Why ... (2)

[EternalDragon]

And yet, that is exactly your argument.

Why would God create separate species so that they fall into a nested hierarchy? Because you say so. That's it.

You are saying he would not. Same thing. Because you say so.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are saying he would not. Same thing. Because you say so.

I am saying God could plant fingerprints at crime scenes, separately create species who fall into a nested hierarchy, or create the universe last Thursday complete with a false history and false memories. God is supposedly omnipotent, so obviously he can do anything.

The question is why would he? Out of all the possible combinations of features between separately created species, why limit yourself to ONLY the combinations that would be consistent with evolution? Why?

 

[Volokh]

I am saying God could plant fingerprints at crime scenes, separately create species who fall into a nested hierarchy, or create the universe last Thursday complete with a false history and false memories. God is supposedly omnipotent, so obviously he can do anything.

The question is why would he? Out of all the possible combinations of features between separately created species, why limit yourself to ONLY the combinations that would be consistent with evolution? Why?

so he allowed to punish them that believe what he do over what he tell peopple to write.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If there's good measurable, observable, testable evidence for something then it's material by my definition. Do you have a different definition of material? If so we could discuss it and see if it's more useful than mine.

So is there anything that you would call immaterial?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Well you can say anything, but is it true? Air/wind is in fact material. That is why I said it was a bad example.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where did you show that forces are immaterial?

Where did you show they were?

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

Gravity and other forces are not tested, their effects are.

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

What?

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?

I do.

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.

This is really just an appeal to tradition. It doesn't matter what other religions are practiced, it matters if any of them are true and which one?

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?

Your point?

That is perhaps the lamest argument that christians make.

Perhaps it seems that way.

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

Logically, it would seem that all you could honestly say is that HE hasn't yet.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

So are you claiming that Jesus was not a historical figure?

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

I don't know, how would you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

1. Separate species
2. Kinds

spe·cies

[spee-sheez, -seez] Show IPA noun, plural spe·cies, adjective
noun 1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

2. Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.



However, species definition is considered difficult in the scientific world.

I said what kinds "could" be.

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.

No, I said that they could be Kingdoms, or phylum or species. We don't know what God meant by the word kind. There was obviously a reason that HE pointed out the creatures were after their kind.

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

We were discussing a universal common ancestor.

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

There are mountains of evidence for common ancestry.

We were discussing a universal common ancestor.

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.

What you don't understand is that you are very willing to accept what you don't know as long as it is within a materialistic worldview. It would take some life changing event to alter or even transfer your beliefs to another.

See, you rest on presuppositions that will allow for unknowns in your worldview as long as they are in keeping with your core beliefs. You don't need evidence for a universal common ancestor, or the actual evolutionary path that lead to one thing or another or to know if life came from non-living materials. You will not bend to the possibility of anything else.

I as well do the same thing. I hold my own presuppositions. I can allow for unknowns in my worldview as long as it keeps with my core beliefs. I know God exists. So anything that comes against that, must be viewed through the lens of God's existence.

So my point in this is that we both hold to presuppositions and a prioi worldviews and I am saying that I feel mine is more cohesive and consistent. You feel that yours is.

That is not empiricism.

Where am I wrong?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The question is why would he? Out of all the possible combinations of features between separately created species, why limit yourself to ONLY the combinations that would be consistent with evolution? Why?

Evolution happened Loudmouth. It is happening now. You are looking back into creation. Obviously, mankind has put its twist on it. You claim that God wouldn't do it this way, but obviously if He exists which we claim, you are seeing the past through your worldview's presuppositions and see the two as something separate but they aren't.

 

[Davian]

There is no double negative in your sentence. There are three independent single negatives all doing their assigned jobs. A double negative is when two negatives modify the same word. In most languages, it intensifies the negation and is the equivalent of such phrases as "in no way," and "absolutely not." About 150 years ago, some English grammarians decided that, as in formal logic, every negative must negate separately, and so double negatives, in effect, canceled each other out, rendering the sentence as nonsense. American schoolteachers quickly followed suit. So for over 100 years, American schoolchildren have been given failing grades for bad grammar when there wasn't never nothing wrong with what they said.

Interesting. Like something out of the book Eats, Shoots, and Leaves.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is problematic for a being that supposedly wants to have a relationship with us.

I would say it is quite apparent that is not the case when the majority of Christians claim a relationship with Him.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure, but I would like to take this thread a bit further first.

I look forward to it.

I find your "throw stuff against the wall to see if it sticks" discussion technique to be... amusing.

I admit that with the different voices within this thread and the varying discussions it may seem that way.

It is not accurate. It does not actually reflect anyone's worldview, you just think it does.

Really, how have I altered their view? They are saying that the only accepted truth is through the evidence that can be tested, observed and repeated by natural materialist methodology. What is untrue or straw man in that?

Where is "outside of the material world"?

