Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Debunking The Old “There Is No Evidence of God” Canard

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Recently some of our opponents have trotted out the old, long-since debunked, unsupportable universal claim “there is no evidence of God”. Let me illustrate how this is just another emotionally-addicted, rhetorical maxim atheists cling to without any real thought in the matter.

Facts, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence : a true piece of information”. According to Wiki, a scientific fact is: an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.”

Merriam Webster says the evidence is

“something which shows that something else exists or is true”.

Obviously, “something else” is not directly observable as a fact, or else one wouldn’t need evidence for it.

Wiki says that scientific evidence is

That which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

People that claim to “go where the evidence leads” are fundamentally missing the fact that without an interpretive expectation, facts don’t lead anywhere. They are just brute facts that stand alone without any theoretical associations.

Theories explain or interpret facts, describing their place in a contextual framework.  Facts, when thusly interpreted, support or contradict those theories. Facts do not come with interpretations or conceptual frameworks. Interpretations exist in the mind of the individual considering a fact. Without a framework that contextualizes the facts in a system of expectations and meaning, facts are just brute sensory data. Facts don’t “lead” anwhere; they only lead where interpretations, intuition, logic or insight can support and understand them. Language itself categorizes the expression of facts into a systematic framework of expectations.

We expect facts to make sense within a consistent and reliable framework of coherent, causal space-time (an interpretive framework). We expect to find recognizable patterns. We expect our environment to have an understandable quality about it. We expect that we can make models that will not only explain facts, but predict them as well. We replace old models with ones that better explain and predict facts in a practical, useful manner.

What does it mean to say: “There is no evidence of god”, when any number of empirical facts can be interpreted favorably towards the existence of a god as commonly referred to as a supremely intelligent creator of the universe and source of goodness and moral law? Setting aside logical and moral arguments, personal experience, testimony and anecdote (all of which count as forms of evidence as I previously wrote about here), if one has a hypothesis that such a god exists, how can it be reasonable for atheists to claim that no physical facts can be interpreted to support the existence of that kind of god? Of course they can – billions do it every day.

Atheists do not have a copyright on how facts can be reasonably interpreted.  Much of the successful heuristic of modern science was founded entirely upon theistic expectations of a rationally understandable universe, metaphysical laws that governed the universe, and a god that favored elegance, efficiency and beauty.  They often referred to their scientific work as uncovering the mind of God.

Simply put, the atheist interprets certain sets of facts according to the expectation “there is no god”. The theist interprets those facts in light of the hypothesis that there is a god. Just because the atheist doesn’t consider the god hypothesis doesn’t mean that facts cannot be intepreted to support that hypothesis.

Take for instance the fine-tuning facts. Each of those force/material constants are facts. Scores of them appear to be fine-tuned for the existence of a universe that can support life. Take also for instance the advanced nano-technology of living cells. These facts can certainly be supportive of the hypothesis that an intelligent, creative god designed the universe and life. Now, throw in the logical arguments, anecdotes and the testimony of billions of people for thousands of years; it is a blatantly false lie or sheer denial to claim that there is “no” evidence for a god of some sort, when the term “evidence” means, among other things, an interpretation of facts that support a theory or hypothesis.  Evidence can also mean testimony; it can refer to circumstantial or anecdotal evidence; it can refer to logical, rational arguments in support of an assertion.

I’ve come to view many anti-ID advocates as having profound psychological resistance to anything that remotely points to the existence of a god of some sort. This cathexis seems to be a deep-rooted hostility towards the god concept in general that generates an almost hypnotic form of neuro-linguistic programming where they cannot see what is before them, and also leads them to see things that are not there.

Atheists/physicalists often talk about “believing what the evidence dictates”, but fail to understand that “evidence” is an interpretation of facts. Facts don’t “lead” anywhere in and of themselves; they carry with them no conceptual framework that dictates how they “should” fit into any hypothesis or pattern. Even the language by which one describes a fact necessarily frames that fact in a certain conceptual framework that may be counterproductive.

Atheists first preclude “god” from being an acceptable hypothesis, and then say “there is no evidence of god”. Well, Duh. The only way there could be evidence of god is if you first accept it as a hypothesis by which one interprets or explains facts.

“God” is a perfectly good hypothesis for explaining many facts especially in light of supporting testimonial, anecdotal, logical and circumstatial evidences. When an atheist says “there is no evidence for god”, what they are really saying (but are psychologically blind to it) is: There is no god, so there cannot be evidence for it. Their conclusion comes first, and so no evidence – in their mind, irrationally – can exist for that which does not – cannot – exist.

There is evidence that all sorts of things are true or exist; that doesn’t mean they actually exist, or are actually true – just that some facts can be interpreted to support the theory. To claim “there is no evidence for god” is absurd; atheists may not be convinced by the evidence, and they may not interpret the evidence in light of a “god hypothesis”. But to claim it is not evidence at all reveals uncompromising ideological denial. If one cannot even admit that there is evidence of god for those who interpret facts from that hypothesis, they cannot be reasoned with.

