Jump to content
IGNORED

Science and Bible proves man made of the dust of the ground.


HAZARD

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

I'm not sure this is a good example of god-of-the-gaps. In essence, it's a request for your model (which you have). But claiming that God to be the cause of our existence is not god-of-the-gaps (for a Bible believer). Since this is an explicit claim of the Bible, in our world view, there is no “gap” in knowledge. God-of-the-gaps arguments are rationally weak because of their arbitrary nature.

As a fairly common example, creationists are sometimes accused of claiming the devil planted the fossils (though I've never heard this from a creationist myself). Such an explanation would be a god-of-the-gaps-kind argument.

You objected but then repeated what I said.  If your theistic claim is rooted in the Bible because that's what you believe then I would say there's no god of the gap argument.  If you're tossing your hands in the air saying "Well how did this all get here" it's either a god of the gaps or argument from ignorance.  

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

The possibility of a multi-verse was earlier suggested. So for starters, out of the trillions and trillions of possible outcomes, we just happen to exist in a universe that is rationally ordered; where the process of space and time can be predicted by consistent laws of nature. But then to find a pocket of this universe that is a special exception to the rest of the universe; i.e. not saturated with high-intensity radiation, with a system containing a highly stable star, with a water-laden planet with an oxygenated atmosphere, rotating on an axis, in stable orbit around the star (the perfect distance form the star to maintain liquid water), with a magnetic field to protect the planet from solar radiation - i.e. a planet perfectly suited to life as we know it. Then all the constituents of complex life somehow found a way to fall together on this perfect planet (an accomplishment still beyond the comprehension of modern molecular science). Then a series of massively fortunate mutations of life's information system generating billions of novel, additional, functional genes (something yet to be observed once in reality), subsequently filtered by the environment to produce a vast diversity of species; each uniquely adapted to survival in their specific habitats…

So to summarise; every unique gene that has ever existed is the result of a 1-in-billions mutation event occurring in a series of such events, on a life that conquered as-yet unimaginable odds to form from abiotic components, on a planet which just happened to be perfectly suited to support life, in a system perfectly situated in the universe to support life, and all in a perfectly sensible universe having formed from an infinite range of possible outcomes.

I don't know if you've ever listened to Sean Carroll but he [among others] address these concerns.  He wrote an essay/article called "Does the Universe need God".   

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Bonky said:

You objected but then repeated what I said.  If your theistic claim is rooted in the Bible because that's what you believe then I would say there's no god of the gap argument.  If you're tossing your hands in the air saying "Well how did this all get here" it's either a god of the gaps or argument from ignorance.  

I don't know if you've ever listened to Sean Carroll but he [among others] address these concerns.  He wrote an essay/article called "Does the Universe need God".   

You objected but then repeated what I said. If your theistic claim is rooted in the Bible because that's what you believe then I would say there's no god of the gap argument. If you're tossing your hands in the air saying "Well how did this all get here" it's either a god of the gaps or argument from ignorance.

I was just making sure we're on the same page. You phrased the god-of-the-gaps argument indirectly; as a question. If the person throwing their “hands in the air saying "Well how did this all get here"” is claiming their must be a god independent of any specific faith premise, and only because they can't fathom the possibility of another explanation, then yes, it is god-of-the-gaps.

 

I don't know if you've ever listened to Sean Carroll but he [among others] address these concerns. He wrote an essay/article called "Does the Universe need God"

I haven't read this essay. If you think he makes compelling points, I'll be happy to discuss them with you. I recall Stephen Hawking's response was akin to, 'in a multi-verse of infinite possibilities, it was sure to all come together in at least one universe', and that we are just very fortunate to find ourselves in such a perfect universe. I also read Richard Dawkins describe biology as the study of things which seem to be designed for a purpose – before going on to interpret the evidence in support of undirected processes.

Ultimately, whether or not the universe needs God is dependant upon whether or not God exists. No one disputes that there are secular stories describing a naturalistic universe. But intuitively, even to avowed atheists like Dawkins, the universe appears purpose-built for us – which is abundantly consistent with the Biblical model of reality; eliminating the necessity to believe in a series of events of stupendous good fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't know if you've ever listened to Sean Carroll but he [among others] address these concerns. He wrote an essay/article called "Does the Universe need God"

I haven't read this essay. If you think he makes compelling points, I'll be happy to discuss them with you. I recall Stephen Hawking's response was akin to, 'in a multi-verse of infinite possibilities, it was sure to all come together in at least one universe', and that we are just very fortunate to find ourselves in such a perfect universe. I also read Richard Dawkins describe biology as the study of things which seem to be designed for a purpose – before going on to interpret the evidence in support of undirected processes.

