M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Sorry; please let me rephrase the question.
Do you believe that it is inherently irrational to have a belief when the “scientific evidence” is not present for that belief?
Debate: How God Can Create Something From Nothing - (A Response To GreyLorn)
- Status
Do you believe that it is inherently irrational to have a belief when the “scientific evidence” is not present for that belief?
H
HelenaMT
Guest
Greylorn clearly in his post drew a distinction between Creationists and ID supporters and Michael Behe in particular, obviously trying to demonstrate that his particular work was worth exploring on it’s own merit. I can understand that if it’s not peer reviewed by sources you find acceptable, you don’t want to bother. But you are admitting then that you are not even willing to explore something that you want to argue against. It’s good to have a thorough understanding of your opposition (though really, it seems counterproductive to approach science as a politician),or at least understand what their arguments(and evidence) actually are, not what others who agree with you SAY their arguments are.
For some reason, you also seemed to confuse Greylorn with a Creationist or ID supporter, which clearly he stated (and has demonstrated on this forum numerous times) he is not. Obviously, he was pointing out 2 books that he found make a reasonable case for, in his words, “showing, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, that Darwinist theory does not explain the evolution of biological life.” How from that you got that he was making an argument for Creationism I have no idea.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Your wrong on a few fronts. One, I.D. IS creationism. Two Grey proclaimed atheism is absurd because of the ‘design’ we see in universe. Oh, and Behe and the discovery institute are creationists, no matter how you want to spin it.
It is not about not wanting people to argue against me, that is the foundation of science. However once one has been proved wrong they MUST accept it, if not they will be shunned, just like the creationists.
One thing i have really taken from this forum is most people do not understand the method.
I do like “in his words” though, as he as clearly shown he has no understanding of the method. Which amazes me, as he claims to be a post grad in science.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Is that to me?
H
HelenaMT
Guest
Your wrong on a few fronts. One, I.D. IS creationism. Two Grey proclaimed atheism is absurd because of the ‘design’ we see in universe. Oh, and Behe and the discovery institute are creationists, no matter how you want to spin it.
It is not about not wanting people to argue against me, that is the foundation of science. However once one has been proved wrong they MUST accept it, if not they will be shunned, just like the creationists.
One thing i have really taken from this forum is most people do not understand the method.
I do like “in his words” though, as he as clearly shown he has no understanding of the method. Which amazes me, as he claims to be a post grad in science.
- ID is not necessarily creationism. Just because some creationists like it because it might suggest their god does not mean the whole concept of exploring design in nature is creationism.
- I didn’t defend Greylorn’s comment that atheism was absurd, I happen to think that for those who have no personal experiences to draw upon, belief is either hard to come by or just not of interest, but not necessarily absurd given the information most people are presented with. Likewise, I don’t find his position on apparent design in nature absurd. Perhaps if you disattach the concept of an almighty god from the concept of design it would make you less hostile to the idea.
- Spin is slanting information to fit an agenda. That is what you are doing when you proclaim Behe is a creationist because you don’t like his conclusions (which have nothing to do with a 6000 year old earth, a 7 day creation, or Adam being molded out of clay, BTW). I have found no evidence that Behe is a creationist. Some Creationists have used him for their own ends, but that is guilt by association, not a credible argument against the legitimacy of his research. Besides, he’s a Catholic, they don’t tend to be Creationists.
- I would like to know exactly what you define as “the method”, since I am not claiming to be a scientist or even a grad student. Maybe then I will better understand your open hostility to the exploration of design, since you responded in an earlier post that you had an open mind.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
I.D IS creationism
youtube.com/watch?v=xvvPyiimHaM
The method, which shows why i don’t have to read junk like I.D.
youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14
A
AlbertBall
Guest
H
HelenaMT
Guest
Thanks for the links, I watched all 3.
The first was obviously an anti-creationist piece, which did nothing but support what I previously stated, that Creationists use the concept of ID for different ends than those who might simply study design as a means of discovering if it exists.
The 2nd was a basically innocuous rundown of how evidence is necessary for conclusions and how peer review keeps fraudulent research from being accepted, but that didn’t really explain why Behe in particular deserves the same contempt as those who try to use Biblical accounts as a starting point for research. Even Dawkins acknowledges that design is apparent in nature, even though he believes it only appears to be purposeful. So the overt hostility to the simple exploration of the concept still baffles me. I thought atheists wanted believers to use evidence. Why oppose the search for evidence, then?
