tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post7912181846215482052..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-91921170817519817882015-08-13T14:15:09.759-07:002015-08-13T14:15:09.759-07:00Papalinton wrote: "It is truly a concept univ...Papalinton wrote: "It is truly a concept universally acknowledged. Christianity and the Christian god? Not so much."<br /><br />So, if there's multiple viewpoints of interpretations of something then that thing doesn't exist or is false. By the this reasoning, the fact that the earth has been said to be flat and round shows that the earth doesn't exit or is false. Also, since there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, according to your reasoning, the quantum world doesn't exist or QM is false.<br /><br />Papalinton wrote: "It is incontrovertibly an attack on a straw man, a directed and well targeted take down of the religious illusion of a Cosmic Puppeteer..."<br /><br />Saying that something is, "predicated on supernatural superstition" is not a targeted take-down of that thing, it is just empty rhetoric that can be dismissed as so much hot air.<br /><br />Papalinton wrote: "If god is the best explanation then which God?"<br /><br />The maximally great God. <br /><br />Can you even get that close to naming the mysterious eternal physical brute fact of naturalism? <br /><br />Papalinton wrote: "Keith, the delightful foot-in-mouth irony is that your inconclusive argument IS but mere assertion, no less."<br /><br />If it's an argument then it's not an assertion.<br /><br />Papalinton wrote: "Your God fantasy is simply a projection of intentionality and purpose where none exists and is amply described, explained and accounted as a function of mentation within research into Theory of Mind. There is no god out there, Keith."<br /><br />Here you commit the genetic fallacy. You proceed to punctuate your response with an opinion backed with zero facts. Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-50951287382034154042015-08-13T01:47:50.781-07:002015-08-13T01:47:50.781-07:00Keith wrote: "It doesn't follow that bec...Keith wrote: <i>"It doesn't follow that because something is old that it is false."</i><br /><br />You are right there. But for Christianity, it is old, tired and trite, predicated as it is on supernatural superstition. The Pythagorian theorem has not changed one iota from the moment of its discovery. It is truly a concept universally acknowledged. Christianity and the Christian god? Not so much. Not universally acknowledged nor ever universally accepted [simply bring the expansive breadth of African Indigenous Religions, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism to the forefront of your mind to appreciate the bewildering range of competing, conflicting, but above all uniquely human conjurations of the God artifice]. <br />Even more compelling and confirmed in research data, the christian mythos in the US, as everywhere else in the Western world, is becoming increasingly problematic and difficult to defend at every point where its claims bump up against scientific knowledge. Christian claims that run counter to reasoned logic underpinning the known natural world and which cannot be supported or verified by the sciences have largely been philosophically and epistemically corralled as products and misguided phantasies of Christian supernatural superstition.<br /><br /><i>"Saying that the argument is predicated on supernatural superstition is an attack on a straw man.."</i><br /><br />Spot on. It is incontrovertibly an attack on a straw man, a directed and well targeted take down of the religious illusion of a Cosmic Puppeteer pulling the strings of the universe which is itself the risibly quintessential strawman argument that warrants only a strawman level of argument to dispatch it.<br /><br />If god is the best explanation then which God? Mithra, Yahweh, Ra, Horus, jesusgod, Ganesha, Shiva, the Great Water Serpent of the Aborigine Dreamtime? All have been touted, professed and claimed for millennia without even a hint of a silhouette. <br /><br />Keith, the delightful foot-in-mouth irony is that your inconclusive argument IS but mere assertion, no less. Your God fantasy is simply a projection of intentionality and purpose where none exists and is amply described, explained and accounted as a function of mentation within research into Theory of Mind. There is no god out there, Keith. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-48985107051219757912015-08-11T13:31:33.155-07:002015-08-11T13:31:33.155-07:00im-skeptical wrote: "As a theist, you do not ...im-skeptical wrote: "As a theist, you do not make naturalist presuppositions, but you would be lying if you ever claim to see an objectively observable supernatural event, because nobody ever sees them. Period."<br /><br />Wow, so all the countless number of people who have said that they have experienced a supernatural event are lying! This is a textbook example of begging the question. <br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "I reject stories and anecdotes that cannot be objectively verified."<br /><br />Describe the process of objective verification. <br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "And speaking of challenging my beliefs, don't you think that question is a bit hypocritical, given that no amount of evidence, logic or reason will ever be sufficient to challenge your faith?"<br /><br />The difference is that I admit that I have faith while you tell yourself that you don't. <br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "You reject reason if favor of faith."