Ultimately, whether or not the universe needs God is dependant upon whether or not God exists. No one disputes that there are secular stories describing a naturalistic universe. But intuitively, even to avowed atheists like Dawkins, the universe appears purpose-built for us – which is abundantly consistent with the Biblical model of reality; eliminating the necessity to believe in a series of events of stupendous good fortune.

Regarding Dawkins, I believe I've read that he stated that things can appear to be designed that aren't necessarily designed.   Snowflakes are completely natural phenomena but if we didn't know this and merely saw a snowflake [foreign to our planet] then we could easily be tricked into thinking they are designed by an intelligence.  I don't recall Dawkins stating that the Universe appears "purpose-built" for us.

Here is a sample from his essay.  I specifically went to the "fine tuning" section of his essay as I thought that would be quite relevant.  

This is taken from https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

Quote

The multiverse comes to life by combining inflation with string theory. Once inflation starts, it produces a limitless supply of different “pocket universes,” each in one of the possible phases in the landscape of vacuum states of string theory. Given the number of potential universes, it wouldn’t be surprising that one (or an infinite number) were compatible with the existence of intelligent life. Once this background is in place, the “anthropic principle” is simply the statement that our observable universe has no reason to be representative of the larger whole: we will inevitably find ourselves in a region that allows for us to exist.

What prior likelihood should we assign to such a scenario? One popular objection to the multiverse is that it is highly non-parsimonious; is it really worth invoking an enormous number of universes just to account for a few physical parameters? As Swinburne says:

To postulate a trillion trillion other universes, rather than one God in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality.[20]

That might be true, even with the hyperbole, if what one was postulating were simply “a trillion trillion other universes.” But that is a mischaracterization of what is involved. What one postulates are not universes, but laws of physics. Given inflation and the string theory landscape (or other equivalent dynamical mechanisms), a multiverse happens, whether you like it or not.

This is an important point that bears emphasizing. All else being equal, a simpler scientific theory is preferred over a more complicated one. But how do we judge simplicity? It certainly doesn’t mean “the sets involved in the mathematical description of the theory contain the smallest possible number of elements.” In the Newtonian clockwork universe, every cubic centimeter contains an infinite number of points, and space contains an infinite number of cubic centimeters, all of which persist for an infinite number of separate moments each second, over an infinite number of seconds. Nobody ever claimed that all these infinities were a strike against the theory. Indeed, in an open universe described by general relativity, space extends infinitely far, and lasts infinitely long into the future; again, these features are not typically seen as fatal flaws. It is only when space extends without limit and conditions change from place to place, representing separate “universes,” that people grow uncomfortable. In quantum mechanics, any particular system is potentially described by an infinite number of distinct wave functions; again, it is only when different branches of such a wave function are labeled as “universes” that one starts to hear objections, even if the mathematical description of the wave function itself hasn’t grown any more complicated

 

 

Here is another section that I found compelling:

 

Quote

Cosmologists don’t have a compelling model for why the vacuum energy is so much smaller than it should be. But if it were anywhere near its “natural” value, we would not be here talking about it. Vacuum energy pulls objects away from each other, and a value much larger than what is observed would prohibit galaxies and stars from forming, presumably making it harder for life to exist.

Other constants of nature, such as those that govern atomic and nuclear physics, seem natural by themselves, but would give rise to very different macroscopic phenomena if they were changed even slightly. For example, if the mass of the neutron were a bit larger (in comparison to the mass of the proton) than its actual value, hydrogen would not fuse into deuterium and conventional stars would be impossible; if the neutron mass were a bit smaller, all the hydrogen in the early universe would fuse into helium, and helium stars in the late universe would have much shorter lifetimes.[14] (On the other hand, Adams has argued that a wide range of physical parameters leads to stars sustained by nuclear fusion.[15])

In the face of these apparent fine-tunings, we have several possible options:

  1. Life is extremely robust, and would be likely to arise even if the parameters were very different, whether or not we understand what form it would take.
  2. There is only one universe, with randomly-chosen parameters, and we just got lucky that they are among the rare values that allow for the existence of life.
  3. In different regions of the universe the parameters take on different values, and we are fooled by a selection effect: life will only arise in those regions compatible with the existence of life.
  4. The parameters are not chosen randomly, but designed that way by a deity.