The 3rd was pretty much as biased as the first. The 3 clips together pretty much confirmed that the makers of the clips don’t like creationism, and either don’t understand that studying the concept of design in nature is not necessarily creationism, or deliberately want viewers to automatically conflate the two.
Keep in mind, I don’t necessarily accept ID, but I generally prefer to look at information from more even- handed sources. I don’t go to sites that promote a 6000 yr old earth for honest info on Darwinism, nor should I go to anti-creationist sites to find out about anyone honestly studying design. But I do appreciate the effort.
G
greylorn
Guest
You are kind of correct. When God is explained in the context of basic physics, a nice explanation of gravity shows up as a by-product. God and gravity have a related origin, although gravity would not manifest without the creation of matter.
G
greylorn
Guest
Sorry Albert,
Does it strike you as curious that I’ve read more source material on evolution than you ever will, and that HelenaMT takes the time to read and objectively analyze the third-order trash you point her to, while you devote your self to explaining why you don’t need to read anything?
I notice that you replied to my previous note without bothering to actually read any content, at least not that I could tell by your reply. The ability and willingness to read, and intelligently consider the perused material, is one thing I insist upon from anyone with whom I attempt to exchange ideas.
Therefore you will understand why this is my final communication with you.
G
greylorn
Guest
I lied. One last post to you.Your wrong on a few fronts. One, I.D. IS creationism. Two Grey proclaimed atheism is absurd because of the ‘design’ we see in universe. Oh, and Behe and the discovery institute are creationists, no matter how you want to spin it.
It is not about not wanting people to argue against me, that is the foundation of science. However once one has been proved wrong they MUST accept it, if not they will be shunned, just like the creationists.
One thing i have really taken from this forum is most people do not understand the method.
I do like “in his words” though, as he as clearly shown he has no understanding of the method. Which amazes me, as he claims to be a post grad in science.
I have a wide ranging scientific education built upon a basic degree in physics, math, and EE, derived from experience and study in astronomy, computer technology, cybernetics, neurology, biochemistry, and a few other things. I can also repair a chainsaw in the woods and rebuild a carburetor alongside the highway. I’ve only taken one post-grad course in my life (philosophy) although in my final year as an undergraduate, all my courses were heavily populated with post-docs.
Never have I stated or implied, on this forum or elsewhere, that I have an advanced degree. If you knew how to read, you would know that. I invite you to locate and quote any such statement or implication or take your lying self off this forum.
Otherwise I request your formal apology.
On a personal and friendly note, I’ve been curious ever since my brother-in-law leapfrogged his bosses in government service and earned himself an extra two million in salary and pensions by obtaining a Ph.d. I know that a title would make it easier for me to publish, although it would not make me any more knowledgeable or smarter. How was your experience with Belford University? mail-order-degrees.com/
F
Fran65
Guest
Albert,
On another thread you claimed to be a scientist and implied that you are an academic. No scientist or academic would regard youtube as a reputable source. Just as I don’t allow students to use wiki as a source, nor do I allow them to base work on youtube clips. Seriously, this is foolish behaviour and you would do well to take advice and do some serious reading. You’ve been given lots of suggestions.
On another thread you claimed to be a scientist and implied that you are an academic. No scientist or academic would regard youtube as a reputable source. Just as I don’t allow students to use wiki as a source, nor do I allow them to base work on youtube clips. Seriously, this is foolish behaviour and you would do well to take advice and do some serious reading. You’ve been given lots of suggestions.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Well not everyone has an Athens account, and i can’t expect people to pay for every paper. Besides those videos are fantastic for getting a general understanding of the area. With all due respect Fran it is not as if i am construing an argument for an area of research, we are talking on a chat forum.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
I doubt it, however even if you have, you clearly did not understand it.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
reading greys post #91 i notice that he references this statement that you made.
and yet, just hours before you made this statement you have been proven wrong on the epistemological status of ‘evidence’ in the thread “the necessity of proving things”. and i mean proven wrong as in, we posted the evidence multiple times. literally proven the logical contradiction, and fallacy. then we posted the syllogism demonstrating this several times.
you have not admitted it, yet here you say people MUST, or they wont be taken seriously.
given that you are violating (and yes i can post the evidence) your own standard, why should we take you seriously?
on top of that, you keep talking about people not understanding the scientific method, yet its taught to every highschool kid in the states, and presumably throughout the developed world. but when questioned as to your academic credentials, you stay mum…hmmmmm
please. **what are your academic credentials **that give you a much better grasp on the scientific method than the average person?
its not really a mail order degree as grey suggests, is it?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Existential-Causality.