Comments
Querius:
... there seems to be a fair amount of disagreement, wildly divergent opinions in fact, about my attempts at humor. None of these are credible to someone who HASN’T MET ME. So, obviously to some, I don’t exist.
Incorrect. Disagreements about your “attempts at humor” make it reasonable to conclude that your sense of humor is in doubt except for those who’ve met you. sean s.sean samis
June 29, 2016
June
06
Jun
29
29
2016
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Sean Samis notes
For those of us on the outside of religion; it seems thus. Even among Christians there is wild disagreement about what the deity did or expects. Throw in the rest of the Abrahamic tradition (various kinds of Jews and Muslims) and the variation grow greatly. Throw in the Hindu and Eastern religions; it just gets worse. None of these accounts are credible.
Additionally, there seems to be a fair amount of disagreement, wildly divergent opinions in fact, about my attempts at humor. None of these are credible to someone who HASN'T MET ME. So, obviously to some, I don't exist. -Q'Querius
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
Let me clarify something about my last point in #223. The noun being is a bit of a weasel-word. Some writers use the term to mean anything that exists; in this sense, a stone is a being. In this sense, some timeless, eternal being is necessary; but remember that this being could be a mindless object or phenomena; as mindless as a stone. Such a mindless, timeless, eternal, necessary being cannot make choices. Some writers use the term to mean something that exists and has the attributes of mind: wants, intention, and especially free will; in this sense, a stone is not a being. StephenB used the word in this second, latter sense, asserting that he could
explain why a necessary, timeless, eternal being can choose to create or not create.
Emphasis added. So, to clarify my last challenge to StephenB in #223: he cannot explain why a timeless, necessary, eternal being must have the ability to make choices. ... or even probably can. sean s.sean samis
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
StephenB; If I had known that a simple metaphor would confuse you so much, I would have done it differently. Clearly you don’t understand metaphors. Because multiverses would contain universes (composed of time, space and matter/energy) you claim that a multiverse would be just more time, space, and matter/energy. If your logic is correct then, a refrigerator containing eggs must itself be an egg and be composed of the same kinds of things as an egg. We know that is false, therefore your logic is false. And we know that a multiverse containing universes is not required to be composed of the same things as those universes. This is not to say we know multiverses exist, but we do know that if they exist, they are not required to be composed of the same things as the universes they contain. Containers (refrigerators or multiverses) can contain different things. A refrigerator can contain eggs, meat, vegetables, milk and other liquids in cans and/or bottles. Multiverses were first proposed not as a place to contain universes, but a place where universes are created. That is the origin of the idea; that’s history. Therefore, multiverses would contain different things; universes and whatever objects or phenomena create universes. Since these creative phenomena are not themselves universes, we do not know yet what they would be. So, your persistent objections that a universe cannot create another universe are refuted simply because that’s not what these theories claim, and that’s not all there must be to multiverses. Regardless of what Wikipedia claims, this statement is false:
The so called multiverse is understood to be solely about time, space, matter etc. Nothing else.
I don’t concede that because it is just wrong. If all there was to a multiverse was “time, space, matter etc. Nothing else” then multiverse theories would have no purpose. But they do: they exist in an effort to explain where our universe came from; to explain the how, not just the where. Regarding;
It is absolutely essential to know where they [multiverses] come from, or if they have always existed, in which case we need to know what sustains them–or if they even exist. As it is, you have no reason to believe that any such thing exists, and neither does anyone else.
No. It is absolutely essential to learn whether multiverses exist, to learn whether they have always existed, or to learn where they came from if they were created, and so forth. But it is NOT essential to know this stuff BEFORE WE CAN STUDY THEM. By your logic, it would be absolutely essential to be a mathematician BEFORE you start elementary mathematics. The whole point of science is to study the unknown. Having proposed the existence of multiverse, scientists must study the idea, learn what they can about the idea, and find what evidence there may be.
Science has produced not one shred of evidence to suggest that a multiverse exists–or could exist. It is a complete fantasy with no rational support.
And so you, of course, would like scientists to stop before they do find something, correct? I mean, what could be worse for you than them actually finding evidence? So you (and other creationists) insist they don’t look. Regarding;
I can explain why a necessary, timeless, eternal being can choose to create or not create.
Anyone can do that. I could do that in kindergarten. What you cannot do is explain why a timeless, eternal being is necessary. ... or even probable. sean s.sean samis
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
SB" There is no refrigerator or refrigerator-like component in the definition.
That was a metaphor. In the context, I don’t think it’s all that mysterious.
I know it was a metaphor, which is reflected in the words, "refrigerator-like." No such component is indicated in the definition. The so called multiverse is understood to be solely about time, space, matter etc. Nothing else. If you will not concede that, then there is no point in going any further. SB: The fact remains that it is logically impossible for a multiverse (or a universe), which is made up of time, spaced, matter etc. to perform a creative act. A natural law is not flexible and cannot perform a creative act. It can only do what it does repeatedly.
The fact remains that you have yet to lay out the logical argument to support those assertions. Your claim that a multiverse must be composed of the same stuff as our universe is a distinct assertion in need of its own logical support.