Generally, not nearly enough credence is given to option #1 in this list. We know very little about the conditions under which complexity, and intelligent life in particular, can possibly form. If, for example, we were handed the Standard Model of particle physics but had no actual knowledge of the real world, it would be very difficult to derive the periodic table of the elements, much less the atoms and molecules on which Earth-based life depends. Life may be very fragile, but for all we know it may be ubiquitous (in parameter space); we have a great deal of trouble even defining “life” or for that matter “complexity,” not to mention “intelligence.” At the least, the tentative nature of our current understanding of these issues should make us reluctant to draw grand conclusions about the nature of reality from the fact that our universe allows for the existence of life.

I encourage you to read the full article.  Carroll doesn't seem to have an insulting demeanor about him that Dawkins or others may have.   One of the members here encouraged me to check out the "Unbelievable" podcast [Christian radio], which I did.  I was happy to see that they had Sean Carroll on there debating whether naturalism provides good explanations for our Universe.   I feel like he mirrors many of my views, the main one being that naturalism is my default position [today anyway] but if I honestly had compelling reason(s)  to believe in something above and beyond the natural then I would be intellectually obligated to acknowledge that and adjust my views accordingly.   I think Carroll also does a good job of not knocking theism as much as tempering their confidence that theism is the only game in town.  

For the record, I don't find fine tuning arguments to be bad or hard to consider.  I do find Theism in all of it's arrangements to be extremely ill defined and frankly empty considering it's claims.  Given my experience in life I've seen very poor evidence for the "power" of prayer, the idea of a soul, or the idea that theists have some edge over non-theists in how life is to be lived.   I find it very confusing that a God of logic and rationality would use the same tools and devices that every other religion use which are sloppily invoked and ill defined.  Theism is wrapped up in a dark cloud of what appears to be mystery after mystery and yet the primary claim is that the person behind all this wants a relationship with us?   Divine hiddenness is a major problem for theism in my view.  There are books written for Christian audiences on how to handle a shaking faith due to lack of feedback in any way.  That's very odd if your own followers are wondering if you're really out there and they can't seem to firmly conclude that based on their experience.

Edited by Bonky
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

19 hours ago, Bonky said:

Regarding Dawkins, I believe I've read that he stated that things can appear to be designed that aren't necessarily designed.   Snowflakes are completely natural phenomena but if we didn't know this and merely saw a snowflake [foreign to our planet] then we could easily be tricked into thinking they are designed by an intelligence.  I don't recall Dawkins stating that the Universe appears "purpose-built" for us.

Here is a sample from his essay.  I specifically went to the "fine tuning" section of his essay as I thought that would be quite relevant.  

This is taken from https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

Here is another section that I found compelling:

I encourage you to read the full article.  Carroll doesn't seem to have an insulting demeanor about him that Dawkins or others may have.   One of the members here encouraged me to check out the "Unbelievable" podcast [Christian radio], which I did.  I was happy to see that they had Sean Carroll on there debating whether naturalism provides good explanations for our Universe.   I feel like he mirrors many of my views, the main one being that naturalism is my default position [today anyway] but if I honestly had compelling reason(s)  to believe in something above and beyond the natural then I would be intellectually obligated to acknowledge that and adjust my views accordingly.   I think Carroll also does a good job of not knocking theism as much as tempering their confidence that theism is the only game in town.  

For the record, I don't find fine tuning arguments to be bad or hard to consider.  I do find Theism in all of it's arrangements to be extremely ill defined and frankly empty considering it's claims.  Given my experience in life I've seen very poor evidence for the "power" of prayer, the idea of a soul, or the idea that theists have some edge over non-theists in how life is to be lived.   I find it very confusing that a God of logic and rationality would use the same tools and devices that every other religion use which are sloppily invoked and ill defined.  Theism is wrapped up in a dark cloud of what appears to be mystery after mystery and yet the primary claim is that the person behind all this wants a relationship with us?   Divine hiddenness is a major problem for theism in my view.  There are books written for Christian audiences on how to handle a shaking faith due to lack of feedback in any way.  That's very odd if your own followers are wondering if you're really out there and they can't seem to firmly conclude that based on their experience.

