Evolution and Christianity incompatible!

[AndyT_81]

Hi NowAgnostic,

Thanks for the interesting comments.

Science is the only way of discovering contingent truth. I am using “science” loosely here to denote a method constituted by observation and inference.

I’m not sure I completely agree here, with your way of defining science or with you notion that science is the only way of discovering contingent truth. If we consider science to be mere observation and inference, then we would need to class trivial observation-inference pairs, such as infering that a car is travelling faster than you on a highway when it goes past, as science. This type of mental activity seems to me to be a standard part of human cognition, and I would hesitate to call it science. I think a more formal process of observation and inference is needed for science to be rightly called such.

My second point would be that I don’t really agree that science has a monopoly on the discovery contingent truth, even in the sense you are using the word. For instance, I know that I love my wife, and I do this without anything formal enough to be called observation or inference, it’s just something that I know. Yet this is a contingent truth. It is a contingent truth that I went to Church this morning, yet I don’t know this contingent truth by any formal obervations or inferences i.e. my mind doesn’t consciously break the question into any formal argument such as:

1. I remember going to Church this morning
2. My memory is generally reliable, and I have no reason to doubt it
3. Therefore I went to Church this morning

Rather, I am just “appeared to” with this idea, and I know this to be a truth, and any argument like the above would be rather ad hoc or ex post facto.

The contingent truth that science has been successful is only a result of the contingent truth that the world is such that it will be successful.

This seems right to me, but I’m not sure what this shows. The fact that science has been successful does say something about the world, but it seems to me that what is says is that (among other things) matter is mostly predictable, and it’s behaviour can be described my mathematical formulisms. Note I say it’s “behaviour”, not its essential ontology.

Again, I’ll agree in part, but science also seeks the most parsimonious model consistent with the evidence, since from induction the most parsimonious model is the most likely to be the correct one. So it’s not a case of willy-nilly selecting anything that works.

No, I never suggested it was a willy-nilly selection. What do you mean by “correct one”? My understanding of the principle of parsimony is that if a number of competing theories/models have the same predictive power, the least complex model will be chosen. This makes sense, because, as I have alluded to, science is nominally utilitarian and only cares about what “works”. Why use a complicated spanner when a simpler one does the job?

However, parsimony will not be invoked when a less complex model does not have the same predictive power as a more complex model. In such a case the less complex model will be abandoned. So I’m not sure what you mean with regards to “correct one”, as when parsimony is invoked to choose between models, all of these models will, with regard to utility, be “correct”, i.e. they all have the same or similar predictive power. However as I have already stated, to move from utility to truth (the way things actually are) something else is needed (not just more empiricism).

If the science is done properly, the model is very likely to be true, although never 100% because you never arrive at 100% through induction. What you’re trying to say here maybe is that the model is not all of the truth?

When we are testing a model via experimentation, the more experimental results that align with said model, the more likely the model is to be accurate with respect to predicting the behaviour of matter in a wide range of situations. However, this is not to say that the model is more likely to be true, where by truth I mean the way things actually are.

Let me try to discuss what I mean by this a bit further, I guess I am trying to get at two points. First, generally scientific theories are not just sets of mathematical theorems or rules, but rather, they are mathematical theorems based around objects or entities, such as atoms. What does the “work” in a scientific theory is the mathematical structures, it is the math that produces the predictions that are confirmed or denied via experimentation. These entities serve a purpose in that they are relatively easy to conceptualise. However, can these conceptualisations be considered to be ontologically real? Take the example of quarks. Here are sub-atomic particles that can never be “seen” directly by themselves in experiments, but only can be inferred via the behaviour of hadrons which they compose. Are quarks ontologically real entities, or are they simply an easy way of conceptualising something and building the mathematics that are required to explain sub-atomic particles? This is not a question science can really answer and shouldn’t really care about, science should only care about what works and the idea of quarks seems to.

The second idea I want to present is that scientific theorems come with no guarantee that they are unique, and this is especially true of the entities invoked in such theories. The idea of quarks seems to be successful and scientists are happy to use that conceptualisation, but I think it is naive to say that, given time, some other form of conceptualisation of entities could give rise to the same succesful mathematics (strings anyone?).

cont…

 

[AndyT_81]

So, what I am essentially getting at here is that science is not geared towards the ontological reality of things, but rather towards the utilitarian descriptions of how things behave. If one wants to know about the ontological reality of things, the meaning behind the matter, one must engage in metaphysics. I guess it comes down to our definitions of truth. If wanstronian considers truth to be the most effective and efficient conceptualisations regarding matter, then of course science will be the best way of discovering such truth. If one considers truth to be the ontological reality of things, i.e. the way things actually are, then one needs metaphsyics. This is not to say though, that science cannot aid metaphysics.