<br /><br />Simply asserting that a physical eternal brute fact might exist beyond our field of observation is hardly reason. It certainly is not convincing. Likewise, pointing out that there is a natural order that very well could be the product of a transcendent being does not give me reason to accept naturalism. Finally, your claim that because you've never personally witnessed a miracle, therefore there has never been a miracle is not convincing. So, you've given no reason to adopt your naturalistic faith. Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-61674539906572124982015-08-11T12:10:22.092-07:002015-08-11T12:10:22.092-07:00"No, you don't observe them, and how coul..."No, you don't observe them, and how could you because you're beginning with the presupposition that supernatural things don't exist."<br />- That's not true. We don't observe them, regardless of any presuppositions we make. As a theist, you do not make naturalist presuppositions, but you would be lying if you ever claim to see an objectively observable supernatural event, because nobody ever sees them. Period.<br /><br />"Just because all you have observed is black swans, it doesn't follow that white swans don't exist."<br />- But when we see white swans for the first, and we have reason to believe that they exist. Show me a supernatural event, and i'' have reason to believe that it exists.<br /><br />"Do you really reject all eyewitness accounts or just the ones that challenge your beliefs? "<br />- I reject stories and anecdotes that cannot be objectively verified. Evidence is the reason for belief. And speaking of challenging my beliefs, don't you think that question is a bit hypocritical, given that no amount of evidence, logic or reason will ever be sufficient to challenge your faith?<br /><br />"Apparently it's good enough for you when it comes to your belief in an eternal physical brute fact."<br />- As I said, I don't know what exists, not do I claim to. But I do know that there is better <i>reason to believe</i> a natural explanation than a supernatural one. I have attempted to give you my reasons. You reject reason if favor of faith.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-72569230568711693422015-08-11T10:10:48.842-07:002015-08-11T10:10:48.842-07:00im-skeptical wrote: "Evidence is what we obse...im-skeptical wrote: "Evidence is what we observe. I say my beliefs are based on evidence, because what we observe is natural things that behave in a manner consistent with natural laws."<br /><br />The fact that there is a natural order doesn't necessarily support naturalism, as God could be the cause of the natural order. <br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "We do not observe supernatural events, ever."<br /><br />No, you don't observe them, and how could you because you're beginning with the presupposition that supernatural things don't exist. It doesn't even necessarily follow that because one never observes a miracle that a miracle has never happened or will happen. Just because all you have observed is black swans, it doesn't follow that white swans don't exist. <br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "Show me some real evidence - not just a story..."<br /><br />There are numerous accounts of people being amazingly healed after prayer. Of course since you haven't directly observed these events, you'll explain them away because you begin with the presupposition that supernatural events don't exist, and all you've seen are black swans, so white swans don't exist. Do you really reject all eyewitness accounts or just the ones that challenge your beliefs? <br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "But faith is not good epistemology."<br /><br />Apparently it's good enough for you when it comes to your belief in an eternal physical brute fact.Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-25697155298178246142015-08-11T09:23:58.351-07:002015-08-11T09:23:58.351-07:00Papalinton wrote: "Old, tired, trite; predica...Papalinton wrote: "Old, tired, trite; predicated on supernatural superstition. The inductive argument for god has as much value as the inductive argument for the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden, and with about as much credibility."<br /><br />It doesn't follow that because something is old that it is false. The Pythagorean theorem dates back to around 500 B.C.E. Are we to conclude that because it is old that it is false? Besides, the inductive argument and some of its support is relatively new.<br /><br />Saying that the argument is predicated on supernatural superstition is an attack on a straw man, as the argument begins with the observation that things like the universe exist and then argues that God is the most likely explanation for these things. <br /><br />Comparing my argument to the argument for fairies is a poor analogy because fairies, if existed, would be contingent limited creatures that cannot account for things like the existence of the universe or fine tuning, while God can, as he is not a contingent, limited being. <br /><br />Papalinton wrote: "Prof Michael Martin, American philosopher, accounts for your 'inductive' argument thusly...QED"<br /><br />First of all, my argument doesn't even mention the Argument From Religious Experience, so this comment doesn't even address my argument.<br /><br />Secondly, this is the genetic fallacy, as even if it's true that all religious experiences are false, it doesn't follow that God doesn't exist. Also, Martin's comment doesn't address those sane, clear minded people who have religious experiences. <br /><br />Finally, I think that the fact that religious experiences are so universal and spread throughout time is a bigger problem for naturalism then it is for theists.