Regarding Dawkins, I believe I've read that he stated that things can appear to be designed that aren't necessarily designed. Snowflakes are completely natural phenomena but if we didn't know this and merely saw a snowflake [foreign to our planet] then we could easily be tricked into thinking they are designed by an intelligence. I don't recall Dawkins stating that the Universe appears "purpose-built" for us.

So the quote from Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker is “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”. Of course, his atheistic philosophy compels him to find a way to explain that "appearance" away. My point is that the most intuitive interpretation of such a finely-tuned, purpose-fit universe is design – which is recognised by the most avid detractors of the design paradigm. The way to get around this is to steer people away from the most obvious implication of the observed universe, but rather claim we have been “tricked” by observation into seeing design.

 

Carroll said,“The multiverse comes to life by combining inflation with string theory

So we start from a premise of two stories that are utterly unobservable and experimentally untestable/unfalsifiable. These are both mathematical constructs designed to solve problems facing the secular cosmology model.

If you don't like god-of-the-gaps arguments, how on earth can you be satisfied with String Theory? It is used exactly the same way. There are cosmological constants which are so finely tuned to make this universe work (some mentioned in your quote from Carroll), the existence of which is not explainable given our current knowledge of the laws of physics, and which makes it awkward for those trying to explain away the appearance of design. String Theory allows cosmologists to toss their hands in the air and say, “we got lucky” (i.e. given the infinite variety available to the multi-verse, the right parameters were bound to show up somewhere – and since our universe is somewhere, bully for us).

 

Carroll said, Once inflation starts, it produces a limitless supply of different “pocket universes,” each in one of the possible phases in the landscape of vacuum states of string theory. Given the number of potential universes, it wouldn’t be surprising that one (or an infinite number) were compatible with the existence of intelligent life. Once this background is in place, the “anthropic principle” is simply the statement that our observable universe has no reason to be representative of the larger whole: we will inevitably find ourselves in a region that allows for us to exist.

And this is the crux of most of these arguments – essentially, 'the reason we observe a universe so finely tuned to our form of life is because if the universe were not so finely tuned, we couldn't be here to observe it'. This is as circular as reasoning gets. It sounds more reasonable coming from some smart science communicator supported by cool graphics – but is no more rational.

And none of this refutes my characterisation of the secular models as claiming that our existence stems from a series of events of outrageous, incomprehensible, inexpressible, indescribable, stupendous good fortune. And the multi-verse theory doesn't even deal with the probabilities of life falling together at all, let alone in exactly the right part of exactly the right universe from an infinite number of possible outcomes (neither does it deal with the probabilities associated with the generation of every functional gene that has ever existed).

No one can say that any unfalsifiable claim is beyond the realm of logical possibility, but I think the far more parsimonious reasoning has the universe appearing to be designed because it is designed.

 

Carroll said, Cosmologists don’t have a compelling model for why the vacuum energy is so much smaller than it should be. But if it were anywhere near its “natural” value, we would not be here talking about it. Vacuum energy pulls objects away from each other, and a value much larger than what is observed would prohibit galaxies and stars from forming, presumably making it harder for life to exist. ...

Yep, there it is again. If the universe had any other configuration than appearing to be purpose-built for our life, then life as we know it wouldn't/couldn't exist in it, and we wouldn't be here to discuss it.

 

Carroll said, Generally, not nearly enough credence is given to option #1 in this list. We know very little about the conditions under which complexity, and intelligent life in particular, can possibly form.

Actually, given current knowledge, there is no plausible circumstance in which complex life can form from abiotic chemicals. Every proposed scenario requires conditions which are toxic to other functions necessary for life. So we can't even assess that probability. The best we can do is assess the probabilities of the resulting molecules (e.g. the probability of the right permutation of nucleotides forming a gene, or amino acids forming a protein). So "option #1 in this list" is moot at this point.

 

I feel like he mirrors many of my views, the main one being that naturalism is my default position [today anyway] but if I honestly had compelling reason(s) to believe in something above and beyond the natural then I would be intellectually obligated to acknowledge that and adjust my views accordingly.

If you are appealing to naturalism (and especially String Theory and multi-verses), you are appealing at least as much to faith as theists. Naturalism may be your “default position”, but it is not the objective “default position”.

Edited by Tristen
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

33 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Carroll said,“The multiverse comes to life by combining inflation with string theory

So we start from a premise of two stories that are utterly unobservable and experimentally untestable/unfalsifiable. These are both mathematical constructs designed to solve problems facing the secular cosmology model.