But you’re not denying the truth of the model, are you? The force of attraction really is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. It might not be the whole truth, but it is still part of it.

No, not at all, I’m not denying the reality of the inverse square law with respect to gravitation. What is it that actually causes gravitation though? Gravitrons, strings etc.? If it is one of those things, what is the ontological basis for it? These are the things I am interested in.

Agreed, if philosophy can prove it to be a necessary truth that God exists, and everything that happens must be by His decree. However, philosophy is not going to be able to show it to be a necessary truth that God must create a physical world with an inverse square law of gravity. That’s a contingent truth, and the only way to arrive at it is through science.

I agree there, with respect to the contingent truth part. One question though, when you say “prove it to be a necessary truth” that God exists, do you mean by means of analytical argumentation exclusively (e.g. the ontological argument)? Or do you consider it possible to develop valid arguments for God’s existence which are based on observation and inference, for instance the fine tuning argument?

Look forward to your response.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi wanstronian,

The level of evidence should be proportional to the scope of the claim.

The proof should conform to a principle of “beyond reasonable objective doubt.”

This seems to be a red herring, I ask you for your definition of evidence and how you show empirical evidence to be the “proper” means of arriving at truth and you reply with some vague notion regarding “levels” of evidence. By the way, what do you mean by “objective” doubt? Doubt seems to be a personal, subjective phenomena to me.

What theists are claiming is, objectively, outrageous.

Objectively outrageous? Since when is a feeling of outrage anything but subjective?

I was talking in a general sense about miracles, which by definition are impossible events. Events that would, say, require the suspension of the laws of physics in order to occur.

Miracles are by definition impossible? Surely you can’t be serious here, it is statements like this that suggest to me you aren’t interested in a serious discussion. Hope I am wrong. The only reason miracles would be impossible is if materialism were true, which is obviously something theists will not accept.

No, but you’re comparing something of which we all have experience, and can observe daily, to something on a completely different scale, which we can’t observe daily, and which we don’t all have experience of. Your argument is rather specious.

The point of the argument is that we can know things to be true which we do not have empirical evidence of. What has that got to do with how often or how many of us observe certain things? Do you believe that we can rationally know things only by recourse to empirical evidence, or not?

Can you define ‘New Atheism’ for me? Atheism is a lack of belief in God. How can there be a new version of that?

Well for starters, as far as I am aware Atheism was traditionally considered to be a positive assertion that God does not exist, with agnosticism being the position of mere non-belief. New Atheism seems to include the notion that Atheism is now a lack of belief in God, as you have just defined.

Of course. But how much of what you find valuable can be objectively attributed solely to your belief in God? In other words, what does your belief give you, that atheists do not get?

This seems to be another red herring. My argument was to show you that you were using hyperbole when saying that the idea that God created the universe can offer no value to anyone. It seems to me that you have admitted that it can offer some value, even if you reduce such value to comfort in the face of adversity.

Of course I understand these concepts. But they’re just assertion. And assertion without evidence is opinion. The problem is, you’re expressing it as fact.

What do you think assertion is? Assertion is a statement which is without reason or support. An logical argument is a reason. Do you agree that the notion of God that we are arguing about is a God that created the universe (i.e. space-time)? If so, the attribute of transcending time follows via a logical argument from this notion i.e.:

1. In order to create space and time, one cannot already be existing in space and time
2. If God exists, he created space and time
3. Therefore God transcends space and time, and is therefore immaterial and eternal

How is this assertion?

cont…

 

[AndyT_81]

That’s not what I said - I was responding to your assertion that atheist comments are all assertion without argumentation. Admittedly I should not have said ‘by definition’ - let me rephrase:
“That’s ironic, since all theist ‘proofs’ of God are in practice assertions without proof!”

Great, so somehow logical arguments which theists use to demonstrate the existence of God are still assertions (i.e. without support). Logical arguments are support.

It’s assertion based on the comprehensive debunking of all and any evidence for God put forward by theists. It’s hardly assertion without merit.

