit where it wasn't predicted to fit...life from non-living matter is not evidence based...I don't even think it could be falsified considering it isn't already, because we don't find any evidence that non-living matter begins to be living.

It would be difficult to overturn evolution at this point due to the sheer mass of converging evidence that all points to it being true, but in principle the theory of evolution is very falsifiable. For example, if it could be shown that mutation does not occur, the whole theory would come crashing down. Evolution is an excellent example of a theory with great explanatory power for meeting all the criteria I listed earlier.
Life from non-life isn't evolution, that's abiogenesis, and exactly how that happened has not yet been discovered, but unless you believe life has existed for all eternity you, too, believe life came from non-life at some point. The mystery is how it happened, not whether it happened or not.

It is predictive, as I've already presented, the fact that the universe is uniform and intelligible is a prediction that comes from Christian theology. The fact that the universe is invariant is again predicted from Christian theology. The fact that humans have the cognitive ability from the LOL to understand the cosmos and make predictions at all is predicted by Christian theology. I'm not sure what you mean by God's mysterious ways? If you mean we as humans don't understand all of God's thoughts that is predicted as well. Satanic interference is also a prediction. I don't know how that is incorporated into evidences that support God's existence though.

That's not what it means to be predictive. As it was explained to you a couple pages back, you're making the error of affirming the consequent. You're looking back at things we already know (or believe), supposing that God would explain them, and calling that a prediction. And then you concede that humans don't understand God's thoughts and actions, completely nullifying the possibility of predictivity for your position anyway because any failed predictions could be written off as misunderstandings on our parts, which is "also predicted." Your position is unfalsifiable.

This disappoints me. You have argued with reason and thoughtful responses and then you blow it with the categorical error of pixies/Zeus fallacy. Are you going to claim pink unicorns and the Great Spaghetti Monster next? If this discussion is going to devolve into this it will go nowhere fast.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but if you think your position is to be taken more seriously than those I listed or the ones you brazenly dismiss here, you're going to have to justify it beyond your continued insistence that "it explains everything" because all those other options do too.

What is observed in an atheistic materialism? I've shown that there is no evidence for life from non-living matter, no evidence of intelligence arising from non-intelligence, and no evidence that the a priori nature of the LOL could evolve to being absolute, invariant and universal truths about what is true or false in the world.

Material is observed. God is not. We can argue about the mechanics of everything, but ultimately I'm being more conservative.

If we were to go to Mars and we found a stuff animal, we would not believe that it was a natural occurring element in the environment of Mars. If we found a cliff with the inscription of "I was Here" written on its wall we wouldn't believe that this was a natural occurring element in the Mars environment.

It doesn't matter where you find a stuffed animal or a written message, you can tell they're not naturally-occurring elements because you already know that stuffed animals and written messages are made by people. This has nothing to do with the recognition of design, as someone could easily design rocks that look that they belonged on Mars and you would believe they were a naturally-occurring element in that environment.

In the same way, when we find information of any kind that is meaningful such as measurements that are necessary for the universe and life itself which are so exact that if they were changed by even the smallest way would prohibit the universe/life it is meaningful and informative. It is recognized in the way that if it were a radio and the radio had to be tuned exactly right to have the ability to make sound and if that knob is turned even the smallest way it would prohibit sound. We know they don't have to be this way because we can simulate universes that could exist but would not have the ability for life. So we call this fine tuned for life, because that is exactly what it appears to be. This is why so many scientists have promoted the multi-verse because it is too fine tuned to be explained by mere chance and too fine tuned not be "fixed" for intelligent life to exist at all. Your Anthropic Principal is just a truism. It doesn't explain anything, nor does it do away with the fine tuning that is in evidence.

The multiverse is virtually required by the cosmic anthropic principle, but those are just two elements of a battery of objections to your fine tuning argument. Other objections include the possibility that other "tunes" might result in other forms of life, it might not be physically possible for the "knobs" to be in any other positions, other configurations of the cosmic values would actually result in more life in the universe, and fine tuning for life would only be required under naturalism since a god wouldn't need to fine tune anything, he could just create. The fine tuning argument, while better than William Lane Craig's usual list, still doesn't get us anywhere near a deity let alone your Christian god.