Carroll isn't selling this as anything else is he?  All he's saying is that there are other ideas about how the nature of the Universe.  We don't know enough to make dogmatic grand proclamations about how the Universe got here, I think that's fair.  Haven't we had mathematical models that made sense and later on we discovered they were right?

33 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Actually, given current knowledge, there is no plausible circumstance in which complex life can form from abiotic chemicals. Every proposed scenario requires conditions which are toxic to other functions necessary for life. So we can't even assess that probability. The best we can do is assess the probabilities of the resulting molecules (e.g. the probability of the right permutation of nucleotides forming a gene, or amino acids forming a protein). So "option #1 in this list" is moot at this point.

And given our current knowledge we don't know if carbon based life is all that can arise.  It's funny because there was a Christian cosmologist on the podcast listening to Carroll speak and I didn't hear many objections.  In fact Carroll was largely agreed with. 

33 minutes ago, Tristen said:

If you are appealing to naturalism (and especially String Theory and multi-verses), you are appealing at least as much to faith as theists. Naturalism may be your “default position”, but it is not the objective “default position”.

It's my default position today, I came out of theism to naturalism based on multiple factors....some which I mentioned already.  

Edited by Bonky
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, Bonky said:

Carroll isn't selling this as anything else is he?  All he's saying is that there are other ideas about how the nature of the Universe.  We don't know enough to make dogmatic grand proclamations about how the Universe got here, I think that's fair.  Haven't we had mathematical models that made sense and later on we discovered they were right?

And given our current knowledge we don't know if carbon based life is all that can arise.  It's funny because there was a Christian cosmologist on the podcast listening to Carroll speak and I didn't hear many objections.  In fact Carroll was largely agreed with. 

It's my default position today, I came out of theism to naturalism based on multiple factors....some which I mentioned already.  

Carroll isn't selling this as anything else is he? All he's saying is that there are other ideas about how the nature of the Universe.

I am not criticising Carroll, but scrutinising the provided argument. No one is disputing “that there are other ideas about how the nature of the Universe”. Until verified, these stories (Inflation and String Theory) are nothing more than gap-fillers (in exactly the same way God is sometimes used to fill gaps in knowledge – which you object to). But like the story of God, these stories can never be empirically verified. You are critical of theism for not having “compelling reason(s)”, but you readily jump on an idea premised on equally unverifiable foundations.

 

Haven't we had mathematical models that made sense and later on we discovered they were right?

Mathematical models are notoriously flexible and unreliable. Any abstract possibility can be described mathematically. Once you define the starting parameters, it becomes a matter of finding x in the equation. For example, how much Inflation is needed in Standard Cosmology? The answer – how ever much is needed to solve the flatness and horizon problems. How much Dark Matter is needed? However much is needed to stop galaxies flying apart in the model. Etc. These 'fudge factors' don't have to relate to anything in the real world, they just have to fill a gap in the math.

Additionally, these “mathematical models” are claims about the past, and so can never be found “later on” to be “right”.

String Theory takes this flexibility to the next level. The original math proposed five possible trans-dimensional string structures. By tweaking the math, we now have around 10500 of these structures. This opens up an infinite range of possibility. That means any possible observation can now be explained away as, 'that's just how it works in our universe'. We don't need to explain the uncanny fine-tuning of our universe using the laws of physics, it just happens to be how our particular universe works.

 

given our current knowledge we don't know if carbon based life is all that can arise.

We don't know how or if any life can simply “arise”.

 

It's funny because there was a Christian cosmologist on the podcast listening to Carroll speak and I didn't hear many objections. In fact Carroll was largely agreed with.

I can't speak to the podcast. I'm not sure what they'd object to. Carroll recognises that when a theory encounters problems, “we can always concoct elaborate schemes to save the phenomena”. I find it ironic that he doesn't recognise how well String Theory fits this description.

 

It's my default position today, I came out of theism to naturalism based on multiple factors....some which I mentioned already.

Here's the bottom line for me;

The Bible claims that God has placed evidence of Himself in nature, and that many humans intentionally find ways to explain this evidence away (see Romans 1).

Everyone with knowledge of cosmology (including atheists) agree that the universe is so finely tuned as to give the appearance of design.

Christians interpret the appearance of design as design.

Secularists interpret the appearance of design as an illusion based on a magnificent confluence of good fortune in a multi-verse of infinite possibility. That is, secularists have constructed an elaborate story to explain away the appearance of design – consistent with what the Bible predicts.