My argument is backed up by Wikipedia's definition, which supports my claim. Can you show me another definition that would suggest your "refrigerator-like" element which houses the eggs (universes)? If not, then that should settle the matter. Meanwhile, the self-evident principle stands. Time cannot bring time into existence. It isn't logically possible.
You clearly still do not understand multiverse theories. Universes do not reproduce, multiverses create new universes.
I don't care what word you use. Call it generation if you like. A cause cannot give to an effect something that it does not have. Time cannot bring time into existence from nothing. Matter cannot bring matter into existence from nothing. Natures laws cannot bring natural laws into existence. By extension a universe, which is made of of time, matter, and laws (and other things) cannot bring time, matter, and laws into existence.
Multiverses are provisionally regarded as eternal;
Provisionally? You have to make up your mind on that. Tell me whether you are claiming that an eternal or a temporal multiverse can create a universe. Then I will tell you why it cannot be in either case. As it is, you keep saying that no one knows what a multiverse is, or whether it is temporal or eternal, nevertheless, it can create other universes that may or may not consist of matter, time, and space. It is a hopeless argument.
it’s much too soon to fret about where they come from. There’s no need yet to explain where they came from because we don’t know enough about them to say they ever had a beginning.
It is absolutely essential to know where they come from, or if they have always existed, in which case we need to know what sustains them--or if they even exist. As it is, you have no reason to believe that any such thing exists, and neither does anyone else.
If you are willing to posit an eternal ,intelligence, an eternal mindless thing is just as acceptable, if not more so.
On the contrary, I can explain why a necessary, timeless, eternal being can choose to create or not create. A timeless multiverse cannot make such a decision and cannot, therefore, perform a creative act. Only someone with the power to choose can perform a creative act. Nature cannot do that, which means that a multiverse cannot do it. As it is, you haven't even committed to an eternal multiverse. Are you ready to make that commitment now? If not, then you don't even have the beginning of an argument.
You might be tempted to say that we don’t know enough about multiverses for them to be scientific, but that would be wrong. Science begins where knowledge ends. That’s always been its nature.
Science has produced not one shred of evidence to suggest that a multiverse exists--or could exist. It is a complete fantasy with no rational support.StephenB
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
StephenB. Regarding #219;
There is no refrigerator or refrigerator-like component in the definition.
That was a metaphor. In the context, I don’t think it’s all that mysterious.
The fact remains that it is logically impossible for a multiverse (or a universe), which is made up of time, spaced, matter etc. to perform a creative act. A natural law is not flexible and cannot perform a creative act. It can only do what it does repeatedly.
The fact remains that you have yet to lay out the logical argument to support those assertions. Your claim that a multiverse must be composed of the same stuff as our universe is a distinct assertion in need of its own logical support.
In some cases, this is undoubtedly true. However, the baby universe (an incredible proposition to begin with) is still comprised of the same stuff–time, space, etc. Time, space, and matter cannot perform a creative act. Only life can reproduce. Universes don’t get pregnant. A cause cannot give what it does not have to give. Matter, time, and space do not have the causal capacity to reproduce like entities. Indeed, even is a multiverse (an absurd idea) could reproduce, you would still have to explain what caused it to come into existence. Or, if you mean an eternal multiverse, which brings a whole new set of problems, you must specify.
You clearly still do not understand multiverse theories. Universes do not reproduce, multiverses create new universes. Multiverses are provisionally regarded as eternal; it’s much too soon to fret about where they come from. There’s no need yet to explain where they came from because we don’t know enough about them to say they ever had a beginning. If you are willing to posit an eternal intelligence, an eternal mindless thing is just as acceptable, if not more so. You might be tempted to say that we don’t know enough about multiverses for them to be scientific, but that would be wrong. Science begins where knowledge ends. That’s always been its nature. I’m not sure what your #220 is about. sean s.sean samis
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
CancelStephenB
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
sean
There are eggs in my refrigerator, but not everything in my refrigerator are eggs.
There is no refrigerator or refrigerator-like component in the definition.
Third, nothing in your cite suggests that multiverses contain every universe that ever existed or will ever exist, only that they contain all universe that currently exist. The verb form of “exist” in your cite is in the present tense only.
The fact remains that it is logically impossible for a multiverse (or a universe), which is made up of time, spaced, matter etc. to perform a creative act. A natural law is not flexible and cannot perform a creative act. It can only do what it does repeatedly.
Part of every theory of multiverses is reference to mechanisms which create new universes; yet your wiki-cite makes no reference to that; or the actual composition of any multiverse. No one can say the process of universe-creation has ended.
In some cases, this is undoubtedly true. However, the baby universe (an incredible proposition to begin with) is still comprised of the same stuff--time, space, etc. Time, space, and matter cannot perform a creative act. Only life can reproduce. Universes don't get pregnant. A cause cannot give what it does not have to give. Matter, time, and space do not have the causal capacity to reproduce like entities. Indeed, even is a multiverse (an absurd idea) could reproduce, you would still have to explain what caused it to come into existence. Or, if you mean an eternal multiverse, which brings a whole new set of problems, you must specify.StephenB
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 216:
You cannot answer a philosophical argument with a scientific argument.