Irrefutable means just that, not able to be refuted, now or at any time. If you meant “so far not refuted” you should have said irrefuted instead of irrefutable. If you meant irrefutable, then it certainly is an assertion without merit, as you admit yourself:

Based on the existing arguments for God (and I should have been clearer about this, apologies)

No problems. Maybe try to concentrate a bit less on the bluster and hyperbole and a bit more on precise language, it’s an absolute must for clear discussion involving these sorts of matters.

 

[AndyT_81]

You’re right - science doesn’t explain, it merely describes. Theology and philosophy explain, but the explanations are nothing more than conjecture and opinion.

If you have a simplistic epistemology that considers the only way to truth is via empirical evidence, then yes.

They hold no weight in the real world.

What’s the “real world”?

One can’t act on the explanation with an expectation of a certain result. The explanations may ‘sound right’ to the theologist or his/her audience, but that’s as far as it goes in terms of value. You can’t base experiments on this information, there’s no way of showing its truth or falsehood.

Of course one can. A short example. Before I became a committed Christian, I used to have a significant addiction problem, which, after years of trying I could never kick. When I converted to Catholicism, I learned about God’s promises of strength, so I asked Him for strength. I am now addiction free, thanks be to God. There are other examples, like the expectation that I would become more loving and generous the more I committed myself to God, which has come about, and many others.

Of course, one can’t base experiments on such experiences, and therefore, via your epistemology, these experiences are automatically discounted. However, you have yet to fully justify (at least to me) why one should consider experimentation and empirical evidence necessary for the discovery of truth, without entering into a circular argument.

In your example, you are adding an unnecessary, unfounded and subjective aspect to what is known. It is mere conjecture that “God decided” this or that. It adds no objective value. We can’t use this information in any meaningful way. It’s entirely spurious.

We are going around in circles it seems, you are again declaring something meaningless even though meaning is a subjective notion, and it is clear that millions of people find the notion that God created the universe meaningful. What is “objective value” in your view? The ability to be able to build and predict things, to do “stuff”? I don’t have such a limited view of value.

In any case, you have missed the point it seems. Despite the fact that adding the God component to the example I presented does not add to our ability to build or predict things, and do “stuff”, it could still be the case that it is true (which we would have to decide by other arguments or experiences). The point is that science is unable to assess whether this is the case, as it is only properly concerned about utility.

If I were to say that in fact, “Pixies and elves, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the force of attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them” then my statement has equal weight and credibility to yours. It can neither be proved nor disproved, but in any case adds no value.

This is further demonstration that you missed the point. If it were true that Pixies and elves did decide to create the inverse square law, scientific methods would not be able to assess this. This is NOT equivalent to saying that anything goes, for a belief to be rational reasons and arguments must be given for it (or it could be a properly basic belief). However, these reasons and arguments need not rely on scientific/empirical evidence, as there is no reason to believe that empirical evidence has a monopoly on determining what is true, which is precisely the point I have been trying to make to you and yet you have failed to see it.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Hi NowAgnostic,

Thanks for the interesting comments.

You’re welcome.

If we consider science to be mere observation and inference, then we would need to class trivial observation-inference pairs, such as infering that a car is travelling faster than you on a highway when it goes past, as science… I think a more formal process of observation and inference is needed for science to be rightly called such.

Then that only begs the question as to what the distinction is between a “formal” and an “informal” process of observation and inference. I assume if you took out a stopwatch and measured the exact time it took for the other car to traverse the length of yours, and calculated the relative velocity, you’d say that was science? You’re just using a rough measure with your eyes but you can infer that the relative velocity is greater than zero. Anyway, if you don’t like my definition, that’s fine; just substitute “observation and inference” for “science” wherever it appears.

My second point would be that I don’t really agree that science has a monopoly on the discovery contingent truth, even in the sense you are using the word. For instance, I know that I love my wife, and I do this without anything formal enough to be called observation or inference, it’s just something that I know.

Yes you do have observations. You observe feelings of tenderness for her. You observe a desire to make her happy?

It is a contingent truth that I went to Church this morning, yet I don’t know this contingent truth by any formal obervations or inferences …

Yes you do know by observation. You observed the surroundings of the Church, you saw the sign, the entrance door, the altar, etc.

This seems right to me, but I’m not sure what this shows. The fact that science has been successful does say something about the world, but it seems to me that what is says is that (among other things) matter is mostly predictable, and it’s behaviour can be described my mathematical formulisms. Note I say it’s “behaviour”, not its essential ontology.

Yes but this has some profound implications for metaphysics. I would say its behavior but also its accidents (e.g. appearances) can be described by mathematical formalisms but traditional metaphysics has it that we can know the essential ontology through the accidents. More on this later, in response to your excellent question about quarks.