<br /><br />So, your counter argument (if your comments even count as an argument) fails, and you still have offered no arguments or evidence for the existence of an eternal physical brute fact. As I said before, even an inconclusive argument is better than your mere assertion. Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-85731729352579990362015-08-11T09:06:36.081-07:002015-08-11T09:06:36.081-07:00This is where we seem to part ways on a matter of ...This is where we seem to part ways on a matter of definition. Evidence is what we observe. I say my beliefs are based on evidence, because what we observe is natural things that behave in a manner consistent with natural laws. That is real evidence. We do not observe supernatural events, ever. You can argue that they <i>might</i> exist, and I would agree, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't ever observe them. Sure, there are stories and anecdotes. Some people interpret their inner emotional experiences as miracles, some people read their book of mythology and insist that they have solid proof of these events, but none of this is objective and verifiable. Show me some real evidence - not just a story, or what someone says that isn't available for the rest of the world to witness - and then i"ll have reason to believe it. Until then, I <i>don't</i> have reason to believe it, and neither do you, unless you simply accept it by faith. But faith is not good epistemology.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-51351615774347175052015-08-11T05:15:07.618-07:002015-08-11T05:15:07.618-07:00"My inductive argument for an eternal, necess...<i>"My inductive argument for an eternal, necessary (note that God is not a brute fact) transcendent immaterial being of immense power is that God is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, the existence of the universe; the existence of change; the finely tuned nature of the universe and everything in it; the existence of objective morals and duties; and the existence of consciousness."</i><br /><br />Old, tired, trite; predicated on supernatural superstition. The inductive argument for god has as much value as the inductive argument for the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden, and with about as much credibility. Prof Michael Martin, American philosopher, accounts for your 'inductive' argument thusly:<br /><br /><i>"Religious experiences are like those induced by drugs, alcohol. mental illness, and sleep deprivation: They tell no uniform or coherent story, and there is no plausible theory to account for discrepancies among them."</i> QEDPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-57619793699464192052015-08-10T20:42:37.543-07:002015-08-10T20:42:37.543-07:00Papalinton wrote: "I don't make one."...Papalinton wrote: "I don't make one."<br /><br />Oh, OK, so you're just asserting that an eternal physical brute fact exists. Well, as the late Christopher Hitchens said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Let me formulate your argument: 1. Papalinton asserts that an eternal physical brute fact exists. 2. You can't prove that it doesn't exist. 3. Therefore an eternal physical brute fact exists. <br /><br />Papalinton wrote: "Where's your evidence for an eternal non-physical, putatively live, non-human entity [thing? no-thing?] as a brute fact, Keith?"<br /><br />My inductive argument for an eternal, necessary (note that God is not a brute fact) transcendent immaterial being of immense power is that God is the best explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, the existence of the universe; the existence of change; the finely tuned nature of the universe and everything in it; the existence of objective morals and duties; and the existence of consciousness. For deductive support for this argument please see <i>The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology</i> and <i>Summa Theologica</i>. This argument does not prove God's existence with absolute certainty, but it's vastly better than your mere assertion. <br /><br />Papalinton wrote: "What I do make is that evidence for a natural world/universe simply puts a lie...humanity's earliest attempts at explaining the real world during our great age of ignorance perpetuated by the hegemony of Christian thinking in its halcyon days."<br /><br />This is just a long section of empty rhetoric. <br /><br />Papalinton wrote: "Those days are inexorably drawing to a close as better, more informed and sophisticated explanatory models are developed."<br /><br />You know Voltaire said that religion would be buried before he was, and 237 years after his death faith still stands. The truth can't be buried. Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-56679844863828866882015-08-10T19:25:05.262-07:002015-08-10T19:25:05.262-07:00im-skeptical: "Agreed. They are incompatible....im-skeptical: "Agreed. They are incompatible. But I am still open to evidence. If the evidence shows that there are supernatural events, then I must abandon my supernatural view. All the evidence I have seen so far tells me that there is nothing supernatural, so I must believe that naturalism is the correct view. Just show me evidence to the contrary."<br /><br />That sounds like a good answer on paper, but how does this work in reality? If one begins with the assumption that supernatural entities and events don't exist then how can that person ever come to believe that naturalism is false if supernatural things do exist? This is like someone saying, "Dogs don't exist, but I'm open to the possibility that they do. Many people have showed me creatures with four legs that bark, but these were obviously the first instance of a barking cat, or people hallucinating that their pet wolf was a dog." <br /><br />im-skeptical: "Fine. What I believe is based on evidence. What you believe is most likely is not based on evidence. It is based on religious faith."