Perhaps not, but I see that does not stop you from trying (below). I’m discussing science. You do with it as you wish.
Science doesn’t help you anyway. The fact is that the multiverse, as posited by science, does not create universes for the simple reason that the multiverse, as posited by science, would already include all universes, including ours.
That is not part of any of the theories.
No scientist would ever suggest, as you do, that the multiverse created one of the universes that are already part of its collection. Do you grasp your problem here?
Since the predicate of this claim is unproven (and false to the best of my knowledge) there’s no need for me to worry about this. No scientist would ever claim that, whatever process creates universes within a multiverse, those processes have come to their end.
Further, a multiverse, which is made up of matter, space, and time (energy etc.) does not have the causal power to bring anything into existence. A cause cannot give to the effect something it doesn’t have to give.
A bare assertion. No one knows what a multiverse would be composed of. Not even your wiki-cite below. Within our universe, however, matter/energy bring other things into existence all the time. See my prior comment about clouds and rain.
I define a multiverse the same way everyone else does: Wikipedia “The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of finite and infinite possible universes, including the universe in which we live. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that describe them.”” Obviously, I am referring to this common meaning of the multiverse, which includes the one in which we live. How can the multiverse create something that is alleged to have always been a part of it? Do you grasp your problem yet?
Well, first of all, Wikipedia is a good place to start your research but it’s risky to stop there. Second, if you reread your own cite, you’ll see that it is the universes within a multiverse which “comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that describe them.” A multiverse containing universes of space, time, matter, and energy is not itself made of space, time, matter, and energy. There are eggs in my refrigerator, but not everything in my refrigerator are eggs. Third, nothing in your cite suggests that multiverses contain every universe that ever existed or will ever exist, only that they contain all universe that currently exist. The verb form of “exist” in your cite is in the present tense only. Obviously you are referring to the common meaning of multiverse as you think Wikipedia lays it out, but I think you do not correctly grasp even what Wikipedia says. Part of every theory of multiverses is reference to mechanisms which create new universes; yet your wiki-cite makes no reference to that; or the actual composition of any multiverse. No one can say the process of universe-creation has ended. sean s.sean samis
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Sean S Its a shame you think you are being scientific but are so caught up in your atheistic , materialist world view you can see the wood for the trees. I know exactly what science is its a methodology a way of discovering through various experimental and testable methods to reach a solid conclusion about certain things.But you keep missing the point, if person A insist the earth is flat but person B using all the scientific evidence available shows it is a sphere , is it then ok for person A to claim no its flat, we just have not come up with a test to show its flatness, just because its unknown how on earth it could be flat does not mean that its not flat.I know how you would respond to the flatearther you would call him a crackpot.Now person A insists that life has arisen from non living materials person B shows him all the scientific data that every experiment every test every single time we want life it ALWAYS , ALWAYS, ALWAYS , STARTS WITH PRE EXISTING LIFE.but person A insists just because we have never, seen it just because it never happens in nature , just because we cannot do it in a lab by any form of experimentation , does not mean it did not and cannot happen.Now person A does he hold his view because of the scientific evidence or in spite of the scientific evidence,are his conclusions based on what we do know or on some mysterious unknown.So Sean if you want to believe in a flat earth you go right ahead but once again don`t claim its based on the scientific evidence because its actually contrary to it.Marfin
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
SB: We are discussing a philosophical argument. sean:
You may be, I am discussing science.
You cannot answer a philosophical argument with a scientific argument. Science doesn't help you anyway. The fact is that the multiverse, as posited by science, does not create universes for the simple reason that the multiverse, as posited by science, would already include all universes, including ours. No scientist would ever suggest, as you do, that the multiverse created one of the universes that are already part of its collection. Do you grasp your problem here? Further, a multiverse, which is made up of matter, space, and time (energy etc.) does not have the causal power to bring anything into existence. A cause cannot give to the effect something it doesn't have to give.
You claim to know what a multiverse is (time, space, and matter) but you don’t know any such thing.
I define a multiverse the same way everyone else does: Wikipedia "The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of finite and infinite possible universes, including the universe in which we live. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that describe them."" Obviously, I am referring to this common meaning of the multiverse, which includes the one in which we live. How can the multiverse create something that is alleged to have always been a part of it? Do you grasp your problem yet?StephenB
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT
Marfin, I see that you are struggling with a concept that is difficult for most creationists: science is a process that operates in the realm of the unknown. We don’t know much about any multiverse (there are several theories) but scientists have theorized how to test for multiverses; experiments are in planning. To be aware of those, all you have to do is keep up with the news on science news and journal sites. You seem to think something cannot be science until AFTER it’s been verified. That’s like confusing ash for the fire. Science is a process, it produces results. Results are not the process. And this process is never going to be done; there will always be something new to study. If science was not allowed to focus on the unknown, then it could never produce any results, and we’d all still be living in a 13th century world. You might prefer that; most of us do not. You may call my attitude “faith” or “wishful thinking”; I look at the history of science, and all that the process has produced, and call it reasonable confidence. On that we will just have to disagree. sean s.sean samis