All the same weaknesses you readily recognise in theistic stories are abundantly evident in the secular story. So naturalism can't be considered an objective or superior default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Carroll isn't selling this as anything else is he? All he's saying is that there are other ideas about how the nature of the Universe.

I am not criticising Carroll, but scrutinising the provided argument. No one is disputing “that there are other ideas about how the nature of the Universe”. Until verified, these stories (Inflation and String Theory) are nothing more than gap-fillers (in exactly the same way God is sometimes used to fill gaps in knowledge – which you object to). But like the story of God, these stories can never be empirically verified. You are critical of theism for not having “compelling reason(s)”, but you readily jump on an idea premised on equally unverifiable foundations.

I'm not jumping on anything.  I never stated what my confidence level is in string theory.   I'll wager a lot of money I have less confidence in string theory than you do in Christ being the Son of God and I mean a lot less.  I'm not even looking for empirical verification for theistic claims, how about just good reasons to believe it's true?  

 

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

It's my default position today, I came out of theism to naturalism based on multiple factors....some which I mentioned already.

Here's the bottom line for me;

The Bible claims that God has placed evidence of Himself in nature, and that many humans intentionally find ways to explain this evidence away (see Romans 1).

Come on Tristen it says a heck of a lot more than that.  It says the Creator is a personal God that wants a relationship and is able to communicate with humanity.   Given this if you're saying we both have stories that are unverifiable that's embarrassing [or should be] that theism has nothing to offer above and beyond naturalism.  

Quote

given our current knowledge we don't know if carbon based life is all that can arise.

We don't know how or if any life can simply “arise”.

So we're in agreement, saying life CAN'T arise naturally is not a sound statement.

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

All the same weaknesses you readily recognise in theistic stories are abundantly evident in the secular story. So naturalism can't be considered an objective or superior default.

Naturalism doesn't provide secular stories, it states that natural laws and forces operate in the Universe and not spiritual or supernatural.  Until there is sufficient evidence to believe there are other forces at play, I stick with the natural ones.  If you want to say string theory is on par with God concepts I won't argue that.   I also don't mind people suggesting supernatural forces but that isn't what theism is, it's presupposing a lot more than that and I don't see how it's warranted....especially with the confidence that theism demands.  

Even you don't show much confidence in supernatural claims as you stated you only view biblical claims as "authoritative".  Well that's convenient considering we can't begin to investigate any of that.  Do you have any doubt that in biblical times epilepsy could easily be "identified" as demon possession?

 

 

Edited by Bonky
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Bonky said:

I'm not jumping on anything.  I never stated what my confidence level is in string theory.   I'll wager a lot of money I have less confidence in string theory than you do in Christ being the Son of God and I mean a lot less.  I'm not even looking for empirical verification for theistic claims, how about just good reasons to believe it's true?  

Come on Tristen it says a heck of a lot more than that.  It says the Creator is a personal God that wants a relationship and is able to communicate with humanity.   Given this if you're saying we both have stories that are unverifiable that's embarrassing [or should be] that theism has nothing to offer above and beyond naturalism.  

So we're in agreement, saying life CAN'T arise naturally is not a sound statement.

Naturalism doesn't provide secular stories, it states that natural laws and forces operate in the Universe and not spiritual or supernatural.  Until there is sufficient evidence to believe there are other forces at play, I stick with the natural ones.  If you want to say string theory is on par with God concepts I won't argue that.   I also don't mind people suggesting supernatural forces but that isn't what theism is, it's presupposing a lot more than that and I don't see how it's warranted....especially with the confidence that theism demands.  

Even you don't show much confidence in supernatural claims as you stated you only view biblical claims as "authoritative".  Well that's convenient considering we can't begin to investigate any of that.  Do you have any doubt that in biblical times epilepsy could easily be "identified" as demon possession?

I'm not jumping on anything. I never stated what my confidence level is in string theory.

I presented an argument about how our universe seems perfectly designed for our life, and you pointed me to an essay touting the virtue of String Theory (which, to my knowledge, is the only attempt to explain the apparent fine tuning of our universe without God). So I assumed that was your preferred argument.

 

I'll wager a lot of money I have less confidence in string theory than you do in Christ being the Son of God and I mean a lot less.

As you should. Since String Theory/multi-verse appeals to forces beyond this natural universe, there must be an awkward internal conflict in appealing to these ideas from the perspective of philosophical naturalism.