<br /><br />You have presented no conclusive or objective evidence for an eternal physical brute fact. Saying that it's possible that some mysterious physical object, which is different from all known physical objects, might exist beyond what we can observe isn't even remotely close to evidence. This belief is based on naturalistic faith. <br /><br />im-skeptical: "There is just no observable evidence for what you believe."<br /><br />There is no observable evidence for a naturalistic alternative to God. <br /><br />im-skeptical: "What I believe is based on the fact that absolutely everything in our experience is entirely consistent with natural laws."<br /><br />The problem is that it simply doesn't follow that because there is a natural order that therefore God doesn't exist or that naturalism is true. We both agree that there is a natural order, the question is who or set that order up, or if that order is just a brute fact.<br /><br />I might add that saying that there has never been a supernatural event is highly contentious, and would come down to what one counts as evidence. Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-62762724312326638022015-08-10T19:13:48.845-07:002015-08-10T19:13:48.845-07:00I don't make one. Where's your evidence f...I don't make one. Where's your evidence for an eternal non-physical, putatively live, non-human entity [thing? no-thing?] as a brute fact, Keith? What I do make is that evidence for a natural world/universe simply puts a lie to the hackneyed and overworked religious tradition of belief in supernatural superstition. Belief in trinitarian ghosts, spirits, nephilim, seraphim, malevolent grandpas, winged personages, floating messiahs and other things that go bump in the night, wafting in and out across the natural/supernatural divide as they might, at will, occasionally interfering with the physics of the natural world is crass and sophomoric. No adult in their right mind would continue to subscribe to such nonsense in the light of reason and science. Religion is the remnant dinosaur of human thought, soon to follow alchemy, astrology and shamanism as interesting historical relics of humanity's earliest attempts at explaining the real world during our great age of ignorance perpetuated by the hegemony of Christian thinking in its halcyon days. Those days are inexorably drawing to a close as better, more informed and sophisticated explanatory models are developed.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-72926379131841838152015-08-10T18:13:57.649-07:002015-08-10T18:13:57.649-07:00"Naturalism is completely incompatible with b..."Naturalism is completely incompatible with being open to God's existence. Either you are open to God's existence or not. If you are a naturalist then you are not open to God's existence, as a main presupposition of naturalism is that gods don't exist."<br />Agreed. They are incompatible. But I am still open to evidence. If the evidence shows that there are supernatural events, then I must abandon my supernatural view. All the evidence I have seen so far tells me that there is nothing supernatural, so I must believe that naturalism is the correct view. Just show me evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />"This is just another example of your inconsistency. You say that there is no [conclusive] evidence that immaterial objects exist. Fair enough. But then you make the leap from saying that it's logically possible that some mysterious physical brute fact exists outside of our universe, even though all the evidence that we have shows that physical objects are neither eternal nor inexplicable, so I'm siding with naturalism. This seems to be a double standard."<br />- You added the word 'conclusive'. I believe I said 'objective'. Nothing can be proved conclusively. We have to believe what is deemed most likely by virtue of that available evidence. But I have already addressed this same objection of yours twice in this thread. From now on, every time you want to raise this point, just go back and read what I already said in reply.<br /><br />"I never claimed to be absolutely certain that God exists--I say that God most likely exists. The only thing I'm absolutely certain about is that some thinking thing I call "I" exists. I do admit that it's logically possible that an eternal physical brute fact exists, and that this thing is what caused the universe to exist."<br />- Fine. What I believe is based on evidence. What you believe is most likely is not based on evidence. It is based on religious faith.<br /><br />"This brings me back to one of my main points. You say I have faith because I have beliefs that aren't conclusively proven, but so do you. By your own definition of faith, you have faith too."<br />- Wrong. I didn't talk about conclusive proof, except to say that it doesn't exist. What I keep trying to tell you, and what you keep trying not to hear, is that what we believe should be based on evidence. There is just no observable evidence for what you believe. What I believe is based on the fact that absolutely everything in our experience is entirely consistent with natural laws. EVERYTHING - NO EXCEPTIONS - EVER. That's powerful evidence.<br /><br />As for your discussion about the attributes of god, I'll address that soon.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-66971128469857588432015-08-10T15:48:17.087-07:002015-08-10T15:48:17.087-07:00Papalinton wrote: "And the bible does? I don&...Papalinton wrote: "And the bible does? I don't mean to be mean..."