Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Yes, because people haven't already been parroting Craig and others ad nauseam on this forum.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, because people haven't already been parroting Craig and others ad nauseam on this forum.Pardon me, Frumious, but like you, I don't have the patience to refute everything you say. You might be some mute inglorious Einstein, but I thnk the odds agaisnt that are astronmcaly high ; so, I'll merely point out to that your reasoning is abject. I particularly like this - which you actually dilate upon at great length without adding anything to your orignalal claim :
(e.g. if a multiverse hypothesis based on sound physical theory is unscientific and therefore unacceptable, a creator hypothesis pulled out of literally nowhere is even less so).
The notion that the Creator explanation is pulled out of nowhere is naive beyond belief. Do you realise how many men and women of extraordinarily high intelligence and erudition in their field, - possibly higher than yours.... - including Nobel laureates and paradigm-changers, such as Planck, have believed this (and with good reason) and that physics increasingly substantiates it, as Robert Jastrow and Arno Penzias, to name but two eminent scientists, explain. And no. Even an eternal universe - which we know is not the case - would not suffice for a team of monkeys to write a Shakespeare sonnet, never mind produce another planet with one of more than a hundred finely-tuned settings needing to be accurate to about an inch in relation to the distance to the moon. Each additional variable compounds the improbability by exponentially orders of magnitude.
Your world-view appears to be based on the scientism paradigm, i.e. that there is no immaterial reality, since the latter could not be measured ... and has to be pulled out of a hat... If you are serious about learning the truth, I recommend you delve into the explanations by the Christian apologists, William Craig and John Lennox, two extraordinarily well-qualified, Christian apologists.
A hypothesis is a potential explanation for some observation or observations. A good (useful) hypothesis should have explanatory power , so it explains observations in terms of concepts and ideas that are informative, i.e. enable us to understand how those observations came about, and use it to explain other observations; it should explain the unexplained in terms of what is known and understood; it should have simplicity (parsimony), explaining observations with a minimal number of assumptions, entities, and forces (Occam's Razor). If it raises more questions than it answers, it isn't simple or explanatory. A good explanation has scope, meaning it can explain many different types of observations (e.g. Newton's law of universal gravitation explains why things fall to the ground, why planets and stars are spherical, and why planets orbit stars).
It should have predictive power, which tells you what new observations you can make about it, and the results you'll get from them; i.e. it should predict something previously unknown.
Those attributes contribute to the crucial one of testability, which means there must be a way of making observations to show whether or not it is likely to be correct - and most importantly, observations that could potentially show it to be incorrect (falsifiability), so that if your hypothesis makes a prediction and that prediction is false, your hypothesis is probably wrong.
These criteria are some of what we should expect from a good hypothesis and part of the criteria for abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) used in science.
The God hypothesis is poor because the 'God' concept is ill-defined - there's no clear, agreed definition of its properties and attributes, and it fails all the criteria (above) for a good hypothesis (except, possibly, scope, which encompasses everything; but an ill-defined reason for everything explains nothing).
Does that help?
A hypothesis is a potential explanation for some observation or observations. A good (useful) hypothesis should have explanatory power , so it explains observations in terms of concepts and ideas that are informative, i.e. enable us to understand how those observations came about, and use it to explain other observations; it should explain the unexplained in terms of what is known and understood; it should have simplicity (parsimony), explaining observations with a minimal number of assumptions, entities, and forces (Occam's Razor).
If it raises more questions than it answers, it isn't simple or explanatory. A good explanation has scope, meaning it can explain many different types of observations (e.g. Newton's law of universal gravitation explains why things fall to the ground, why planets and stars are spherical, and why planets orbit stars).
It should have predictive power, which tells you what new observations you can make about it, and the results you'll get from them; i.e. it should predict something previously unknown.
Those attributes contribute to the crucial one of testability, which means there must be a way of making observations to show whether or not it is likely to be correct - and most importantly, observations that could potentially show it to be incorrect (falsifiability), so that if your hypothesis makes a prediction and that prediction is false, your hypothesis is probably wrong.
These criteria are some of what we should expect from a good hypothesis and part of the criteria for abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) used in science.
