Why ... (2)

[Loudmouth]

You are thinking of laws as the description of the workings of the world. I am talking about the actual workings of the world.

That is precisely how I see things as well. My questions were meant to guide us to this point.

So how is gravity not material?

If we do conclude that gravity is immaterial, then why can't you evidence God in the same way that we evidence gravity?

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence?

When I suggested that gravity could be the result of gravitons you said we would just go farther back. That means that even if gravity were shown to be mediated by a quantum particle you would still look for a way to say that gravity is immaterial.

If this would prove to be accurate, it still doesn't explain what force is behind that force because there would by necessity be one.

Why can't a force be material? If a force is immaterial, are you saying that we can not use science and evidence to determine how the force works and when it is working?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have not shown that materialism is self-refuting.

Well I disagree.

We asking for evidence that God caused effects in the material world which is entirely within the material world. It is claimed that material creatures were created, so that makes God testable through materialism.

No, it makes the material world testable. God is outside of that. We can use different "tests" that support His existence. We can site Jesus as God on Earth. It is in all of this that lends support to His existence. You can either believe or not believe but God has designed this universe in such a way as you can see His works and believe or you can choose to ignore them and choose not to. God doesn't force Himself on anyone. If there was absolute proof without a doubt of His existence then there would be no choice but to believe.

There is only one test, one that does cast out all doubt and that is truly seeking God. God revealing Himself to you. Then there is evidence. Not to the world but to you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well I disagree.

Where did you show that forces are immaterial?

No, it makes the material world testable.

Since gravity and other forces are testable through the scientific method and materialism, does that make the forces material?

God is outside of that.

So God has never had any affect on the material world, ever?

We can site Jesus as God on Earth. It is in all of this that lends support to His existence.

No, that is a claim you are making. You don't support a claim by repeating the claim. Surely you can tell the difference between a claim and evidence?

You can either believe or not believe but God has designed this universe in such a way as you can see His works and believe or you can choose to ignore them and choose not to.

What evidence is there that God did anything? You can choose to believe or not believe that Leprechauns designed the universe in such a way as you can see his works, or you can choose to ignore it. You can do the same with Zeus, Vishnu, or any of the thousands of other gods that humans have believed in through the years. Or, you can follow the evidence to determine what happened.

God doesn't force Himself on anyone. If there was absolute proof without a doubt of His existence then there would be no choice but to believe.

So the Moon is forcing itself on me, forcing me to believe in it? Were my parents forcing themselves on me by making the existence known?

That is perhaps the lamest argument that christians make.

There is only one test, one that does cast out all doubt and that is truly seeking God. God revealing Himself to you. Then there is evidence. Not to the world but to you.

Since God has never revealed himself to me, I guess God doesn't exist.

 

[selfinflikted]

That is perhaps the lamest argument that christians make.

Not to mention why in Biblical times, even though god was (allegedly) present and doing all sorts of wild and magical things, god's presence didn't count as "forcing" himself on us so that we'd have to believe. Why have the rules on that changed now that god is noticeably absent?

 

[Davian]

Hmmm. Good point.

I doubt that, but nice try.

You are projecting. I have had several epiphanies over the last 10 years that have seriously altered my worldview. I kind of look forward to the next occurrence.

It seems from a cognizant point of view, one would be able to determine that there are material things i.g., you, me and my dog and there are immaterial things i.g., Gravity or wind.

As mentioned by others, those are particularly bad examples of "immaterial".

You have misunderstood my position. I have never claimed that inconsistencies in others' worldview is evidence for God. I said that one's worldview should not be self-refuting which materialism is.

To date all I have seen you do is build a straw man of others' worldviews.

This current discussion was not based on evidence in either position. However, demanding evidence for God in a materialistic model is irrational for a being that is outside of the material world.

You have just described your god as non-existent.

Jesus was the material evidence of God on earth. Unbelievers will deny that as well.

So now you *do* have material evidence. Where is it?

So it comes down to this Davian. Do you want to cut to the chase and claim that since you see no evidence of God that it is said and done and we discontinue our conversation since there would be absolutely no point, or do you wish to explore the rationale and viewpoint of someone that believes differently than you do? I am fine either way.