<br /><br />I'm still not seeing any arguments or evidence to support your belief in an eternal physical brute fact, so I'm going to assume that you have none. The lack of substance in your comments simply doesn't cut the mustard anymore.Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-13518082043150288362015-08-10T15:35:09.796-07:002015-08-10T15:35:09.796-07:00im-skeptical wrote: "To say that God is divin...im-skeptical wrote: "To say that God is divinely simple is nothing but a platitude. How can you know anything at all about the attributes of God (assuming he exists at all)? <br /><br />Well, I don't <b>KNOW</b> with absolute certainty what God's attributes are, but I think that we can extrapolate them by using reason. If God isn't simple then Dawkin's who designed God? argument would have force because we would need to explain where the parts came from that make up God, as well as how these parts were put together. Not to mention what caused God to be. However, if God is a simple being who posses Aseity then there is no need to explain who designed God and he is not dependent on the existence of matter or anything else. The explanation for God's existence is by the necessity of his own nature.<br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "Furthermore, the attributes that you do claim for this God contradict the reality of the world. To explain away all the randomness, all the imperfection, all the suffering, you need to devise strange justifications that only serve to prove the point that this God isn't all he is cracked up to be."<br /><br />I don't think that this is true at all--I think God's attributes are completely compatible with the world we live in. As I said before, much of the randomness you think you see could be nothing more than an illusion. The imperfect world that we live in is compatible with a good, powerful God in that this is the best possible world that contains free creatures. God could have perfectly good reasons for permitting evil--reasons that may not be apparent to us finite creatures. <br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "Not if you think about what I'm saying. In the one case (randomness) there is objective evidence that supports the thesis, and in the other (God's existence), there isn't. The single standard that I adhere to is evidence."<br /><br />What evidence do you have that say, the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs, was truly random in that no intelligent agent arranged the world in such a way that the event in question would happen. Just saying that it looks random to you doesn't make it so. So, in actuality, you have no evidence. In much the same way, if I responded that it's just obvious that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, and you say that this is just an illusion, we are on exactly the same footing. I can't conclusively prove that objective moral facts exist anymore than you can prove that most, if not all, events are random. Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-20270112400093203952015-08-10T15:34:39.566-07:002015-08-10T15:34:39.566-07:00im-skeptical wrote: "Absolutely[I'm compl...im-skeptical wrote: "Absolutely[I'm completely open to God's existence ]...So until I see other evidence, I'm sticking with naturalism."<br /><br />Naturalism is completely incompatible with being open to God's existence. Either you are open to God's existence or not. If you are a naturalist then you are not open to God's existence, as a main presupposition of naturalism is that gods don't exist.<br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "Currently, the preponderance of the evidence points me to naturalism. All the evidence we have is that the things that exist are physical things that adhere to natural law."<br /><br />This is just another example of your inconsistency. You say that there is no [conclusive] evidence that immaterial objects exist. Fair enough. But then you make the leap from saying that it's logically possible that some mysterious physical brute fact exists outside of our universe, even though all the evidence that we have shows that physical objects are neither eternal nor inexplicable, so I'm siding with naturalism. This seems to be a double standard.<br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "I agree that God's existence hasn't been ruled out, but you have to agree that a natural cause is not ruled out either."<br /><br />I never claimed to be absolutely certain that God exists--I say that God most likely exists. The only thing I'm absolutely certain about is that some thinking thing I call "I" exists. I do admit that it's logically possible that an eternal physical brute fact exists, and that this thing is what caused the universe to exist. <br /><br />This brings me back to one of my main points. You say I have faith because I have beliefs that aren't conclusively proven, but so do you. By your own definition of faith, you have faith too.<br /><br />Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-38637538744444861322015-08-10T14:28:03.952-07:002015-08-10T14:28:03.952-07:00"How does evolution explain what caused the e...<i>"How does evolution explain what caused the existence of the finely tuned universe we inhabit? How does evolution prove that the naturalistic alternative to God, the eternal physical brute fact, exists? How do you know that God didn't use a theistic version of evolution to create the organisms that we see today?"</i><br /><br />And the bible does? I don't mean to be mean, but, pull the other leg. Give it a break Keith with all that pre-scientific stuff. Inveigling a god into the discussion simply doesn't cut the mustard anymore.