No, I never suggested it was a willy-nilly selection. What do you mean by “correct one”? My understanding of the principle of parsimony is that if a number of competing theories/models have the same predictive power, the least complex model will be chosen… However, parsimony will not be invoked when a less complex model does not have the same predictive power as a more complex model. In such a case the less complex model will be abandoned. So I’m not sure what you mean with regards to “correct one”, as when parsimony is invoked to choose between models, all of these models will, with regard to utility, be “correct”, i.e. they all have the same or similar predictive power.

I think you’re getting the terminology a bit mixed up here. Parsimony is invoked when a less complex model fits the data as well. But this is because the less complex model has more explanatory and predictive power (e.g. for interpolation or extrapolation). And, from Bayes’ Theorem, the posterior probability of the less complex model will be higher, making it more likely to be the true one.

However as I have already stated, to move from utility to truth (the way things actually are) something else is needed (not just more empiricism).

Models describe the way things actually are and if they do so correctly they are the truth. Models are hypothesized to be the truth and tested on that basis. It is true that the gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the difference. That is not “utility”. That is “truth”.

When we are testing a model via experimentation, the more experimental results that align with said model, the more likely the model is to be accurate with respect to predicting the behaviour of matter in a wide range of situations. However, this is not to say that the model is more likely to be true, where by truth I mean the way things actually are.

Disagree 100%. What is the difference between accuracy and truth? It is the way things actually are that the gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the difference. That is truth. (Cont…)

 

[NowAgnostic]

…it is the math that produces the predictions that are confirmed or denied via experimentation. These entities serve a purpose in that they are relatively easy to conceptualise. However, can these conceptualisations be considered to be ontologically real? Take the example of quarks. … Are quarks ontologically real entities, or are they simply an easy way of conceptualising something and building the mathematics that are required to explain sub-atomic particles? This is not a question science can really answer and shouldn’t really care about, science should only care about what works and the idea of quarks seems to.

Yes but the truth of the model doesn’t depend on whether quarks are ontologically real entities or not. The behavior of the hadrons fits the model.

But I would say metaphysics can’t answer this question either. And not just for quarks. We can go up as far as you like. Are hadrons or leptons ontologically real? Are atoms ontologically real? Are molecules ontologically real? Are collections of molecules ontologically real?

Let’s take a water molecule. Yes, it has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen, but still it is chemically interacting with other hydrogen atoms in the vicinity. Were it not for this interaction, water would not have the chemical properties it does. So physics and chemistry don’t provide a neat “cutoff” where you can say the molecule is the ontological “unit” - or anything else, for that matter, everything is interacting with everything else. Metaphysicians simply don’t know where to make the “cut”. They don’t really know where there is a substantial unity or only an accidental one.

The second idea I want to present is that scientific theorems come with no guarantee that they are unique, and this is especially true of the entities invoked in such theories. The idea of quarks seems to be successful and scientists are happy to use that conceptualisation, but I think it is naive to say that, given time, some other form of conceptualisation of entities could give rise to the same succesful mathematics (strings anyone?). .

Yes, but all this shows is that contingent facts inferred from science are not known with 100% certainty - they are provisional and can change with new data or, as you showed above, new theories.

 

[NowAgnostic]

So, what I am essentially getting at here is that science is not geared towards the ontological reality of things, but rather towards the utilitarian descriptions of how things behave.

I’ve heard this line before. “Metaphysics deals with reality whereas science only deals with appearances.” It’s often intellectually dishonest bunkum, for these very same metaphysicians tell us essences (reality) can be known through our senses (e.g. the appearances).

Moreover, once a metaphysical claim is made prior to scientific investigation (which they are), science will be investigating, not just behavior, but reality, according to the metaphysical view. For instance, if metaphysicians wish to hold that hydrogen and helium atoms are bona fide ontological realities, then they are going to have to admit that science is not just giving a utilitarian description of what is going on in the sun, but is getting at the ontological reality (a “substantial change” is occurring in which hydrogen atoms are fusing into helium).

If one wants to know about the ontological reality of things, the meaning behind the matter, one must engage in metaphysics. If one considers truth to be the ontological reality of things, i.e. the way things actually are, then one needs metaphsyics.

Not in a case of contingent truths. Metaphysics is of no help at all. It can tell us there are essences, substantial forms, accidents, etc., necessarily if things exist. It can’t tell us precisely where they are instantiated. It can’t tell us what unities are substantial versus accidental, or put another way, what really are essences versus mere human classifications.