We can see that things “exist”. They have a reality and an act or nature; and in perceiving their reality we are given the ability to conceive of concepts such as “objective truth” . Objective truth is what you might call the existential facts of reality as opposed to non-reality. They are existential in that they “exist” in opposition to absolute nothingness, and they are objective insofar as they are not the manifestations of your imagination. We see that things have causes, and causes have effects. We come to realize that there are things which exist now that did not exist before. We see change. Some are small, and some our more fundamental. We see push and shove causality and mechanistic functionality. But we should also become aware of something more intimately true. We perceive the “potentially real”. We can see that a things “being” in reality, in the here and now, is not a product of its own nature or act in the present. They are not real by virtue of their own “natures”. If they were necessarily real by nature, they would have always existed without potentiality, and that means that they would exist timelessly, because that which is existence by nature exists irrespective of change. It cannot have a beginning or an end. It cannot lose its reality to the “past”, or have a potential future, because its existence is intrinsic to its being, and thus its being is absolutely true. If i confirm that such a beings existence is true, then that truth must contain the entirety of its existence. Thus we know that at least some natures do not have existence as a property. Their “esse” is not the same as their essence. Thus without the sustaining virtue of “esse” as a distinct act in its own right, there can be no essence.
We know from metaphysical logic that out of nothing comes nothing and that it is impossible for absolute nothingness to be objectively real; for nothing is not a positive reality by definition. That is to say that, if you said to me that nothing actually existed as a nature, then you would in fact be saying that nothing is actually something, for the simple fact that you are giving it a reality and a nature by saying that it exists. But this cannot be true, because “absolute nothingness” contains no reality and thus cannot be included in objectively “true” statements about that which exists or is natural.
Thus existence is an absolute. It’s impossible for there to not be a reality, because for there to be otherwise would result in a contradiction. So we know that there must be such a thing as “reality” or existence before there can be anything else. There is also the fact that we have knowledge of reality either directly or indirectly of sense perception. We also know that the future, and everything it contains, is potentially real in respect of the present reality. Thus we must acknowledge that the future “receives reality” from something else, and that therefore all change, and everything it contains, is receiving reality. Potential natures are coming “into” reality; but they are not causing it. We must accept by force of logic that all change is potential reality. Thus anything that is changing is not a reality by virtue of its nature or act, but rather it exists because something has given to it its existence and actuality.
This “giver of reality”, must exist by virtue of its own nature and its nature has to be existence (its esse is the same as its essence). It must also be timeless, because its esse is intrinsic to its essence (Its esse is its essence), which is the reason why it is ultimate eternal and necessary (sounds like a particular God you might know?). Thus there is not merely a push and shove causality or a mechanistic functionality in nature, but rather there is also an “Existential cause”.
This is what I mean by the term “existential cause”. Anyone hoping to be successful in producing a logical argument for Gods existence would do well by using the concept of an existential cause as a template for future production. Once you understand the fundamental relationship between esse and essence, you will be on your way to understanding Aquinas’ 5 ways. Until then, you will not grasp the full power of his work.