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-16676743001473748472015-08-10T11:05:18.713-07:002015-08-10T11:05:18.713-07:00"So, you are completely open to the possibili..."So, you are completely open to the possibility that the explanation for the universe is God? If so, this would seem to clash with your past comments and claim of being a naturalist."<br />- Absolutely. I am open to any explanation that is supported by evidence. All you have to do to get me to abandon my naturalism is show me convincing (<i>ie. objective</i>) evidence. Currently, the preponderance of the evidence points me to naturalism. All the evidence we have is that the things that exist are physical things that adhere to natural law. So until I see other evidence, I'm sticking with naturalism.<br /><br />"My point is that there is no good reason to think that the ultimate source of the world is an eternal physical brute fact because all the data we have is that physical things are finite and have explanations for their existence. Nothing I've said has ruled out God's existence."<br />- And my point is that we both agree that there is <i>some</i> cause of the universe, and whatever that cause is, it is something that exists outside the universe. And all the data we have is that things are natural, not supernatural. I agree that God's existence hasn't been ruled out, but you have to agree that a natural cause is not ruled out either.<br /><br />"To say that God is simple is to say that he is an immaterial being who is not dependent on the existence of parts that need to be put together. This goes along with God's Aseity--that his existence is dependent on nothing.<br /><br />Nothing that you're saying in this paragraph makes God's existence any less likely. I don't see any reason to expect that God's creation would be exactly like himself."<br />- To say that God is divinely simple is nothing but a platitude. How can you know anything at all about the attributes of God (assuming he exists at all)? It seems to me that if you succeed in making the argument that there must be some kind of transcendent first cause of the universe, you still have no basis for claiming that it has any particular attributes or characteristics. Furthermore, the attributes that you do claim for this God contradict the reality of the world. To explain away all the randomness, all the imperfection, all the suffering, you need to devise strange justifications that only serve to prove the point that this God isn't all he is cracked up to be.<br /><br />"If you are really so open to God's existence then why is it good enough to say that it's possible that objective moral facts are an illusion while it's not good enough to say that the seemingly randomness of event could be an illusion? This seems to be a double standard."<br />- Not if you think about what I'm saying. In the one case (randomness) there is objective evidence that supports the thesis, and in the other (God's existence), there isn't. The single standard that I adhere to is <i>evidence</i>.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-4078574945608007592015-08-10T09:24:01.893-07:002015-08-10T09:24:01.893-07:00im-skeptical wrote: "There's a lot of con...im-skeptical wrote: "There's a lot of contradiction going on here. First, you contradict what I said. I never said that it's "this thing, and not God". What I said was "I don't know what exists outside our world, nor do I claim to know."<br /><br />So, you are completely open to the possibility that the explanation for the universe is God? If so, this would seem to clash with your past comments and claim of being a naturalist. <br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "That says absolutely nothing about what might exist outside the bounds of the finite cosmos. Furthermore, you yourself do not limit your beliefs about what exists to finite physical contingent things, so I really don't know what point you're trying to make. If you follow your own logic, you couldn't believe in God, so you are contradicting yourself."<br /><br />My point is that there is no good reason to think that the ultimate source of the world is an eternal physical brute fact because all the data we have is that physical things are finite and have explanations for their existence.<br /><br />Nothing I've said has ruled out God's existence.<br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "The reason is still simplicity. Your divinely simple God is anything but simple...How does any of this comport with divine simplicity?"<br /><br />To say that God is simple is to say that he is an immaterial being who is not dependent on the existence of parts that need to be put together. This goes along with God's Aseity--that his existence is dependent on nothing.<br /><br />Nothing that you're saying in this paragraph makes God's existence any less likely. I don't see any reason to expect that God's creation would be exactly like himself.<br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "Now that's a really poor argument. To say "why should I believe it?" is simply to say that I don't have evidence to support the belief."<br /><br />If you are really so open to God's existence then why is it good enough to say that it's possible that objective moral facts are an illusion while it's not good enough to say that the seemingly randomness of event could be an illusion? This seems to be a double standard. Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-87812295464055265782015-08-09T20:52:28.125-07:002015-08-09T20:52:28.125-07:00"Based on the logical possibility that there ..."Based on the logical possibility that there might be some mysterious eternal physical brute fact that exists outside the observable universe, you conclude that this thing, and not God, is the explanation for our universe. Since this physical brute fact is outside our universe it is not possible to observe or test it, hence you have no evidence that this thing exists. Furthermore, all the evidence that we do have suggests that physical objects are finite and have explanations for their existence, so the idea of an eternal physical brute fact runs contrary to what we know about the world."<br />- There's a lot of contradiction going on here. First, you contradict what I said. I never said that it's "this thing, and not God". What I said was "I don't know what exists outside our world, nor do I claim to know." Then, you berate me for having no evidence of this thing, whatever it might be. Exactly. That's why I don't claim to know what it is. You, on the other hand, do make a claim about what exists, and you have no evidence for it. So I'm not the one who is guilty of making claims without evidence - you are. Now let's get something straight about what evidence we have. Everything we can observe is necessarily finite, because it exists within our finite cosmos. That says absolutely nothing about what might exist outside the bounds of the finite cosmos. Furthermore, you yourself do not limit your beliefs about what exists to finite physical contingent things, so I really don't know what point you're trying to make. If you follow your own logic, you couldn't believe in God, so you are contradicting yourself. Yet, you think I should follow that logic to reject belief in any other possibilities. What gives?<br /><br />"The fact that you can't identify what exactly the eternal brute fact is doesn't change the fact that as an atheist/naturalist you have committed yourself to believing that this thing exists and is the explanation for the universe even though you have no proof that this is the case. You said, "Faith is belief without (or in spite of) evidence," and you have no evidence for your belief in the physical eternal brute fact, so by your own definition you clearly have faith."<br />- Again, I said something is the cause of the universe, but I don't claim to know what it is.<br /><br />"Could have, but what reason do I have to believe that? What could be simpler than a being with no parts?"<br />- The reason is still simplicity. Your divinely simple God is anything but simple. He's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He's the source of human intelligence, but he knows much more than the greatest genius that ever lived. He's the source of human morality, but no human is free of sin. And he's so powerful, he can create a universe in a single bound, and it's all planned from start to finish - but the world that emanates from him is the epitome of complexity, full of suffering, and full of unfortunates who are destined to suffer for eternity. How does any of this comport with divine simplicity? <br /><br />"Do you realize that this is the same exact response that theist apologists give to skeptics who try to refute the axiological argument by saying that objective moral facts might not exist?"<br />- Now that's a really poor argument. To say "why should I believe it?" is simply to say that I don't have evidence to support the belief.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-21980322962799960852015-08-09T19:04:28.869-07:002015-08-09T19:04:28.869-07:00Papalinton wrote: "The single greatest produc...Papalinton wrote: "The single greatest product of human genius, if there is such a thing, must be the elegance and simplicity of Charles Darwin's insight that gave us the intellectual and scholarly field of biological evolution, evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation. This discovery, in one fell swoop, simply swept away theological explanation of the 'GODDIDIT Hypothesis' and consigned it to the dustbin of history..."<br /><br />How does evolution explain what caused the existence of the finely tuned universe we inhabit? How does evolution prove that the naturalistic alternative to God, the eternal physical brute fact, exists? How do you know that God didn't use a theistic version of evolution to create the organisms that we see today? Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-25309058983904959102015-08-09T18:38:23.859-07:002015-08-09T18:38:23.859-07:00Papalinton wrote: "Keith, the God hypothesis ...Papalinton wrote: "Keith, the God hypothesis you subscribe to is as it always has been, a primitive and arcane conjuration that tells us everything about humanity's early attempts at explaining the natural world..."<br /><br />This is nothing more than the genetic fallacy--people's supposed motivations have no bearing on God's existence. You end the first paragraph with a straw man theistic argument that I could just parody back to by replacing God with eternal physical brute fact. <br /><br />Papalinton wrote: "Could have been orchestrated by God" has the explanatory power of a Marvel Comic from which such fantasies derive."<br /><br />And yet you can't disprove that God doesn't orchestrate events or prove that the meteorite impact was a random event. <br /><br />Papalinton wrote: "No Keith. The God explanation simply doesn't cut the mustard anymore at any level of reasoned analysis..."<br /><br />This is nothing more than your opinion.Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-81834239219249440572015-08-09T18:14:03.811-07:002015-08-09T18:14:03.811-07:00im-skeptical wrote: "That's not true. I d...im-skeptical wrote: "That's not true. I don't know what exists outside our world, nor do I claim to know. Where's this faith that you keep accusing me of?"