 

[gaara4158]

God is a parsimonious explanation and one that fits with reality. God did it, explains nothing but how God did it does. Your paradigm looks at the pen and paper of the elements of the world and only that. Mine looks at the pen and paper and explains why the pen and paper exist at all. Your pen and paper has all the words on it already before you even begin to write. Requiring a belief in an entity that explains the reason for a universe...the reason we find the fine tuning for intelligent life...the reason life exists...the reason the LOL exist are all more reasonable and in evidence rather than a universe that has no reason for its existence, no evidence for life from non-life or for intelligent arising from non-intelligent matter from which the LOL are necessary to understand any of this explains nothing and has almost zero evidence to explain it. We haven't ever observed life from non-living matter, we have never observed intelligence arising from non-intelligent matter, we have never "observed" the LOL which are necessary, invariant, and universal evolving. These are all assumptions that are not observed. None of them. Yet you want to discount my worldview for God not being observed. You are asking of me something that you can't even do with your own paradigm. If Christianity is true as I claim, God has been observed in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is in evidence, historically proven to exist. So in actuality, God has been observed and was documented in history. So in conclusion, the Christian worldview starts with an observed God, a universe that has purpose (life), with fine tuned parameters that allow for intelligent life, intelligence by image of God, laws that govern not only the universe but thought as well. It is cohesive and coherent and in evidence. Now whether or not you believe that Jesus was God, whether or not you believe that the universe is fine tuned to allow intelligent life, whether or not you believe that God explains all this; it remains consistent and cohesive within the Christian worldview and is supported by scientific evidence. It is not an illogical or unreasonable worldview that has evidence to support it.

Fitting with reality is the bare minimum requirement of an explanation. It is not a strength by itself. Your worldview is absolutely not parsimonious. You admit it yourself. You say if Christianity is true, then God has been observed in the person of Jesus Christ. You don't need to go any further than that, because you're already working under the premise that Christianity is true so you've already gotten to the conclusion you wanted. Still, you continue on to say that Jesus was observed historically, and therefore God has been observed. But you can only say God has been observed under the assumption that Christianity is true. And if you're going to go that far, you've already made a giant assumption. One way or the other, your paradigm is based on a giant assumption, and that's one giant assumption more than mine. You have to eschew parsimony if you're going to take up the full Christian worldview.

While God didn't sign His creation with His name, no scientist that I am aware of believes the parameters of the fundamental constants are a result of chance. Chance can't ever be ruled out but the immense magnitude of these numbers makes it incomprehensible to believe it is due to chance. I think that there is a limit perhaps of human ability to define design, but we do recognize design as I've presented. Design is meaningful, purposeful, and informative.

Well, meaning and purpose are subjective, and information isn't indicative of design by itself, so I don't think that's a good definition for design either. I agree that we have a limited ability to define and recognize design, so that's why I don't find arguments from design very compelling.

Unlikely by chance, most likely. This analogy like most is categorically in error.

How? Explain.

Why would reality give you truth? How would reality give you truth? Explain?

Truth is that which comports with reality. Where else would you go for truth than directly to reality?

You believe truth is created? Explain?

Truth, as in a statement that comports with reality? I create statements all the time. When they comport with reality, they're true.

There is no evidence to confirm that this is possible. No evidence of what we call consciousness confirmed by any models currently. Perhaps this could be a gap in knowledge and we might find it, but it does nothing to explain why we have it and other known species do not. Yet again, it is only a gap if atheistic materialism is assumed to be true.

There's also no evidence to confirm that it's impossible. Your point? If we do find the evidence confirming that's how consciousness is created, it would follow that other known species who have similar neural structures would show similar signs of consciousness, and as far as I know that's actually the case. You have no evidence that other known species do not have consciousness. I can't believe you're actually taking pride in using a blatant god of the gaps argument.

What constitutes consciousness to you?

Subjective awareness.

What you have is assumptions of atheistic materialism which do not comport with reality. You haven't shown any evidence that supports your paradigm/worldview. The only gaps are those created by the assumption that atheistic materialism is true and yet you have nothing to support that by way of evidence because you claim they are gaps from which no evidence is known. Do you see the problem?

The gaps are there at face value, no need for any paradigm. You're offering up your paradigm with no gaps as though that's a strength, when in reality that's a very old and well-recognized fallacy that you don't seem to recognize.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not true at all, and I'm concerned as to how I must be coming across that you'd say something like that. I do not hold a worldview that precludes the possibility of life coming from life, intelligence from intelligence, and the reliable utility of logical reasoning. I'm having a hard time understanding how you got that from what I said. My worldview allows for a great many possibilities that have not yet been demonstrated to be true, but that does not mean I actually hold them all to be true. You seem to think that if I can't prove something is true, then the position that it's even possible is completely unsupported by reality. I would be careful with this kind of reasoning, because your worldview is vulnerable to the exact same line of attack.