No, not at all, I’m not denying the reality of the inverse square law with respect to gravitation. What is it that actually causes gravitation though? Gravitrons, strings etc.? If it is one of those things, what is the ontological basis for it? These are the things I am interested in.

Yes, but then if gravitons give a decent explanation, you’ll want to know the ontological basis for that. And on all the way down.

I agree there, with respect to the contingent truth part. One question though, when you say “prove it to be a necessary truth” that God exists, do you mean by means of analytical argumentation exclusively (e.g. the ontological argument)? Or do you consider it possible to develop valid arguments for God’s existence which are based on observation and inference, for instance the fine tuning argument?

Look forward to your response.

I deny the possibility of an inferential argument for God. Because for an absolutely omnipotent being the hypothesis space is completely unbounded, or bounded only by the logically possible. And for an inferential argument to work you need a probability of God creating such a fine-tuned universe compared to such a universe arising “on its own”. But such a thing is impossible to compute; there are an infinity of possible universes and an infinity of fine-tuned universes. It’s like asking what the probability is if I select a number at random from the entire (infinite) set of integers that the number is even, a multiple of 10, or whatever. Even if this type of argument were successful, you wouldn’t have proven God’s existence to be a necessary truth, as the arguments are by their nature probabilistic.

 

[tonyrey]

Although slightly longer than the mind, which doesn’t really start to kick in until a few months into gestation, then dies along with the body (matter).

Another example of an unsupported dogmatic assertion!

 

[wanstronian]

This seems to be a red herring, I ask you for your definition of evidence and how you show empirical evidence to be the “proper” means of arriving at truth and you reply with some vague notion regarding “levels” of evidence. By the way, what do you mean by “objective” doubt? Doubt seems to be a personal, subjective phenomena to me.

I would think it’s quite obvious what ‘objective’ means in this case - it refers to people who don’t already have a vested interest in what the ‘evidence’ is attempting to prove.

Objectively outrageous? Since when is a feeling of outrage anything but subjective?

Okay, possibly a bad choice of words. I just couldn’t think of anything else to describe a hypothesis where an onmimax entity made everything, listens to everybody, guides everything that happens, and yet there’s not a shred of evidence to support this hypothesis. It’s directly equivalent to me claiming that elves made the world. In terms of evidence, probability etc. there’s no difference. Hence the use of the word ‘outrageous.’

Miracles are by definition impossible? Surely you can’t be serious here, it is statements like this that suggest to me you aren’t interested in a serious discussion. Hope I am wrong. The only reason miracles would be impossible is if materialism were true, which is obviously something theists will not accept.

True enough. From the point of view of the world which we can prove to exist, miracles are impossible. If you believe in magic, then I guess they aren’t. However, for miracles to be anything more than coincidence, they must involve suspension or alteration of the natural laws of the universe. Hence impossible.

The point of the argument is that we can know things to be true which we do not have empirical evidence of. What has that got to do with how often or how many of us observe certain things? Do you believe that we can rationally know things only by recourse to empirical evidence, or not?

No - hence my reference to proportional evidence. The religion hypothesis is so broad-reaching in scope, it requires a massive level of evidence. However, the actual evidence amounts to zero. In no other field of knowledge and information do such monumentous assertions get made without evidence.

Well for starters, as far as I am aware Atheism was traditionally considered to be a positive assertion that God does not exist, with agnosticism being the position of mere non-belief. New Atheism seems to include the notion that Atheism is now a lack of belief in God, as you have just defined.

So you’re saying that New Atheism is less extreme than just plain old atheism? I can’t see the point.
Atheism hasn’t changed. Theists are just labelling it differently, presumably to make it sound like it needs re-inventing to remain valid. Atheism is the lack of belief in God. Personally I’m happy to admit to a positive belief in a lack of God, for reasons I have stated many times on these fora.

This seems to be another red herring. My argument was to show you that you were using hyperbole when saying that the idea that God created the universe can offer no value to anyone. It seems to me that you have admitted that it can offer some value, even if you reduce such value to comfort in the face of adversity.

I’d rather you didn’t state it as though you rationally forced me to admit the value of religious belief. I’ve never denied the succour aspect. What I would like you to do, given that you have accused me of ‘reducing it’ to that, is tell me what else it provides, that cannot be gotten by the non-religious. It seems that you, not I, are ducking the question.