I don't know.

Where is this evidence, and can you present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

Evidence can be determined using different methods of discovery.

Did you ever respond to these posts?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7771588-87/#post64150989

http://www.christianforums.com/t7771549-75/#post64122001

No, I didn't. I don't know how I missed them and the others on that page. Sorry. I'll get to them too.

Can you provide an example where a "materialist" claimed that evidence was not necessary in support of their scientific theory?

The evidence of the universal common ancestor.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Dunno. Tiny little gods?

So I take it you are fine not knowing what they are made from, or whether gravity the force is able to be tested, or observed? Again, not the effect of it but the force itself.

Is this your argument?

No, it isn't. I'm am saying that even though you are unable to explain it you are fine with it, which means that you accept in your presuppositions that it isn't necessary to have them explained.

Seriously, do you expect anything more that what you will find at wiki?

Graviton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, do you think that I am not aware of what Wikipedia says about it?

Nothing about deities on that page as far as I see.

No evidence there either.


I cannot see how one can form an opinion until they have been given access to other universes for comparison purposes, and develop some testable criteria. How about you?

Such as what? Do you accept stories of miracles and martyrdom as credible evidence for other religions?[/quote]

Yes, Judaism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why do you think wind is immaterial? Just because you can't see wind with your naked eyes, doesn't mean it isn't tangible.

ETA: I think I'll leave the double negative

I mentioned that wind was not an example for immaterial. Air is the force behind the wind. Air is a material.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Material.

The evidence for that?

I am saying that it appears to have been designed by natural processes without needing to invoke a deity

.

So you disagree with those secular scientists who claim it does appear to be designed just as if life was expected?

Can you show how the mountains of evidence supporting common ancestry are not empirical or not scientific?

There is no evidence of a universal common ancestor, you are changing the goal post here.

If you want to reject the science in preference for your religious beliefs that is your choice.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

It doesn't change the fact that there is a built in confirmation bias.

On both sides. That is my point.

There is historical evidence for the Halle-Bopp comet and the Heaven's Gate cult. Does that mean that they really are riding around in the spaceship that was inside of the comet?

This is a false dichotomy.

 

[Davian]

So are you claiming that Jesus was not a historical figure?

No.

I don't know, how would you?

The onus for that would be on the one making the claim that this "test" of yours is more than an exercise in self-deception.

How do we test this claim? Falsify it? Control for it in experimentation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived

I believe the ability to reason in truthful and meaningful ways is evidence for God.
​

Lasthero said:

How do you even know we can reason in truthful and meaningful way?

IF we can't it doesn't matter anyway...correct? However, if we look at how we reason, in a material worldview how does one explain logic? What is logic in a material worldview?

CabVet said:

I on the other hand, believe it is evidence that we have a powerful brain.

I would agree. Would you explain to me how you think we reason with our brains? If we are just our brains, how do we come to any real truth?

Davian said:

Is that the gap you have settled on? "God" explains our ability to reason? Does this extend to the rest of the animal kingdom, or do they go it alone? Can you state this in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

Davian....forget the god of the gaps. Forget it. Stop. Forget it. Not where I am going with this. I think that God does explain the intelligence of the universe, yes. I can explain that in my worldview. How do you explain the laws of logic in yours?

Are you sure there is a gap there big enough for your god to fit into?

See above.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

So is there anything that you would call immaterial?

Not sure. I often wonder about things like Pi. On the one hand Pi is real thing but it doesn't exist in nature but then again it only exists because of rules of mathematics that come from our brains which are material. It's a fun philosophical puzzle to think about but for most things it really doesn't matter. The only stuff we can observe and test are material, if there's an immaterial it exists but it's in our imaginations.

 

[Davian]

I look forward to it.

I admit that with the different voices within this thread and the varying discussions it may seem that way.

Really, how have I altered their view? They are saying that the only accepted truth is through the evidence that can be tested, observed and repeated by natural materialist methodology. What is untrue or straw man in that?

You said, "...I am trying to show that in a purely materialist worldview it is inconsistent to claim that all things in the universe must be material since the very laws of the universe are immaterial. This shows the worldview refutes itself."

By what set of criteria, a definition, do you determine what you mean by "immaterial"? It is a strawman "materialist worldview" as it appears to use definitions of "material" and "immaterial" of your own liking.

I don't know.

You don't know where this god is? What is the difference between a god that cannot be found, and one that isn't there?

Evidence can be determined using different methods of discovery.

Sure. Can you present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

The evidence of the universal common ancestor.

Not the subject, the person. Can you provide an example where a "materialist" - a scientist - claimed that evidence was not necessary in support of their scientific theory?

 

[lasthero]

IF we can't it doesn't matter anyway...correct? However, if we look at how we reason, in a material worldview how does one explain logic? What is logic in a material worldview?

How could I determine that without logic? What is logic in any worldview?