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
StephenB; Regarding #209
We are discussing a philosophical argument.
You may be, I am discussing science.
You have claimed that a “thing” (or a multiverse) can create a universe. I have refuted that argument by showing that nothing else but an immaterial, timeless being can do that. The reason for that is that time, space, and matter cannot create themselves. What is your counter argument?
You have not refuted anything; you have shown nothing. No philosopher would mistake your bare assertions for refutations. Nor would any scientist nor any reasonable person. I’ll be happy to respond to your reasoning if you care to share it with us.
It [self-creation] is being posited by you. You say that a multiverse, which is time, space, and matter, can create time, space, and matter. That claim, which is patently absurd, has been refuted.
Straw-man. I expressly and explicitly rejected (and still reject) “self-creation”. No philosopher, scientist, nor reasonable person would accept your objection as legitimate. X creating another instance of X is not “self-creation”; regardless of what X is. You claim to know what a multiverse is (time, space, and matter) but you don’t know any such thing. No one does. That’s why they are the subject of on-going scientific investigation, and only that investigation will ever discover if they exist or what they consist of.
Only an immaterial, self-existing being with the personal power and freedom to create or not create can bring a universe into existence.
A repeated, bare assertion unsupported by any rational argument.
So, now we have your final argument: Time, space, and matter accidentally created time, space, and matter. And you think that is more reasonable than God deciding to create the universe.
I have not stated any “final argument”, much less the “final argument” you present. You are doing neither philosophy nor science. sean s.sean samis
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
PPS: When it comes to warrant for the Judaeo-Christian tradition, I suggest here on in context for a 101. Those tempted by the fallacy of selective hyperskepticism may find this briefing note helpful.kairosfocus
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
PS: I outline how there are self-evident first moral principles:
. . . laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.
And yes, such morality, again, points to its roots.kairosfocus
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
SS, Pardon, but in addition to multiverse problems, you seem to be tilting at a strawman caricature of ethical principles in a context of what say the US DoI of 1776 actually terms "the laws of nature and of nature's God." That is, the core principles of morality are not arbitrary and capricious impositions but instead are intelligible, in key cases actually self-evident, and are logically and dynamically coherent. That is why for instance Kant could observe that sound maxims of moral government are universalisable [everybody can live by them in a coherent, thriving community] but that what is morally unsound in effect depends on the fact that most people most of the time do not act like that. For instance if all checks went rubbery, there would be a breakdown. If all Cretans lie always, Crete would not be a viable society, and more. This is by no means the whole story, but it is a key step of insight. Next, you seem to imagine that the fact of moral error (you phrase in terms of utter differences of views -- but overall the differences are exaggerated for rhetorical effect as C S Lewis pointed out long since) entails the want of sound moral principles or that there is a true God who would have spoken. But in fact the presence of counterfeit money is a parasiting off the fact of valuable, real money and as say the Germans proved in WW 2, counterfeiting can be a weapon of war meant to dilute the value of and undermine trust in the real thing. (Out in our parts of the world it is now routine for shops to mark US currency paid to them with a test pen to see if it is genuine; I think banks have some sort of special light.) First, that error exists is itself a true fact, and it is self evident. In simple terms, denying that error exists implies that it is an error to hold that error exists. This has the direct consequence that by demonstration, truth exists as what accurately describes reality, and it can in some cases be warranted and thus knowable to utter certainty. In many other cases -- and this is a clue -- it is knowable to that moral certainty by the which one would be irresponsible and damaging to oneself and/or others to act as though it were false. This instantly bridges truth, knowledge and moral responsibility. Second, there is a generally known compass faculty, conscience that consistently urges us to truth, right and duty. This pervades all of our thought life and any scheme of thought that implies this to be delusional would taint all of our thought life, resulting in absurdity. Indeed, just your presence here and arguing point to the implied premise that we are bound under responsible, rational freedom. So, for instance an evolutionary materialistic worldview at once reduces to absurdity and cannot be coherently argued for. An illustrative case in point is Patricia Churchland:
Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is [--> try, "that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not" per Aristotle, Metaphysics 1011b], definitely takes the hindmost. [Epistemology in the age of Neuroscience, p. 549. This is a semi-famous quote.]
Like unto it, here is the late Sir Francis Crick, in his 1994, The Astonishing Hypothesis:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