I understand your worldview is an atheistic naturalism. If that is incorrect, please let me know what I have wrong.

I don't know where to begin here. You're making a god of the gaps argument while simultaneously denying that you're doing so, and even then some of the "gaps" you're pointing to aren't even there under a materialistic worldview. First, pointing out that gaps exist in one paradigm where they don't exist in a theistic one is textbook god of the gaps argumentation. Second, the fossil record starting out complex is easily explained by the fact that their earlier, softer-bodied predecessors didn't really lend themselves to fossilization. They completely decomposed after death. There was nothing left to get encased in mud. Luckily, fossils aren't our only clues to biological history. Third, I don't even know what you mean when you say the LOL had to be "in force" prior to our evolution of the ability to use them. You previously agreed that the LOL apply to statements, not things, so how could they be in force before anyone was around to make statements?

First of all, what I am doing in our conversation is providing a look into two different worldviews. Taking each worldview, discussing what each view holds to and what evidence is supportive of each. The Christian worldview hasn't got gaps. The worldview explains very cohesively what we should see in reality if it is true. We have a Personal all powerful Intelligent Being who claims to have existed eternally, that has created a universe in which He desires beings created in His image to exist. There is evidence that supports the universe having a purpose towards creating that life. There is evidence within that life itself which shows purpose and engineering towards a goal. The worldview explains why there is this universe, why there are laws that govern this universe, why there is intelligent life and why the universe and life show purpose. On the other hand if we take what the atheistic naturalism holds we don't see what we should see if it is true. We don't see it being cohesive with reality. It has gaps in explanations of what we see in reality. These gaps are in its own worldview, not that of Christian worldview. The point which I continue to try to show is that the Christian worldview is more cohesive and coherent than the atheistic naturalism worldview. If you don't hold that to be your worldview, I guess I've been beating a dead horse so to speak.

The "special sauce" of the cosmos, life, intelligence, and the LOL under nontheistic materialism is material, which has been demonstrated to exist, even if the exact mechanism hasn't been identified.

This is begging the question. You are claiming that since the pen and paper exist then it explains the pen and paper but it doesn't explain it at all. The first problem isn't that the mechanism hasn't been identified but that it doesn't have any explanatory power at all. The second problem which I feel is more important is that you have to assume a mechanism exists to explain each and every element in the material realm. You would need a mechanism to explain the existence of the universe, the existence of life, existence of intelligence, and the existence of the LOL. There is no reason to believe that all of these elements of reality are explained by only one mechanism, so the number of unexplained elements in the worldview far outnumber the ones I make to explain the Christian worldview. In fact, the Christian worldview there is only one, and that is only if you assume that Jesus was not God. The fact that in the Christian worldview we do view Jesus as God and that He did as well, brings us to a most coherent and cohesive worldview.

The "special sauce" of the cosmos, life, intelligence, and the LOL under Christianity is God, which has not been demonstrated to exist and so cannot be demonstrated to be a part of any mechanism. Neither of these paradigms is inescapable, but nontheistic materialism is the stronger of the two for having fewer assumptions and a better track record. You can say that materialism makes numerous assumptions if you itemize all the unsolved philosophical questions whose possible solutions would be restricted under materialism, but ultimately you make the same number of assumptions in your worldview, yours are just different.

One, you claim that yours has fewer assumptions but as I said above, there are many assumptions in yours compared to one in mine and one only if you disregard Jesus as being God. As far as materialism having a better track record, what would that be? That material is material? Darwinian evolution is a very simplistic explanation that has recently been shown to be insufficient to explain the evolutionary processes of life. To claim that evolution is a materialistic only premise is incorrect as well. The evidence supports an engineering and purpose within life that shows an inward intelligence that is not explained by materialism alone or atheistic materialism anyway. Regardless, in the Christian worldview we see intelligence written all over the cosmos, within life and in our own intelligence. That makes sense in my worldview but it doesn't in yours.

You never actually supported the sentence I've highlighted in bold. Instead, you went on to a non sequitur about how early scientists were mostly theists. That doesn't mean science rests on theistic premises. In fact, the opposite is the case: modern science operates based on methodological naturalism which deliberately places the supernatural outside of the realm of that which we can detect. You can believe that God is the grounding for the intelligibility of the universe, but don't pretend science shares this contention. It doesn't. So, you need to either support your claim that science isn't the most reliable method of creating predictive models of reality, or retract it.