We can see that things “exist”. They have a reality and an act or nature; and in perceiving their reality we are given the ability to conceive of concepts such as “objective truth” . Objective truth is what you might call the existential facts of reality as opposed to non-reality. They are existential in that they “exist” in opposition to absolute nothingness, and they are objective insofar as they are not the manifestations of your imagination. We see that things have causes, and causes have effects. We come to realize that there are things which exist now that did not exist before. We see change. Some are small, and some our more fundamental. We see push and shove causality and mechanistic functionality. But we should also become aware of something more intimately true. We perceive the “potentially real”. We can see that a things “being” in reality, in the here and now, is not a product of its own nature or act in the present. They are not real by virtue of their own “natures”. If they were necessarily real by nature, they would have always existed without potentiality, and that means that they would exist timelessly, because that which is existence by nature exists irrespective of change. It cannot have a beginning or an end. It cannot lose its reality to the “past”, or have a potential future, because its existence is intrinsic to its being, and thus its being is absolutely true. If i confirm that such a beings existence is true, then that truth must contain the entirety of its existence. Thus we know that at least some natures do not have existence as a property. Their “esse” is not the same as their essence. Thus without the sustaining virtue of “esse” as a distinct act in its own right, there can be no essence.
We know from metaphysical logic that out of nothing comes nothing and that it is impossible for absolute nothingness to be objectively real; for nothing is not a positive reality by definition. That is to say that, if you said to me that nothing actually existed as a nature, then you would in fact be saying that nothing is actually something, for the simple fact that you are giving it a reality and a nature by saying that it exists. But this cannot be true, because “absolute nothingness” contains no reality and thus cannot be included in objectively “true” statements about that which exists or is natural.
Thus existence is an absolute. It’s impossible for there to not be a reality, because for there to be otherwise would result in a contradiction. So we know that there must be such a thing as “reality” or existence before there can be anything else. There is also the fact that we have knowledge of reality either directly or indirectly of sense perception. We also know that the future, and everything it contains, is potentially real in respect of the present reality. Thus we must acknowledge that the future “receives reality” from something else, and that therefore all change, and everything it contains, is receiving reality. Potential natures are coming “into” reality; but they are not causing it. We must accept by force of logic that all change is potential reality. Thus anything that is changing is not a reality by virtue of its nature or act, but rather it exists because something has given to it its existence and actuality.
This “giver of reality”, must exist by virtue of its own nature and its nature has to be existence (its esse is the same as its essence). It must also be timeless, because its esse is intrinsic to its essence (Its esse is its essence), which is the reason why it is ultimate eternal and necessary (sounds like a particular God you might know?). Thus there is not merely a push and shove causality or a mechanistic functionality in nature, but rather there is also an “Existential cause”.
This is what I mean by the term “existential cause”. Anyone hoping to be successful in producing a logical argument for Gods existence would do well by using the concept of an existential cause as a template for future production. Once you understand the fundamental relationship between esse and essence, you will be on your way to understanding Aquinas’ 5 ways. Until then, you will not grasp the full power of his work.
S
Syntax
Guest
Just so you know, all historians say this is a very common misconception. I’m not a great historian, but I know enough through my own years of formal education that this is completely false. Indeed, the pursuit of knowledge, trade, foreign discovery, travel, and economic development were incredibly stifled and impoverished back then–hence the term “The Dark Ages.” But every historian will tell you that religion was NOT the cause. In fact, it is the exact opposite! It is common knowledge that the Church was the **only **surviving institution since the fall of Rome that kept philosophy and the rudiments of science preserved in libraries and monasteries; and the Church did what it could to encourage education and development, doing its absolute best to hold on to and protect the collected works from the Ancients whether the works were in history, philosophy, mathematics, etc.,
The problem was that Europe was in constant upheaval because the political landscape consisted of the fracturing of thousand of warring landowners along with the repeated bombardments of barbarian hordes from all directions that would ransack towns and villages burning libraries and destroying everything in their path. And this is no exaggeration. These illiterate germanic tribes had no interest in learning, knowledge, civilation, culture, economy, trade, religion, or the arts. After all, these various tribes were responsible for the eventual fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD itself when an Ostrogothic Tribal Chief sat on the Emperor’s throne. This constant invadement went on for hundreds of years and everyone had a very difficult time keeping them out. You had Moors and Muslims from the South, the Vandals, the Goths, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, and the Franks in the North, not to mention the Celts, the Jutes, the Saxons in the British Isles…and many more from the East and the North East. Byzantium did what it could to keep the Muslims from the East from invading, but Europe itself was internally disrupted like a festering wound from within that wouldn’t quit. In fact, the Church was the only civilizing force around, and thank God for that too! Just read your history.