What do you think assertion is? Assertion is a statement which is without reason or support.

No. An assertion is just a positive statement. It has no ‘evidence’ component.

An logical argument is a reason. Do you agree that the notion of God that we are arguing about is a God that created the universe (i.e. space-time)? If so, the attribute of transcending time follows via a logical argument from this notion i.e.:

1. In order to create space and time, one cannot already be existing in space and time
2. If God exists, he created space and time
3. Therefore God transcends space and time, and is therefore immaterial and eternal

How is this assertion?

Well, point 3 is an assertion, and a baseless one at that. It hinges on statement 2 which, in case it escaped your attention, is a ‘what-if.’ Then follows a heinous misuse of the word ‘therefore.’ It’s like saying, “If I can defy the law of gravity, I can fly. Therefore, I can fly.”

I can’t believe you can’t see the logical flaw!

Will reply to the rest tomorrow.

 

[AndyT_81]

wanstronian,

I would think it’s quite obvious what ‘objective’ means in this case - it refers to people who don’t already have a vested interest in what the ‘evidence’ is attempting to prove.

Well, it isn’t obvious to me. In any case, you answered my “by the way” question, but again avoided the thing that is most important in this discussion, that is, what you consider valid evidence (that is evidence that can reveal truth) to be, why you consider the attainment of empirical evidence to be the only valid, or proper, way at arriving at truth, and if you do believe this, how you can show it in a non-circular way.

I just couldn’t think of anything else to describe a hypothesis where an onmimax entity made everything, listens to everybody, guides everything that happens, and yet there’s not a shred of evidence to support this hypothesis. It’s directly equivalent to me claiming that elves made the world. In terms of evidence, probability etc. there’s no difference. Hence the use of the word ‘outrageous.’

See how important it is to get to the bottom of what this “evidence” is that you are always talking about? We are going round in circles here. Even if there wasn’t a shred of empirical evidence for God, this in no way necessarily means that one can’t be justified in believing that God exists is true.

True enough. From the point of view of the world which we can prove to exist, miracles are impossible. If you believe in magic, then I guess they aren’t. However, for miracles to be anything more than coincidence, they must involve suspension or alteration of the natural laws of the universe. Hence impossible.

You aren’t making a lot of sense here. First you say it is true enough that miracles aren’t logically impossible without a presumption of materialism, but then you go on to presume materialism and state it is impossible again. This is going nowhere.

No - hence my reference to proportional evidence. The religion hypothesis is so broad-reaching in scope, it requires a massive level of evidence. However, the actual evidence amounts to zero. In no other field of knowledge and information do such monumentous assertions get made without evidence.

How does your reference to proportional evidence, which is only a vaguely supported norm regarding the amount of evidence “needed” for a claim to be justified (whatever said evidence is actually refering to), clear up whether you think empirical evidence is the only means of discovering truth? I still don’t know if you do or not. Care to explain a bit more?

I’d rather you didn’t state it as though you rationally forced me to admit the value of religious belief. I’ve never denied the succour aspect. What I would like you to do, given that you have accused me of ‘reducing it’ to that, is tell me what else it provides, that cannot be gotten by the non-religious. It seems that you, not I, are ducking the question.

Well I’m not sure how else I am supposed to see it. You initially said:

It adds no value, has no provenance, answers no meaningful questions

To which I argued this clearly wasn’t true. You then said, in response to this:

I thought I had responded, by saying that a belief in God, although almost certainly false and certainly without rationality, may have some benefit to the believer in terms of offering comfort in times of hardship.

To which I consider “comfort in times of hardship” to be of some value to the believer.

In any case, it doesn’t really matter who showed what who, or who changed whoevers mind, unless we get our ego in the way of things. I’m happy to assent to your request regarding unique value. The very least of what the idea of a Christian God gives to believers that atheists can’t obtain is the possibility of a personal relationship with your Maker, who has shown He loves us a very great deal, is looking out for us, and wants the very best for us (i.e. which is to be united to Him in Love). This gives the believer immense value and meaning in their lives. This is not equivalent to mere “comfort in times of hardship”.

Let me ask you a personal question, if you don’t mind. Are you married, or deeply in love? If so, what value does your wife/partner give you? Is the only value that she can give material, i.e. her pay, helping around the house, “sharing the load” so to speak? I certainly hope not. Speaking for myself, the value/meaningfulness of my relationship with my wife comes from our love for each other, our personal relationship. It is not only “comfort in times of hardship”, which of course, is inherent in our relationship but not limited to it. So it is with devoted Christians and God.