The God hypothesis is poor because the 'God' concept is ill-defined - there's no clear, agreed definition of its properties and attributes, and it fails all the criteria (above) for a good hypothesis (except, possibly, scope, which encompasses everything; but an ill-defined reason for everything explains nothing).
Does that help?
Wow, any scientist that could "disprove evolution" would be guaranteed a Nobel prize.
I'll expect to hear about the prize winning research next year...
Why are you angry about this as if you have something to lose?ha. ha. It's never been proved ! Far from it. It's incumbent on you to produce the evidence. Oh, perhaps you're a time-traveller. A really amusing thing to read is the incessant stream of different exclamations of surprise that yet another evolutionary (sub)theory has been found in reality to have been false. 'Well, how about that ! Evolution never ceases to spring surprises on us.' Very funny. The thing about evolution is that it, in the eyes of its 'faithful', it can never be disproved.
A mind is a computational process. It takes an input and it gives you an output. But, what we are is much more than that, because much of who we are is a memetic form of information that doesn't get passed on genetically.
Just look up feral children, and see what we really are without memetic programming that we rely on.
Evolution doesn't provide this information. Evolution attempts to explain development. You are talking about neurophysiology.
! Far from it. It's incumbent on you to produce the evidence. Oh, perhaps you're a time-traveller. A really amusing thing to read is the incessant stream of different exclamations of surprise that yet another evolutionary (sub)theory has been found in reality to have been false. 'Well, how about that ! Evolution never ceases to spring surprises on us.' Very funny. The thing about evolution is that it, in the eyes of its 'faithful', it can never be disproved.
I have only one thing to say from all that you have said
Which for some reason is now showing also incorrectly as quoted by me.
Why do you need to KNOW anything before deciding to say anything.
Doesn't that already limit God (putting Him into a box which YOU have closed) because you first need to know the outcome and then effect for yourself
Who said I don't know what I'm talking aboutHmm... because not knowing what you talking about and still talking about like you do, doesn't get people very far in terms of solving real problems.
You're welcome to your opinion.Pardon my butting in, Frumious, but I couldn't help noticing,when scanning this post, what strikes me as characteristic of your lack of logic as expressed in a host of obiter dicta you utter that have the ring of a cliche about them, albeit, entirely vapid and without merit :
'Ill-defined' means 'not having a clear description or limits; vague', which, in my opinion, fits the God concept. YMMV.'.... but an ill-defined reason for everything explains nothing). Only if it is ill-defined in such as way as to preclude its explaining the 'thing' in question - which does not have to be the case. 'ill', according to your own definition, is the operative word.
I disagree; Einstein's famous equation is well-defined, although its implications may not be.Einstein's famous equation is defined in the most rudimentary way, because it does not need to do otherwise. According to your criterion it is ill-defined...
I don't quite follow this - he seems to have a theory both that there isn't a God and that there is...... he can suggest (his own theory) that there isn't a GOD...but it doesn't change, just because he can't test his own theory that there is a GOD...
The 'experts' are making a claim that there is a truth of God. The burden of proof is on them to show this to be the case. Their claim is untestable and unfalsifiable, and has no supporting evidence, so I see no reason to accept it. It's a case of Russell's Teapot, or Hitchen's Razor.And he can either believe those EXPERTS who declare the TRUTH of GOD or he can choose not to believe those EXPERTS who declare the TRUTH of GOD...
I agree. It remains an imaginative but untestable hypothesis.It still won't, in the end, change the TRUTH about and of GOD.
You are free to believe what you wantI don't quite follow this - he seems to have a theory both that there isn't a God and that there is...
The 'experts' are making a claim that there is a truth of God. The burden of proof is on them to show this to be the case. Their claim is untestable and unfalsifiable, and has no supporting evidence, so I see no reason to accept it. It's a case of Russell's Teapot, or Hitchen's Razor.
I agree. It remains an imaginative but untestable hypothesis.