No wonder Philip Johnson has replied that Sir Francis should have therefore been willing to preface his works thusly: "I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." Johnson then acidly commented: “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [Reason in the Balance, 1995.] Likewise, it is a commonplace that moral error exists, even, moral counterfeit by which vice pretends to be virtue, the better to get away with personally and socially destructive behaviour that parasites off the community. For telling example, ever so many perverse behaviours are advocated to be "rights," to be enshrined under colour of law. But unless a right is no more that the victory in a nihilists' game of might and manipulation, a right is intrinsically a demand for justice implying that one has a legitimate freedom in a certain matter, say X, and that others have duties to respect that freedom to X. As a direct consequence, only if one is manifestly in the right regarding X, may one properly claim a right, X. (And this is in fact the critical issue on ever so many issues in our civilisation, starting with the ongoing abortion holocaust that slaughters 50 millions in the womb per year. Multiply by 40 years and again by 1/2 for growth and you will see why this is by far and away the worst holocaust in history. The first right is life, as without it there can be no other rights. The corruption of conscience, moral/ ethical reasoning and of law to sustain such easily explains the accelerating degradation, moral chaos, rising nihilism and threatening self-induced ruin of our civilisation.) In short the appeal to diversity of moral views and claims as an attempted dismissal of the reality of God collapses as error is evidence of truth and counterfeiting of the genuine as well as of possible campaigns to degrade the value of and willingness to trust in the genuine. But, moral principles are quite readily accessible to the intelligent mind, as say Locke pointed out in grounding what would become modern democratic government, in ch 2 of his 2nd treatise on government. Notice how he cites Hooker:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. [--> the well known Golden Rule of the Judaeo-Christian ethical tradition taught by Moshe, Jesus and Paul] From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing the pagan philosopher Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80. Emphasis added.]
In short, moral government of responsibly and rationally free human beings is by no means the chaotic confusion that has been rhetorically posed. Instead, many core principles are self-evident on pain of instant, patent absurdity -- though those who hope to profit from their denial or who have been confused by the currents of radical relativism in recent decades may cling to absurdities as a drowning man proverbially clutches at straws. And beyond such, living as morally governed, responsibly and rationally significantly free individuals in a world that itself speaks of its design in ever so many ways, points to the only serious candidate root of reality capable of being the IS that grounds OUGHT: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. This is of course a philosophical point. If you deny this unique candidacy, kindly provide another: _______ , or else, explain to us how a world in which oughtness is little more than delusion does not descend into utter irrationality and nihilism: ______________ . KFkairosfocus
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
Sean S Re your multiverse assertions, what are the properties of this so called multiverse , that it creates universe`s and how have you TESTED this, or is the the fact that the multiverse exists and creates more universes just a BARE faced assertion.I await your TESTABLE experiment, if you don`t have one ,will you then admit its not science , but faith and wishful thinking.Marfin
June 22, 2016
June
06
Jun
22
22
2016
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
SB: Actually, a thing (or a multiverse) cannot create a universe. Only an immaterial, timeless person can bring time and space into existence.
You appear to misunderstand the scientific position.
Irrelevant. We are discussing a philosophical argument. You have claimed that a "thing" (or a multiverse) can create a universe. I have refuted that argument by showing that nothing else but an immaterial, timeless being can do that. The reason for that is that time, space, and matter cannot create themselves. What is your counter argument?
No “self-creation” is posited.
It is being posited by you. You say that a multiverse, which is time, space, and matter, can create time, space, and matter. That claim, which is patently absurd, has been refuted. SB: Only an immaterial, self-existing being with the personal power and freedom to create or not create can bring a universe into existence.
—an accident would suffice—we certainly don’t know this assertion is true.
So, now we have your final argument: Time, space, and matter accidentally created time, space, and matter. And you think that is more reasonable than God deciding to create the universe. I am happy to let that ride.StephenB
June 21, 2016
June
06
Jun
21
21
2016
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
StephenB.; Regarding,
[a] Actually, a thing (or a multiverse) cannot create a universe. Only an immaterial, timeless person can bring time and space into existence.
This is a bare assertion. You’ll need to provide a logical argument or other evidence in support of it.
Neither matter, or time, or space can bring itself into existence.
You appear to misunderstand the scientific position. Neither the “big bang” nor multiverse theories posit matter (actually matter-energy), time, or space bringing themselves into existence. A multiverse would preexist our universe, potentially eternally, and events there caused our universe to come into existence. No “self-creation” is posited.
[b] Only an immaterial, self-existing being with the personal power and freedom to create or not create can bring a universe into existence.
This is another bare assertion. You’ll need to provide a logical argument or other evidence in support of it.
A thing or a multiverse does not have the personal freedom to make choices.
Since we don’t know that a free choice was involved in the creation of our universe—an accident would suffice—we certainly don’t know this assertion is true. Yet another bare assertion in need of a supporting logical argument or other evidence. sean s.sean samis
June 21, 2016
June
06
Jun
21
21
2016
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
SB: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. Do you agree with the premises and the conclusion? If not, why not? Sean
I agree with the premises and the conclusion, however that cause need not be a deity, it need only be some thing preexisting (such as a multiverse).
[a] Actually, a thing (or a multiverse) cannot create a universe. Only an immaterial, timeless person can bring time and space into existence. Neither matter, or time, or space can bring itself into existence. [b] Only an immaterial, self-existing being with the personal power and freedom to create or not create can bring a universe into existence. A thing or a multiverse does not have the personal freedom to make choices.StephenB