No. An assertion is just a positive statement. It has no ‘evidence’ component.

Assertion: a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason

cont…

 

[AndyT_81]

Well, point 3 is an assertion, and a baseless one at that. It hinges on statement 2 which, in case it escaped your attention, is a ‘what-if.’ Then follows a heinous misuse of the word ‘therefore.’ It’s like saying, “If I can defy the law of gravity, I can fly. Therefore, I can fly.”

I can’t believe you can’t see the logical flaw!

You’re right, 3. should read “Therefore, if God exists, He transcends time…”. I actually noticed this after I posted, but I didn’t bother editing it as I assumed you would understand that I wasn’t trying to prove that God exists (or whatever it is that you thought I was trying to do) simply by leaving out an “if” statement. My mistake perhaps. Rather, I was trying to show via the argument that the properties of transcendence with regards to space and time follow directly if our definition of God includes that he created space and time, and by doing so, showing that these properties are not just assertion but are supported by argument.

wanstronian, it seems to me that you haven’t thought through the basis of your epistemology very well. I could be wrong of course, but that is my honest appraisal from the way you have handled yourself here. There is a lot of falling back to the old FSM arguments, and the “there is no evidence!” type comments (which I have seen many, many times before) but very little engagement with my main arguments relating to your epistemology. That is the really interesting stuff, and I can’t see myself persuing this conversation much longer unless you start engaging with this content. Could I respectfully ask you to please spend a little more time thinking about your replies next time, I will certainly do the same if you wish? I am certainly thinking hard about the excellent and challenging response by NowAgnostic.

 

[wanstronian]

Another example of an unsupported dogmatic assertion!

Unsupported??? You really don’t care about the facts, do you!?

 

[tonyrey]

Unsupported??? You really don’t care about the facts, do you!?

You indulge in one-liners and think you have established your conclusion.

 

[tonyrey]

Another example of an unsupported dogmatic assertion!

You indulge in one-liners and think you have established your conclusion! I’m not the only one who has noted this habit…

 

[wanstronian]

You indulge in one-liners and think you have established your conclusion! I’m not the only one who has noted this habit…

I just think that your over-zealous belief in an unproven alternative reality has caused you to lose your grip on this one. If you think my statement was unsupported by evidence, then all it shows is that you are ignorant of the evidence, not that it doesn’t exist.

 

[wanstronian]

You’re right, 3. should read “Therefore, if God exists, He transcends time…”. I actually noticed this after I posted, but I didn’t bother editing it as I assumed you would understand that I wasn’t trying to prove that God exists (or whatever it is that you thought I was trying to do) simply by leaving out an “if” statement. My mistake perhaps. Rather, I was trying to show via the argument that the properties of transcendence with regards to space and time follow directly if our definition of God includes that he created space and time, and by doing so, showing that these properties are not just assertion but are supported by argument.

wanstronian, it seems to me that you haven’t thought through the basis of your epistemology very well. I could be wrong of course, but that is my honest appraisal from the way you have handled yourself here. There is a lot of falling back to the old FSM arguments, and the “there is no evidence!” type comments (which I have seen many, many times before) but very little engagement with my main arguments relating to your epistemology. That is the really interesting stuff, and I can’t see myself persuing this conversation much longer unless you start engaging with this content. Could I respectfully ask you to please spend a little more time thinking about your replies next time, I will certainly do the same if you wish? I am certainly thinking hard about the excellent and challenging response by NowAgnostic.

Well, I’ve answered the questions you’ve asked, I’m not sure what else you expect me to do. Can you explain exactly what it is you’re after?

Or maybe I should just leave it to NowAgnostic. He/she seems more educated than me in the field of metaphysics and philosophy and can argue using the relevant terminology and principles. I just say it like I see it, I’m afraid.

 

[AndyT_81]

wanstronian,

Well, I’ve answered the questions you’ve asked, I’m not sure what else you expect me to do. Can you explain exactly what it is you’re after?

I’m after your basis for claiming that empirical evidence is the only proper way of determining truth, without resorting to circular arguments i.e. by saying that the success of science proves this.

Or maybe I should just leave it to NowAgnostic. He/she seems more educated than me in the field of metaphysics and philosophy and can argue using the relevant terminology and principles. I just say it like I see it, I’m afraid.