I am here to explore, but it would seem at this time you are expending your energies on the rationale and viewpoint of these straw-man "materialists" and the worldview that you think they have. The point of my question was to bring up your evasiveness in substantiating your own rationale and viewpoint.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are a lot of terms that need to be defined before we can have a meeting of the minds. For example, I would say that humans and chimps are separate species because there is no sharing of DNA between the populations. However, they are still linked by common ancestry and they are part of a larger nested hierarchy. Kingdoms are no different. You can put all of life into a single kind based on shared features.

So what term are we needing to have defined?

If you think there are separate kinds that are not linked by common ancestry then we need someway of determine what these kinds are, and more to the point you need to explain why separately created kinds would necessarily fall into a twin nested hierarchy.

Well like I said the kinds could be what we call Kingdoms. It could be simply what we call species.

Given the nested hierarchy and shared features, the evidence is strongly on the side of all life sharing a common ancestor. What evidence do you have that kinds were created separately?

What do you mean by separately?

What scientific theory would this NOT apply to? There has to be an ultimate source of matter, so does this mean that we have to chuck scientific based chemistry? Do we need to know the ultimate origin of life in order to use fingerprints in forensic science?

No, of course not. However, the materialist claims to be working on just the evidence. There is no evidence for a common ancestor. So where you claim that everything you hold as true must be in the evidence, you self defeat your claim unless you can allow for an exclusion to your empirical standard.

I don't understand why creationists are so obsessed with ultimate causes with we are dealing with proximal effects. It is some kind of vapor lock or something. We don't have to understand the ultimate origin of matter in order to understand what is going on in the world around us.

You and I agree on the fact that we don't have to understand the ultimate origin of matter in order to understand it in a scientific model. However, when you claim that you are an Empiricist and that only what can be shown with material evidence is true, then you self defeat that with the common ancestor.

 

[Davian]

...
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell

A great quote. Another point is, we can all agree on what is meant by 'teapot', and what it might take to detect such an object in this context. This is not the case for gods.

 

[Davian]

...

No, it makes the material world testable. God is outside of that. We can use different "tests" that support His existence. We can site Jesus as God on Earth. It is in all of this that lends support to His existence. You can either believe or not believe but God has designed this universe in such a way as you can see His works and believe or you can choose to ignore them and choose not to. God doesn't force Himself on anyone. If there was absolute proof without a doubt of His existence then there would be no choice but to believe.

I am not expecting "absolute proof", but I would hope for more than citing a character in a book as evidence for another character in the same book.

There is only one test, one that does cast out all doubt and that is truly seeking God. God revealing Himself to you. Then there is evidence. Not to the world but to you.

How would one differentiate this "test" from an exercise in self-deception?

 

[Loudmouth]

So what term are we needing to have defined?

1. Separate species
2. Kinds

Well like I said the kinds could be what we call Kingdoms. It could be simply what we call species.

It seems that it could be anything. Kinds are like nailing jello to a tree. They are whatever you need them to be at any given moment.

What do you mean by separately?

When I say separately I mean species that did not evolve from a common ancestor.

However, the materialist claims to be working on just the evidence. There is no evidence for a common ancestor.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

There are mountains of evidence for common ancestry.

So where you claim that everything you hold as true must be in the evidence, you self defeat your claim unless you can allow for an exclusion to your empirical standard.

You are misrepresenting my position. I am saying that I use evidence to lead me to the truth. However, I fully admit that I will never have all of the facts so there will be truths that I will not see evidence of. At the same time, I don't see why I should accept every claim as being true just because it could be true. It goes back to Russell's teapot that I quoted above.

You and I agree on the fact that we don't have to understand the ultimate origin of matter in order to understand it in a scientific model. However, when you claim that you are an Empiricist and that only what can be shown with material evidence is true, then you self defeat that with the common ancestor.

That is not empiricism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In the early stages currently, in clinical neuroscience.

Very interesting.

I'm not sure if that makes sense. For some reason you are separating "the laws" from the relationships.

We know that gravity is a force that acts between all mass in the universe. Electromagnetic force acts between electrically charged particles. Light, Electricity and magnetism are produced by this force. The strong force binds neutrons and protons together in the cores of atoms. Weak force causes Beta decay and various particles are formed by strong interactions but decay via weak interactions. Obviously relationships and interactions are what happens. It is the forces that are the underbelly so to speak of them.

Again, I'm not sure where you get this idea from. What makes you think that if logic is a description of relationships among propositions that it would necessarily be subjective?

If logic is a description of relationships among propositions it can not be absolute. Do you believe that logic is absolute? IF not why?

Ummm, why?

It would depend on the relationship rather than truth.