June 21, 2016
June
06
Jun
21
21
2016
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT
StephenB; Regarding #202:
Forget about testimony for a moment and consider the arguments from reason. Some of them point to a first cause, which many interpret as God. Try this one: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. Do you agree with the premises and the conclusion? If not, why not?
I agree with the premises and the conclusion, however that cause need not be a deity, it need only be some thing preexisting (such as a multiverse). One could interpret the cause (the thing) to be a deity, but that interpretation is separate from your argument from reason and is not supported by it. What you would need is another argument from reason establishing that only a deity can be the thing that caused the universe to come into existence. A claim that that thing COULD BE a deity will not suffice to prove the thing was a deity sean s.sean samis
June 21, 2016
June
06
Jun
21
21
2016
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Regarding #201; Let me get to the heart of this one first. WJM discusses supposed back-tracking and hand-waving involving comments from me. I checked through the history of that topic, and indeed I made an error. So Let’s clear that up. In #157 I wrote that
I can’t trust the evidence for deities because it comes from an unreliable source (humans) and cannot be tested or verified. ... claims about deities vary wildly. There are so many contradictory claims that none have credibility; at least not unless some deity shows up and sorts them out. That has never happened to my knowledge.
I stand by those statements even now. In # 164, WJM wrote
Just because claims about a thing vary wildly or are contradictory doesn’t mean that none of the claims have credibility; ...
In # 186, I replied to that with a simple.
True.
THAT WAS MY ERROR; I think I understand why I made that mistake, but: no excuses. It was an error. I should have said that WJM’s comment in #164 was wrong. Wild variation of claims about deities DOES make them all not credible short of some way to distinguish the good from the bad. Credibility is about trustworthiness, about believability. Unless there is a way to sort wild claims out, some way to distinguish the good from the bad from the ugly, they are all not credible. The sheer number of deistic claims is an IMPEDIMENT to the credibility of all of them. It’s like being in a room full of children all yelling out their individual accounts of “what just happened”. That all these kids are yelling at one time does not mean all of them are wrong, but their noise and strident passion certainly makes it hard to sort them out; the cacophony makes figuring out who might be right (if anyone) somewhere between difficult and impossible. Until you can sort these out, none of these children’s’ accounts are credible. For those of us on the outside of religion; it seems thus. Even among Christians there is wild disagreement about what the deity did or expects. Throw in the rest of the Abrahamic tradition (various kinds of Jews and Muslims) and the variation grow greatly. Throw in the Hindu and Eastern religions; it just gets worse. None of these accounts are credible. And I have not been able to sort them all out; I know a lot of people who have given up on it. Why should we figure out which theist to believe when 1.) we don’t know that any is correct and 2.) even theists can’t sort this out? So, in summary: no back-tracking or hand-waving. An error, yes. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for pointing it out. I’ve now corrected it. On with our regular programming. Regarding the rest of #201
1. Has everything you believe to be true been scientifically verified as true?
Almost everything I believe true about nature, yes; because that’s what science is for. As for the other ordinary things I believe, I try to be reasonable about them, but if science is not the right tool, I don’t use it. Is that milk spoiled? Let me sniff it. That’s not really science.
2. Has mainstream science ever accepted a thing as true for a long duration of time, then later discovered it was not true?
Of course; science is practiced by mere humans. No humans are infallible. But science is self-correcting, it would be a bad thing if it wasn’t.
3. Do you have the personal scientific knowledge and expertise to check all scientific findings for yourself?
That’s not a requirement for other commentators, why should it be for me? Do you check the credentials of those who opine in favor of creationism? Probably not.
... has SS backtracked from his original demand of face to face evidence?
Absolutely not. There simply is no other way for me to know that some deity exists. Maybe a deity could send a person authorized to speak to me on the deity’s behalf. But that person would need to come with so much information to prove their authorization that it would be more efficient for the deity just to be there personally.
Willful ignorance does not a rebuttal make. Such evidence has been presented in the form of the logical arguments, the moral arguments, the fine tuning evidence, etc., – enough evidence to make a sound case for the existence of a first cause intelligent designer/creator of the universe, as ground of being and certain abstract absolutes.
All this pseudo-evidence makes sense only if you already believe in a deity. The logical arguments are defective; the moral arguments are ungrounded; the fine tuning evidence argues from ignorance. The rest is vacuous philosophizing. If WJM is not aware of this, his willful ignorance is no excuse. This matter does bring up a thought. I need to complement WJM and other creationists; they are working hard to advance the theological practice of syncretism. The deity/first cause/intelligent designer of creationism could be any deity: Apollo, Baal, Gaia, Isis, Jehovah, Mithra, Odin, Zeus; any deity. Creationist logic seems to destroy any theological primacy Christians used to claim. Creationism implies that, indeed, all roads lead to Heaven. Or Valhalla. Whichever.
We were not just talking about scientific evidence; we’re talking about sufficient evidence to believe a propposition. [sic]But, as far as science is concerned, the fine-tuning evidence is certainly repeatable.
Ahh, no. You don’t “repeat evidence”, you repeat experiments. Looking at the same rock twice is not meaningful. Performing an experiment that someone else described to you and checking the results is quite meaningful; that’s how “cold fusion” was brought down.