Ok, this is fine and I’m glad to see the humility here. However, dont you think that, due to the fact that you are willing to defer to someone else in this argument, that you seem to admit here that you aren’t as well versed in philosophy as you could be and that you don’t seem to be able to articulate the basis for your beliefs all that rigorously, you should probably tone down the rhetoric and bluster that you display on these forums?

It’s a good thing to respectfully disagree with someone, and argue it out, as we can often learn during such exchanges, but labelling peoples beliefs (which could be well thought out for all you know) “irrational dogma”, implying you are a member of a set of “rational intelligent people” and saying that your opponents arguments have “gaping flaws” in them (and this is all from just one post), does nothing to aid rational discourse, is provocative, and comes across as very arrogant, especially when you don’t seem to be able to defend your own beliefs all that well.

I’m not trying to be nasty here, but I hope you can see my point.

Anyway, I wish you all the very best in your search for the Truth.

 

[wanstronian]

I’m after your basis for claiming that empirical evidence is the only proper way of determining truth, without resorting to circular arguments i.e. by saying that the success of science proves this.

Because it is the only type of evidence that can be repeatedly and independently observed, tested, used to predict etc. It’s the same for everyone. Anybody who performs a particular experiment will get the same result, each time. Compare and contrast to ontological ‘evidence,’ for example, and the result is influenced by the subjective opinion of the person assessing the ‘evidence.’ For instance, I’ve seen people on this forum doggedly insist that Aquinas’ Five ‘Proofs’ are unequivocal proof of the existence of God. They’re not of course, it’s just that those people believe in God and can’t see how it could be any other way, so they’re convinced by the argument (which, let’s face it, is extremely weak).

Ok, this is fine and I’m glad to see the humility here. However, dont you think that, due to the fact that you are willing to defer to someone else in this argument, that you seem to admit here that you aren’t as well versed in philosophy as you could be and that you don’t seem to be able to articulate the basis for your beliefs all that rigorously, you should probably tone down the rhetoric and bluster that you display on these forums?

Well, my ‘bluster’ and ‘rhetoric,’ as you call it, is nothing more than a reminder that there is no evidence for God’s existence. I think a more appropriate term would be ‘fact’ - and I don’t say that to be inflammatory. The fact is that no credible evidence for God’s existence has ever been produced. the ‘evidence’ that has been offered only convinces those who already believe. By a simple analogy - for example, the FSM - it can be shown to be utterly without foundation. NowAgnostic and I seem to have different approaches - he/she is happy to debate the finer philosophical points of theology, whereas I simply point out the errors in the assertions being made. While NowAgnostic is undoubtedly better-equipped than me to discuss philosophical matters (and formal logic, I see from a recent thread!), he/she is no better equipped than me or anybody else, to point out the basic lay-logical errors being made by theists in an attempt to ‘prove’ that God exists. They are that conspicuous.

It’s a good thing to respectfully disagree with someone, and argue it out, as we can often learn during such exchanges, but labelling peoples beliefs (which could be well thought out for all you know) “irrational dogma”, implying you are a member of a set of “rational intelligent people” and saying that your opponents arguments have “gaping flaws” in them (and this is all from just one post), does nothing to aid rational discourse, is provocative, and comes across as very arrogant, especially when you don’t seem to be able to defend your own beliefs all that well.

It may be provocative to some people, but so what? If it’s the truth, then it’s the truth. I don’t deny theists their intelligence, I just see little application of it when it comes to their claims. I have not just stated that these arguments have flaws, I have demonstrated how. It may come across as arrogant to some people, but I would suggest that this is because it is easier to label someone as arrogant than it is to question one’s own deeply-held beliefs.

I’m not sure why you say I’m unable to defend my beliefs? What have I claimed, that I have been unable to justify?

I’m not trying to be nasty here, but I hope you can see my point.

Indeed, and you mine!

Anyway, I wish you all the very best in your search for the Truth.

Well, I’ll have to wait for the scientists to discover it, unless God shows his hand!

 

[tonyrey]

I just think that your over-zealous belief in an unproven alternative reality has caused you to lose your grip on this one. If you think my statement was unsupported by evidence, then all it shows is that you are ignorant of the evidence, not that it doesn’t exist.

Instead of expressing your opinions of others why not keep to the point?
You made a bald statement:
“Although slightly longer than the mind, which doesn’t really start to kick in until a few months into gestation, then dies along with the body (matter).”
What is the evidence that the mind “dies along with the body”? How do you know it doesn’t really start to “kick in” until a few months into gestation? In fact what is the evidence that the mind exists at all from a materialist’s point of view?