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.
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.
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?
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.
The effects can be measured detected and tested. Pretty much the same reasons we can say that the wind is material.
Where did you show that forces are immaterial?
Since gravity and other forces are testable through the scientific method and materialism, does that make the forces material?
So God has never had any affect on the material world, ever?
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?
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.
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.
Since God has never revealed himself to me, I guess God doesn't exist.
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.
How would one differentiate this "test" from an exercise in self-deception?
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?
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?
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.
That is problematic for a being that supposedly wants to have a relationship with us.
Sure, but I would like to take this thread a bit further first.
I find your "throw stuff against the wall to see if it sticks" discussion technique to be... amusing.
It is not accurate. It does not actually reflect anyone's worldview, you just think it does.
Where is "outside of the material world"?
Where is this evidence, and can you present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?
Can you provide an example where a "materialist" claimed that evidence was not necessary in support of their scientific theory?
Dunno. Tiny little gods?
Is this your argument?
Seriously, do you expect anything more that what you will find at wiki?
Graviton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nothing about deities on that page as far as I see.
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
Material.
.I am saying that it appears to have been designed by natural processes without needing to invoke a deity
Can you show how the mountains of evidence supporting common ancestry are not empirical or not scientific?
If you want to reject the science in preference for your religious beliefs that is your choice.
It doesn't change the fact that there is a built in confirmation bias.
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?
No.So are you claiming that Jesus was not a historical figure?
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.I don't know, how would you?
Lasthero said:
How do you even know we can reason in truthful and meaningful way?
CabVet said:
I on the other hand, believe it is evidence that we have a powerful brain.
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?
Are you sure there is a gap there big enough for your god to fit into?
So is there anything that you would call immaterial?
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."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 don't know where this god is? What is the difference between a god that cannot be found, and one that isn't there?I don't know.
Sure. Can you present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?Evidence can be determined using different methods of discovery.
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?The evidence of the universal common ancestor.
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?
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?