Simply put, there were many factors that contributed to the Dark Ages, but historians are in unanimous agreement that this was definitely NOT because of religion. It is quite the opposite. And when Europe eventually civilized these barbarian hordes, when trade began to develop, when contact with the east was re-established, philosophy, science, and trade flourised once again because the Church finally had enough relative peace and stability to build universities throughout Europe and other cultural centers of learning.
Just a little information for you. I always laugh at the stupid bumper sticker people parade on their vehicles which says “When religion ruled the world, they called it the Dark Ages”–coincidentally, this is true. But it wasn’t because of religion. This is a total urban myth and it makes people look dumb when they say it. I am not accusing you, of course. You seem very intelligent. I am only suggesting not to believe everything you hear about history from the masses because most often they are wrong anyways.
S
Syntax
Guest
Sure, but the scientific realism you so devoutely propose all the time is very naive. Fran is right–referring people to highschool Youtube videous is Grade-A below us. Are you not familiar with all the skepticism surrounding scientific methodology proposed by respectable practicing scientists and philosphers this past century such as Kuhn, van Fraassen, Quine, Duhem, Popper, Carnap, Hempel, Salmon, Kitcher, Cartwright, Maxwell, Feyerband, Strawson, etc.?
Here are just a few problems these individuals will mention concerning scientific methodology.
(1) Problem of our complete incapability of grounding Induction and the non-observability of Natural Necessity (Laws)
(2) Problem of non-epistemic Social factors within the Scientific Community itself which ultimately guide their choices in Theory Change
(3) Asymmetry of Utility and Truth
(4) The mutually exclusive trade-off between Theoretical Explanations and Empirical Accuracy
(5) The Looming Circularity threatening methods of Confirmation
(6) The Quine-Duhem Thesis of *Underdetermination *which says all Theories will be forever underdetermined with respect to the evidence, and hence truly unfalsifiable.
(7) The Pessimistic Induction about all past scientific failures
These are not skeptical positions proposed by some whacky post-modern idiot. They are genuine concerns that come from practicing scientists and philosophers themselves. And how we attempt to provide solutions to these problems will have a drastic impact on our view of what science is actually doing and what it consists of. Does scientific methodology really consist of the pursuit of freedom from error, or does it consist in the repeated employment of confirmation biases and untestable assumptions at its core?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
egads man!
do you mean to tell me that there might be a problem with the common epistemcal foundations of atheism? (dripping with heavy sarcasm)
no, it cant be. ive been indoctrinated my whole life with the ultimate truth of the scientific method over every and all facets of reality. i know its true because it was drilled into me by authority figures in my youth. we worshipped at the altar of science. how dare you attack my faith!
S
Syntax
Guest
Yes! Notice further that the problems facing the empirical method of hypothesis-formation, testing, and warrant come down to the rather simplistic rendering of the following highly-suspect way of proceeding which scientists recognize as fundamental to all scientific practice and hence deeply problematic:Syntax;6352090:
which says all Theories will be forever underdetermined with respect to the evidence, and hence truly unfalsifiable.
(7) The Pessimistic Induction about all past scientific failures
These are not skeptical positions proposed by some whacky post-modern idiot. They are genuine concerns that come from practicing scientists and philosophers themselves. And how we attempt to provide solutions to these problems will have a drastic impact on our view of what science is actually doing and what it consists of. Does scientific methodology really consist of the pursuit of freedom from error, or does it consist in the repeated employment of confirmation biases and untestable assumptions at its core?egads man!
do you mean to tell me that there might be a problem with the common epistemcal foundations of atheism? (dripping with heavy sarcasm)
no, it cant be. ive been indoctrinated my whole life with the ultimate truth of the scientific method over every and all facets of reality. i know its true because it was drilled into me by authority figures in my youth. we worshipped at the altar of science. how dare you attack my faith!
(1) If my hypothesis is true, warranted, or justified, then I will obserive X, Y, and Z.
(2) I do observe X, Y, and Z.
(3) Therefore, my hypothesis is true, warranted, or justified.
or
(1) If H, then O
(2) O
(3) Therefore, H
But this is committing the **logicall fallacy **of affirming the consequent. I know most scientists and philosophers will recognize this, which is precisely the reason for their concerns about the scientific method. Truly, this IS cause for concern since this is the source of all the difficulties I listed above.
- Status