On the futility of evidence-based apologetics

[Tone]

Yes, I see clearly that you're making unsupportable claims. Just because you have an old book doesn't make it any more true.

Who said my possession of it makes it true?

 

[Tone]

All right then, hit me up when you're interested in having an adult convo.

Adios.

See, now you are out of the world we spoke into existence...

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So...would a "supernatural" cosmic mind be some thing

I don't know. You'd have to first positively and coherently define 'supernatural'.

You said reality is immutable...The Creator is immutable...so...you're both right.

If reality derives from a 'creator', then it's not immutable. It's contingent.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, if predictability is a metaphysical statement then I’ll have to retract all that, but my point was that all of science and knowledge don’t necessarily get swallowed up in a void of subjectivity unless objective idealism is true, as presuppositionalists argue.

I would say predictability implicates metaphysics, and yes, science and knowledge oughtn't be swallowed up by forms of subjectivism. I too am not yet convinced by Apologetic_Warrior's arguments. Granted, he would have to say more about his position than he has done in this thread.

Perhaps you would do better to argue that there is a certain minimal subset of metaphysics that all of science works from, a subset which is relatively uncontroversial. I wouldn't make that argument per se, but it is more tenable than the claim that science has no metaphysical positions or makes no metaphysical statements.

 

[HitchSlap]

I would say predictability implicates metaphysics,

Would you explain this? I fail to see how observing physics requires a metaphysical necessity? What am I missing here?

 

[gaara4158]

I would say predictability implicates metaphysics, and yes, science and knowledge oughtn't be swallowed up by forms of subjectivism. I too am not yet convinced by Apologetic_Warrior's arguments. Granted, he would have to say more about his position than he has done in this thread.

Perhaps you would do better to argue that there is a certain minimal subset of metaphysics that all of science works from, a subset which is relatively uncontroversial. I wouldn't make that argument per se, but it is more tenable than the claim that science has no metaphysical positions or makes no metaphysical statements.

That’s a fine way to restate it, thank you. That line of argumentation was an effort to nip presuppositionalism in the bud, since I was seeing signs that that’s where it was headed. It’s not something I would advance on its own.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

That’s a fine way to restate it, thank you. That line of argumentation was an effort to nip presuppositionalism in the bud, since I was seeing signs that that’s where it was headed. It’s not something I would advance on its own.

It's helpful to have those kind of responses. Presuppositionalists seem to count on the fact that most people, even most Christians, have never encountered their brand of apologetics, and don't know how to respond to it. Once you have their tactics down, and refuse to follow their script, I find they tend to give up very quickly.

 

[Tone]

I don't know. You'd have to first positively and coherently define 'supernatural'.

We can start with the idea that what is called "natural" by scientists, is actually unnatural. So, what people call "supernatural" is actually what was natural...and still is, though hard for unnatural man to tap into.

 

[Tone]

If reality derives from a 'creator', then it's not immutable. It's contingent.

If you say that it is immutable, then it is the Creator...or you just keep going back and back...ad infinitum...it's like the whole "big bang" thing...well, where did that come from?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

We can start with the idea that what is called "natural" by scientists, is actually unnatural. So, what people call "supernatural" is actually what was natural...and still is, though hard for unnatural man to tap into.

We can call a banana a stapler, if we really want to, but speaking gibberish doesn't serve to illuminate anything.

If you say that it is immutable, then it is the Creator...or you just keep going back and back...ad infinitum...it's like the whole "big bang" thing...well, where did that come from?

I don't think it 'came from' anywhere. Just like you don't think Yahweh 'came from' anywhere.

 

[zippy2006]

Would you explain this? I fail to see how observing physics requires a metaphysical necessity? What am I missing here?

Metaphysics from a historical Aristotelian vantage point is the study of being qua being, which might be said to be the study of reality at the greatest levels of generalization. Gaara was focused on predictability. Science, insofar as it desires predictability, presupposes certain fundamental characteristics of reality, namely the truth of the underlying structures that account for predictability in the first place. There are various theories of consistency and causation (e.g. substance, essence, nature, bundles, constant conjunction, etc.) but they all make non-trivial claims about the fundamental nature of reality.

Modern science tends to be more practical than speculative and therefore attempts to eschew metaphysics, but it still exists at least in the form of presuppositions. In fact Kantian systems that really try to avoid metaphysics have naturally resulted in the weakening of science.

 

[Soyeong]

I don't know if it's all that concrete, we tend to think that we are more rational than we actually are, whatever it is that we believe. We take a few things that seem fairly certain for one reason or another and then make narratives that connect those few things together, and call that rational thinking.

There can be a wide spectrum of good and bad reasons to hold any particular belief, but what is important is that the person who holds a belief considers themselves to have sufficiently good reasons to warrant that belief, not whether anyone else agrees that their reasons are well thought out.

 

[Tone]

We can call a banana a stapler, if we really want to, but speaking gibberish doesn't serve to illuminate anything.



I don't think it 'came from' anywhere. Just like you don't think Yahweh 'came from' anywhere.

So, unlike @HitchSlap, you believe matter came from non matter?

 

[Tone]

Yeah, coming from somewhere implies the space/time continuum...He definitely didn't come from there...yeah, I think I'll have to agree that I don't think He came from any where, or some where,or even every where...I think He established all wheres. But, I thought the "Big Bang" involved material substance; so you believe substance always was, is, and will be? Is it conscious? . I can imagine consciousness contemplating matter, but I can't fathom matter contemplating consciousness.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

But, I thought the "Big Bang" involved material substance; so you believe substance always was, is, and will be?

The Big Bang describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion, and early evolution of the universe. It says nothing at all about pre-Planck time conditions, because our current physics are incapable of addressing it.

I personally suspect there has always been 'something'. Perhaps that 'something' was matter, in some as yet unknown form, perhaps not. No one knows.

Is it conscious?

I have no reason whatsoever to suspect that, no.

 

[variant]

The Big Bang describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion, and early evolution of the universe. It says nothing at all about pre-Planck time conditions, because our current physics are incapable of addressing it.

I personally suspect there has always been 'something'. Perhaps that 'something' was matter, in some as yet unknown form, perhaps not. No one knows.

You can't explain things with facts that no one knows.

 

[variant]

It’s common in discussions between theists and atheists for the subject of “evidence” to come up. Atheists will often state that the evidence for God is not sufficient to warrant belief, and the theist will either agree and appeal to faith, or they will disagree and provide what they think to be good evidence. The problem is, either way the theist chooses to defend their belief in God, the two parties hardly ever end up talking about the same thing, as it’s rare to see them take the time to agree on definitions for evidence, faith, and God.

A good definition of God would be a start, but I'm not sure I have ever seen even a coherent one.

The problem with evidence is that we gain evidence via observation, and defining God via observation is something theists simply do not do.