The fact that we don't understand everything is no excuse to make stuff up, particularly stuff that has no explanatory or predictive power, has no supporting evidence, and is untestable and unfalsifiable....The notion that the Creator explanation is pulled out of nowhere is naive beyond belief. Do you realise how many men and women of extraordinarily high intelligence and erudition in their field, - possibly higher than yours.... - including Nobel laureates and paradigm-changers, such as Planck, have believed this (and with good reason) and that physics increasingly substantiates it, as Robert Jastrow and Arno Penzias, to name but two eminent scientists, explain. And no. Even an eternal universe - which we know is not the case - would not suffice for a team of monkeys to write a Shakespeare sonnet, never mind produce another planet with one of more than a hundred finely-tuned settings needing to be accurate to about an inch in relation to the distance to the moon. Each additional variable compounds the improbability exponentially by orders of magnitude.
It's not quite that extreme; I think we should use a scientific approach (i.e. methodological naturalism) when dealing with the natural world.Your world-view appears to be based on the scientism paradigm
Near enough; my current view is that if it has no effect at all on the physical world (the interaction problem), it's only relevant or interesting as an idea.... there is no immaterial reality, since the latter could not be measured
I've seen WLC's arguments torpedoed too many times for them to hold any water now - notably by Sean Carroll. I'm not so familiar with John Lennox, but now I look he seems to be a smart guy, so I'll have a browse; thanks.If you are serious about learning the truth, I recommend you delve into the explanations by the Christian apologists, William Craig and John Lennox, two extraordinarily well-qualified, Christian apologists.
Everything? really? rocks and wind and rivers and clouds, etc.? Or are you only talking about living things?Everything in our world, as even Dawkins confessed, shouts out 'design'.
Not sure if the argument is begging the question or an equivocation of 'design'. I guess it depends what you mean by 'design'. Natural processes can produce patterns and symmetries that look designed, so - given your definition of design as implying intelligence, how do you distinguish between what is designed (i.e. the result of intelligence) and what is natural but only looks designed - what are your criteria for distinguishing intelligent design?'design' implies intelligence. There is no way round it.
So you keep saying. But the truth of an assertion isn't dependent on repetition (or all-caps shouting).... your belief (or disbelief) will not change The TRUTH that there is GOD who reveals (or does not reveal) HIMSELF to whom He chooses
my caps will only be used for reverence to God and GODLY TRUTHSSo you keep saying. But the truth of an assertion isn't dependent on repetition (or all-caps shouting).
The reason you "couldn't quite follow" the above comment made by me was because you truncated my post...here is the full of what was said...frumious said:I don't quite follow this - he seems to have a theory both that there isn't a God and that there is...
===================
I understood that...Which is why I said that what is being studied is based on available tangible things already present...that a man (in any field) can only go back as far as what is available to him to study...after that, he can't.frumious said:A hypothesis is a potential explanation for some observation or observations. A good (useful) hypothesis should have explanatory power , so it explains observations in terms of concepts and ideas that are informative, i.e. enable us to understand how those observations came about, and use it to explain other observations; it should explain the unexplained in terms of what is known and understood; it should have simplicity (parsimony), explaining observations with a minimal number of assumptions, entities, and forces (Occam's Razor).
frumious said:If it raises more questions than it answers, it isn't simple or explanatory. A good explanation has scope, meaning it can explain many different types of observations (e.g. Newton's law of universal gravitation explains why things fall to the ground, why planets and stars are spherical, and why planets orbit stars).
It should have predictive power, which tells you what new observations you can make about it, and the results you'll get from them; i.e. it should predict something previously unknown.
Those attributes contribute to the crucial one of testability, which means there must be a way of making observations to show whether or not it is likely to be correct - and most importantly, observations that could potentially show it to beincorrect (falsifiability), so that if your hypothesis makes a prediction and that prediction is false, your hypothesis is probably wrong.
frumious said:These criteria are some of what we should expect from a good hypothesis and part of the criteria for abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) used in science.
The God hypothesis is poor because the 'God' concept is ill-defined - there's no clear, agreed definition of its properties and attributes, and it fails all the criteria (above) for a good hypothesis (except, possibly, scope, which encompasses everything; but an ill-defined reason for everything explains nothing).
Does that help?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?