 

I'm not even looking for empirical verification for theistic claims, how about just good reasons to believe it's true?

Requiring “empirical verification” of the unobservable would be irrational. But anything less can be dismissed as a not-good-enough reason. So how am I to know what meets the standard of non-empirical, but “good reasons”? The best anyone making an unobservable claim can do is demonstrate logical consistency between the facts and the premise (or the model formulated around the premise). The only objective standard is rational (i.e. logical consistency). “Good” is a subjective standard – too easily contaminated by presupposition and bias.

 

Come on Tristen it says a heck of a lot more than that

Yes, the Bible says much more than the two lines I wrote. I pointed to Romans 1 as the premise of a broader argument; i.e. demonstrating that, as the Bible states, there are those who ignore the obvious (explicit) implication of a designed universe, in preference for any naturalistic alternative.

 

It says the Creator is a personal God that wants a relationship and is able to communicate with humanity. Given this if you're saying we both have stories that are unverifiable that's embarrassing [or should be] that theism has nothing to offer above and beyond naturalism.

Both of our stories are empiricallyunverifiable”. But that doesn't mean knowledge or confidence is impossible (but it does necessitate that any confidence has some basis in faith).

The Biblical-theistic premise makes logical provision for God revealing Himself personally to people. I personally experience fellowship with God. However, I am aware that, as a non-believer, you have no frame of reference from which to refute (or even consider) that claim. So it's not a fair argument to make to a non-believer – i.e. it is not reasonable to expect you to place any credence in my personal experience. It's a witness testimony about something you likely consider impossible.

But just because you might dismiss the possibility doesn't mean I have anything to be embarrassed about. There is far more on offer with God than what can be perceived through empirical resources. But in our conversation, we're not there yet. Until you can conceive of Biblical theism as a rationally valid alternative, I'm not sure how I can expect you to consider the possibility of experience with God.

 

So we're in agreement, saying life CAN'T arise naturally is not a sound statement

Absolute confidence in any claim can only stem from faith. Certainty about any claim “CAN'T” be justified empirically. Even the Scientific Method has to have faith in the trustworthiness of observation. That's why we describe observation as fact (rather than misuse the term proof).

 

Naturalism doesn't provide secular stories, it states that natural laws and forces operate in the Universe and not spiritual or supernatural.

The idea “that natural laws and forces operate in the Universe” is also central to Biblical theism – which, unlike atheism, provides a philosophical framework for this assumption (apart from – we hit some kind of multi-verse jackpot).

If a claim is unobservable, it is a story. If it is generated around a secular premise, it is a secular story. That is not an denigration – I'm just putting the claims into their logical context. We may want to appear more sophisticated by calling them models, theories or hypotheses, but when the decorative language is pealed away to bear logic, they are simply narratives of things which haven't been observed.

 

Until there is sufficient evidence to believe there are other forces at play, I stick with the natural ones

I don't know how to objectively quantify “sufficient evidence”.

 

If you want to say string theory is on par with God concepts I won't argue that

Well, String Theory/multi-verse is technically supernatural, unverifiable/unfalsifiable, used to arbitrarily fill gaps in knowledge, and opens the door to an infinite range of possible explanations. But I'll let you decide for yourself if they are “on par”.

 

I also don't mind people suggesting supernatural forces but that isn't what theism is, it's presupposing a lot more than that and I don't see how it's warranted....especially with the confidence that theism demands.

Biblical theism expects, based on the available evidence and information, that we sincerely seek God – and promises that the result of such an honest investigation will be faith.

 

Even you don't show much confidence in supernatural claims as you stated you only view biblical claims as "authoritative". Well that's convenient considering we can't begin to investigate any of that.

Not sure what you are getting at here.

 

Do you have any doubt that in biblical times epilepsy could easily be "identified" as demon possession?

I'm not sure the basis of this impression (or the point of the question). In one instance, Jesus cured an epileptic by casting out a demon (Matt 17:14-18) – but the default diagnosis was epilepsy. It wasn't considered demon possession until Jesus called it out. In Matt 4:24, demon possession is explicitly distinct from epilepsy. Like today, people saw disease as disease unless there was reason to think otherwise. It's a mistake to assume that people in ancient times were intellectually primitive; ready to default to superstition over reason. Sure, they had those, but so do we (maybe you think I'm one).

Edited by Tristen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...