You are claiming the concept 'relationship' is not possible in a material universe.

No I'm not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is precisely how I see things as well. My questions were meant to guide us to this point.

So how is gravity not material?

Well tell me how it is. What material does it consist of?

If we do conclude that gravity is immaterial, then why can't you evidence God in the same way that we evidence gravity?

We do. We see evidence of a universe that is designed. We see that denied by those who do not believe in a Designer. No one disputes that the universe looks to be designed, but a lot of effort is given to "prove" that it is only apparent design. We see that the universe seems made for life. No one disputes that if any of the multitude of values or constants were different life could not have began, in fact, the universe itself would not have existed. We see a religion based on a man claiming to be God, and convincing people of that fact through the miracles He performed. After His death one would think that it all would have been proven false, but people were so convinced that Jesus rose from the grave that they too died. Does this prove God exists, no but it is supportive evidence to the claim.

Gravity is only seen acting upon mass. We don't see "it". However, we have supportive evidence that it exists. At least we see a force we call gravity that we think exists. It could be that gravity doesn't exist. Erik Verlinde thinks it is an illusion.

 

[Davian]

Well tell me how it is. What material does it consist of?

The current hypothesis would be gravitons.

We do. We see evidence of a universe that is designed. We see that denied by those who do not believe in a Designer. No one disputes that the universe looks to be designed, but a lot of effort is given to "prove" that it is only apparent design. We see that the universe seems made for life. No one disputes that if any of the multitude of values or constants were different life could not have began, in fact, the universe itself would not have existed.

By what criteria did you determine that the universe was designed? What other universes did you compare it to?

We see a religion based on a man claiming to be God, and convincing people of that fact through the miracles He performed. After His death one would think that it all would have been proven false, but people were so convinced that Jesus rose from the grave that they too died. Does this prove God exists, no but it is supportive evidence to the claim.

Do you accept stories of miracles and martyrdom as credible evidence for other religions?

Gravity is only seen acting upon mass. We don't see "it". However, we have supportive evidence that it exists. At least we see a force we call gravity that we think exists. It could be that gravity doesn't exist. Erik Verlinde thinks it is an illusion.

It may be a very practical illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well tell me how it is. What material does it consist of?

Either gravitons or spacetime. The EM force is mediated by photons. The weak force is mediated by W and Z bosons.

We do. We see evidence of a universe that is designed.

Such as?

We see that denied by those who do not believe in a Designer.

If it isn't evidence why shouldn't we deny it?

No one disputes that the universe looks to be designed, but a lot of effort is given to "prove" that it is only apparent design.

Actually, there is a lot of scientific research demonstrating that natural forces are responsible for the design, such as evolution being responsible for the nested hierarchy.

We see that the universe seems made for life.

Who would be here to notice if it weren't?

We see a religion based on a man claiming to be God, and convincing people of that fact through the miracles He performed. After His death one would think that it all would have been proven false, but people were so convinced that Jesus rose from the grave that they too died. Does this prove God exists, no but it is supportive evidence to the claim.

Where was Jesus proven to be true?

Gravity is only seen acting upon mass. We don't see "it". However, we have supportive evidence that it exists. At least we see a force we call gravity that we think exists. It could be that gravity doesn't exist. Erik Verlinde thinks it is an illusion.

The only reason we can see mass is due to mass acting on photons. When we feel an object it is the electromagnetic force that we are experiencing. The forces are all a full part of the material world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Current research is looking into gravitons as the particle that confers gravitational force.

No, I asked for evidence. What evidence do you have that it is material?

 

[Davian]

No, I asked for evidence. What evidence do you have that it is material?

What are the options, with "immaterial" stalled and pushed to the side of the road a ways back?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

No, I asked for evidence. What evidence do you have that it is material?

The effects can be measured detected and tested. Pretty much the same reasons we can say that the wind is material.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The current hypothesis would be gravitons.

What are gravitons consist of?

By what criteria did you determine that the universe was designed? What other universes did you compare it to?

Are you saying that you don't agree that the universe looks designed?

Do you accept stories of miracles and martyrdom as credible evidence for other religions?

Such as?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The effects can be measured detected and tested. Pretty much the same reasons we can say that the wind is material.

The effects are not the material it consists of.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

The effects are not the material it consists of.

To us they are. You could keep asking what an atom really is but in the end an atom is the properties it displays, same with an electron or light or virtual particles. Their material existence is the effects they have on each other.