Modern Science was based on Theism. The assumptions that Science takes on faith are those set forth by Theism. Science in its earliest form was based on those assumptions that the universe was uniform, intelligible and invariant. The early scientists didn't just believe in God but because of that belief it predicted that the universe would have laws that we could learn about, that because of that belief we could comprehend the universe and understand how God created. Newton said, “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” And, "From this fountain (the free will of God) it is those laws, which we call the laws of nature, have flowed, in which there appear many traces of the most wise contrivance, but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we must not seek from uncertain conjectures, but learn them from observations and experimental. He who is presumptuous enough to think that he can find the true principles of physics and the laws of natural things by the force alone of his own mind, and the internal light of his reason, must either suppose the world exists by necessity, and by the same necessity follows the law proposed; or if the order of Nature was established by the will of God, the [man] himself, a miserable reptile, can tell what was fittest to be done.
Science wasn't modeled to put the supernatural outside of the realm of that which we can detect. Science was modeled to show more in line with how God did it. Predictions based on God being the Agent of the creation were successfully shown through experimentation and methodology, knowing that the universe would flow laws and those laws were invariant as is God.

It would be difficult to overturn evolution at this point due to the sheer mass of converging evidence that all points to it being true, but in principle the theory of evolution is very falsifiable. For example, if it could be shown that mutation does not occur, the whole theory would come crashing down. Evolution is an excellent example of a theory with great explanatory power for meeting all the criteria I listed earlier.
Life from non-life isn't evolution, that's abiogenesis, and exactly how that happened has not yet been discovered, but unless you believe life has existed for all eternity you, too, believe life came from non-life at some point. The mystery is how it happened, not whether it happened or not.

Evolution has evolved. The theory has evolved. It is no longer based upon the simplistic view of Darwin. If it hadn't evolved it would not have allowed horizontal transfer, it would not have allowed punctuated equilibrium nor would it have allowed symbiosis and now genetic engineering. Yes, life had to come from non-life but I don't believe that it is due to a process devoid of purpose, goals or intelligence. I think that life shows purpose, goals and intelligence.

That's not what it means to be predictive. As it was explained to you a couple pages back, you're making the error of affirming the consequent. You're looking back at things we already know (or believe), supposing that God would explain them, and calling that a prediction. And then you concede that humans don't understand God's thoughts and actions, completely nullifying the possibility of predictivity for your position anyway because any failed predictions could be written off as misunderstandings on our parts, which is "also predicted." Your position is unfalsifiable.

No, it isn't looking back, the Bible predicted that the universe had a beginning. When it was written, it was thought that the universe was eternal. It wasn't until the Big Bang hypothesis did we learn scientifically that the universe had a beginning. The Bible predicted that there were laws that governed the universe, we didn't find that scientifically for thousands of years either. The Bible predicted that the earth was hung on nothing, at the time everyone believed that the earth was supported by something. The Bible predicted that the stars were innumerable and at the time without telescopes people thought the stars could be counted. The Bible predicted paths in the sea and they were discovered by Matthew Fontaine Maury. There are others as well.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but if you think your position is to be taken more seriously than those I listed or the ones you brazenly dismiss here, you're going to have to justify it beyond your continued insistence that "it explains everything" because all those other options do too.

You think that pixies and Zeus explain everything?

Material is observed. God is not. We can argue about the mechanics of everything, but ultimately I'm being more conservative.

See above.

It doesn't matter where you find a stuffed animal or a written message, you can tell they're not naturally-occurring elements because you already know that stuffed animals and written messages are made by people. This has nothing to do with the recognition of design, as someone could easily design rocks that look that they belonged on Mars and you would believe they were a naturally-occurring element in that environment.

Yes, someone could easily design rocks that look like they are naturally-occurring but that would only mean we didn't recognize they were intelligently designed. Yet, if they were stacked in a large triangle made of millions of them, would we recognize that there was nothing to explain their arrangement except for intelligence.


The multiverse is virtually required by the cosmic anthropic principle, but those are just two elements of a battery of objections to your fine tuning argument. Other objections include the possibility that other "tunes" might result in other forms of life, it might not be physically possible for the "knobs" to be in any other positions, other configurations of the cosmic values would actually result in more life in the universe, and fine tuning for life would only be required under naturalism since a god wouldn't need to fine tune anything, he could just create. The fine tuning argument, while better than William Lane Craig's usual list, still doesn't get us anywhere near a deity let alone your Christian god.[/QUOTE]
Just like we can modify and arrange the numbers and ranges for different theorized universe the same can be done for life. Different life forms can be hypothesized in different universes and what they find is that life is very unlikely to have developed within them.