<br /><br />For evidence of your faith I present exhibit A where you wrote, "But still you postulate something that exists apart from our cosmos, and you have no evidence for it. If you can do that, so can I." Based on the logical possibility that there might be some mysterious eternal physical brute fact that exists outside the observable universe, you conclude that this thing, and not God, is the explanation for our universe. Since this physical brute fact is outside our universe it is not possible to observe or test it, hence you have no evidence that this thing exists. Furthermore, all the evidence that we do have suggests that physical objects are finite and have explanations for their existence, so the idea of an eternal physical brute fact runs contrary to what we know about the world. <br /><br />The fact that you can't identify what exactly the eternal brute fact is doesn't change the fact that as an atheist/naturalist you have committed yourself to believing that this thing exists and is the explanation for the universe even though you have no proof that this is the case. You said, "Faith is belief without (or in spite of) evidence," and you have no evidence for your belief in the physical eternal brute fact, so by your own definition you clearly have faith. <br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "The universe could come about by virtue of some other thing that is simple, natural, and would require less "faith" to believe."<br /><br />Could have, but what reason do I have to believe that? What could be simpler than a being with no parts? <br /><br />im-skeptical wrote: "Could have, but what reason do I have to believe that?"<br /><br />Do you realize that this is the same exact response that theist apologists give to skeptics who try to refute the axiological argument by saying that objective moral facts might not exist? Keith Rozumalskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075074084646770559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-53649477953253509822015-08-08T15:19:53.913-07:002015-08-08T15:19:53.913-07:00Yes, yes and yes. Plank subscribes to Apologetics...Yes, yes and yes. Plank subscribes to Apologetics, that very 'fertile' yet irretrievably problematic field of theological rationalisation which is itself a moving feast of opinion upon opinions. I'm reminded of Mark K Bilbo, alt.atheism Usenet newsgroup, insightful remark: <i>"The very need of a thing called 'apologetics' is example of the weakness of the theistic argument. 'God' always needs apologies, rationalisations, explanations, equivocations, excuses."</i>Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-55011586798363130412015-08-08T08:58:17.926-07:002015-08-08T08:58:17.926-07:00It's not just a question of believing religiou...It's not just a question of believing religious bullshit. I don't care how he interprets Dante. Everybody in the world agrees that Dante had a geocentric view of the cosmos. That's what I was trying to point out in a quite civil manner, but he isn't willing to talk about it.<br /><br />Planks also castigated me for reading Psalm 14 the same way most people do: "You can be as patient as ever, and clearly lay out where he is mistaken about various subjects (such as his complete misinterpretation of Psalm 14), and it's like nailing jello to the wall. Nothing sticks. You might as well be talking to a rock." <br /><br />I think he should try reading <a href="http://bonevac.info/348/Arguments.pdf" rel="nofollow">Anselm and Aquinas</a>, both of whom agree with my interpretation. But of course if he was interested in some civil discussion, I could tell him this directly. He simply can't stand talking with people who have different views.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-77326332330567357842015-08-07T23:38:18.103-07:002015-08-07T23:38:18.103-07:00The single greatest product of human genius, if th...The single greatest product of human genius, if there is such a thing, must be the elegance and simplicity of Charles Darwin's insight that gave us the intellectual and scholarly field of biological evolution, evolution by means of natural selection and random mutation. This discovery, in one fell swoop, simply swept away theological explanation of the 'GODDIDIT Hypothesis' and consigned it to the dustbin of history, where the balance of religious hokum is also now being consigned, much to the caterwauling chagrin of the religiose. To be sure, religion will live on as an interesting historical relic, and insight into how we artfully manipulated our proclivity for supernatural superstition as an early explanatory tool before science and reason became the 'force majeur' that it is today.<br /><br />There is little doubt Dante's Divine comedy is 'widely considered the preeminent work of Italian literature[1] and is seen as one of the greatest works of world literature.' [Wiki] It is a testament to the human capacity for ingenuity, imagination and fictional writing. There are equally great literature works by others, Shakespeare, Chaucer et al, that have shaped the human imagination. But they do not explain the world, let alone the natural world as does Darwin, or Crick, Watson and Wilken's research into the basic building blocks of life, DNA.<br /><br />Try as they might, the Planks of the world might wish to imagine Dante's contribution as reality, but his claim that Dante's Divine Comedy is "The Single Greatest Product of Human Genius of all Time", simply serves to demonstrate the inertia of his intellect and self-inflicted ignorance, shaped as it is on the increasingly inconsequential and highly problematic epistemological substratum of religious belief.<br /><br />He needs to ditch the religious woo if he is to be an interlocutor with any semblance of credible standing into the future.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com