tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post478310197793400157..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-3846557022544506072015-08-31T08:09:23.218-07:002015-08-31T08:09:23.218-07:00And then, of course, there grodrigues:
"If pe...And then, of course, there grodrigues:<br />"If people like Parsons need a magician's trick to be convinced ("Stars aligning and spell out 'I am God'" or some such) then Christians should stop pretending that they are dealing with *rational* people amenable to be convinced by *rational* dialogue. Rational dialogue is about the evidence there is -- Apostles: we *witnessed*; Aquinas: God's existence can be proved in Five ways, etc. -- not some contrived irrational (Shadow to Light's critique is spot on) would-be scenario."<br /><br />If people like Parsons can't ever witness a magician's trick to be convinced ("Stars aligning and spell out 'I am God'" or some such) then Christians should stop pretending that they believe in the magician's tricks described in the gospels. Rational dialogue is about the evidence there is -- nobody ever saw one of these magician's tricks - not today - not in biblical times - not ever.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-2183146652973953732015-08-30T08:45:27.564-07:002015-08-30T08:45:27.564-07:00Steve Lovell enters the fray with the usual straw ...<a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2015/08/an-incoherent-triad.html" rel="nofollow">Steve Lovell enters the fray</a> with the usual straw man representation of an atheist's position on evidence [<i>with my own remarks that come much closer to the way these conversations really go</i>]:<br /><br />"Atheist: Give me evidence [<i>Give me something that has epistemic value.</i>]<br />Theist: Here you go [<i>I offer you sunsets and emotional feelings.</i>]<br />Atheist: That doesn't count [<i>Sunsets and feelings are not valid reasons for me to believe.</i>]<br />Theist: Why not? [<i>That's the only evidence I have. It's good enough for me.</i>]<br />Atheist: Nothing could ever count [<i>Nothing has ever happened that merits belief in the supernatural, but if it ever did, I would accept it as evidence. I'm not holding my breath, though, because it never happens.</i>]<br />Theist: So why did you ask for something you would never accept had been provided? [<i>Why won't you accept evidence that has no epistemic value, like I do?</i>]<br />Atheist: Because ... [<i>You said you have evidence, but all you have is sunsets and feelings. There are natural explanations for sunsets and feelings. That's no reason for me to believe.</i>]<br /><br />Not all debates go like that, but it seems to me that rather a lot of them do."<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-68655099420629676782015-08-29T10:35:23.940-07:002015-08-29T10:35:23.940-07:00UberGenious asks questions that seem far more inte...UberGenious asks questions that seem far more intelligent than anything the regular cultists at Victor's have said:<br />"It seems that a calm response would suffice. "On your view, how would you ground morality?" "Given that science says that, "out of nothing nothing comes,"and the Universe had a beginning, don't we need an uncaused agent that is powerful enough to create space, time, and the four laws of physics, the initial matter, and fine-tune it for life? Aren't all your cosmologies more untestable then any proposition I've made? Isn't every scientific fact less knowable than your direct knowledge of your soul? Doesn't skepticism about a creator run into the evidence that the only time we see creation (efficient causation) in our world it is through intelligent agents?"<br /><br />1. "How would you ground morality?" I would start with the understanding that morality evolved because it is beneficial for us to live cooperatively. I would add to that the idea that our morality only gives is general rules of thumb to guide behavior. All the details are subject to the whims of society and other factors that are not constant. So there really is no absolute grounding for morality. The fact that individuals may have a strong sense of morality does not imply that there is any permanent objective truth to it.<br /><br />2. "Don't we need an uncaused agent that is powerful enough to create space, time, and the four laws of physics, the initial matter ... ?" No. Science does not tell us that "out of nothing nothing comes". But logic tells us that whatever exists either existed forever, or came from nothing. Logic does not tell us that there must be some intelligent agent involved in any case. That is nothing more than theistic presupposition.<br /><br />3. "... and fine-tune it for life?" Again a theistic presupposition. The universe is not tuned for anything. It is impossible that we should find ourselves living in a universe that doesn't support life. But it is certainly possible that we could have lived in a universe that is more friendly to life than this one.<br /><br />4. "Aren't all your cosmologies more untestable then any proposition I've made?" Certainly not. While we may devise ways to test our cosmological theories, the God hypothesis is utterly untestable.<br /><br />5. "Isn't every scientific fact less knowable than your direct knowledge of your soul?" Certainly not. If we know anything, it is by means of the evidence of our senses. We have no knowledge of a soul - only theistic presuppositions that such a thing exists, and emotional feelings that are interpreted by some as "evidence".<br /><br />6. "Doesn't skepticism about a creator run into the evidence that the only time we see creation (efficient causation) in our world it is through intelligent agents?" - Certainly not. We see things being created in nature all the time with no intelligent agent involved in the process. The only time we see tings created by an intelligent agent is when a person makes something, and in that case, it is always far less complex than the biological structures made by nature. So contrary to the theories if the ID folks, if something we see is too complex, we can be sure that it is not made by any humans.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-73388929223037985262015-08-25T14:40:42.245-07:002015-08-25T14:40:42.245-07:00Just to prove my point, Bob Prokop comments over a...Just to prove my point, Bob Prokop comments over at Victor's:<br /><br />"That's fine. But first you have to understand that if you mean by "evidence", you mean empirical observation, you're never going to get it! Anything that is observable, testable, pin-downable, is by definition going to belong to the created world, what we call the universe. But the Creator (God) is obviously not part of creation. So asking for that sort of evidence is like trying to see the back of your head without a mirror."<br /><br />Now, you should be aware that this guy loudly proclaims that the gospels are literally true. You know, the very same gospels where Jesus goes around performing all those miracles for everyone to see. If it could happen then, there's no reason it can't happen now.<br /><br />But Bob is smart enough to understand that it ain't gonna happen. He's just completely blind to the idea that the stories in the bible might be works of fiction.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com