SS seems outraged that “my” god won’t take the effort to make itself appear to be the same thing to all those who experience it.
Outraged? No. No deity has an obligation to ever appear to anyone—unless that deity cares about what we all believe. Then that deity would be morally obligated to never mislead or confuse anyone.
IOW, SS realizes my argument that personal witness testimony always has variances, even contradictory ones, is valid when it concerns any other thing people witness, experience and subjectively process and interpret,
When humans encounter some phenomena, there’s always some variation, even the occasional contradictions. But if reports of an event lack sufficient consistency, everyone would say that the reports were confused, that what happened was unclear. Reports of deities are confused, whether they exist is unclear. In other words, there is a natural variation in human accounts, but these are categorically different from suspicious variations which indicate the accounts are uncoordinated fabrications. If two or more witnesses are separated and asked about a crime, and their stories don’t match up, at least some of them are probably lying.
no god worth proposing would allow people to have variant eyewitness perspectives and personal experience interpretations.
Not if the god cares what people think or do. Are deities indifferent to what we think or do? If it’s important to tell us stuff, it’s important for the deity to get it right.
just because some people experience god and come away with contradictory views/interpretations doesn’t mean that they both didn’t experience god. That’s the nature of eyewitness & personal experience accounts.
Generally, that is not the case. When two people see the same thing, they usually can describe it accurately. When two experiences are wildly different, leading to contradictory experiences, most people take that as a sign that these persons have experienced different things. Again, if two or more witnesses are separated and asked about a event, and their stories don’t match up, at least some of them are probably lying. What WJM’s last few statements really do, however is undermine the idea that human witness accounst can ever be trusted. WJM argues that none of us can experience the same thing at the same time. What each of us experiences is likely to be wildly different from what others experience even with the same phenomena. So our accounts will vary. Yet human experience tells a different story. There are variations in subjective impressions, but generally we do experience things much alike. There is so much in our culture and the technological infrastructure that we use that depends on us agreeing that the light is green, that the arrow points left; that the white women had the red purse, that the cell phone is running android, and so on and so on. WJM’s position seems to be that we cannot count on even general agreement on the most obvious things. We cannot provide reasonably consistent accounts. It challenges the very notion of our ability to be logical or reasonable. A deity says “thou shalt not do X” and WJM expects us to believe that a substantial portion of the population will hear “thou shalt do X”. A deity talks to many people; some think they’re supposed to practice human sacrifice, pedophilia, warfare, racial or sexual oppression. Others get pacifism, human kindness, generosity. Those of us on the outside of religion ask “What the Heck...?!” WJM just shrugs and declares it normal human variation. Hmm. That’s enough for now. sean s.sean samis
June 21, 2016
June
06
Jun
21
21
2016
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Sean S RE 200 Do you not take the time to understand what you write, you say, we don`t understand , we might in the future , please send me 50 k for my lead into gold venture I dont understand how to do it but I am sure I will in the future , what you are not sending me the money oh ye of little faith.Sean you are describing a belief system a belief that science will one day provide all the answers , and I have no problem if you want to believe that, I actually believe we have free will.But what you are failing to do is to take the evidence on face value, today as of today we have shown over and over and over again life only comes from preexisting life THATS THE SCIENCE, now if you want to BELIEVE that sometime in the past this was not the case you can believe that, but that belief is not based on the scientific evidence its based on your atheistic worldview.You say in the future we will discover such and such , but as for the supernatural we will never be able to test for it, not only are you a man of great faith but you are fortune teller who can see into the future, if you believe we will discover how life arose, why can we not discover a test for the supernatural , in the future that is.Sean if you are going to argue based on science ,please stick to the actual evidence and leave the crystal ball stuff to the crack pots.Marfin
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
StephenB, It seems that SS reserves the right of "selective skepticism" (also SS), which obfuscates all historical accounts, trial testimony, narratives, tapes, photos, videos (all which could obviously be staged!), and any other evidence that's inconvenient. This provides a spectacular degree of freedom . . . ;-) -QQuerius
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
sean samis
But testimony about deities vary wildly and posits attributes about these deities that cannot be rationally explained, so deities cannot be credibly believed without direct experience.
Forget about testimony for a moment and consider the arguments from reason. Some of them point to a first cause, which many interpret as God. Try this one: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. Do you agree with the premises and the conclusion? If not, why not?StephenB
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
SS digs himself in deeper:
I’ll spell this out this for you: I cannot trust the evidence for deities for TWO REASONS. 1. because it comes from an unreliable source (humans) AND 2. because it ALSO cannot be tested or verified. Humans using the scientific method can be trusted to test and verify claims because part of the method requires them to show the rest of us how they did it.
1. Has everything you believe to be true been scientifically verified as true? 2. Has mainstream science ever accepted a thing as true for a long duration of time, then later discovered it was not true? 3. Do you have the personal scientific knowledge and expertise to check all scientific findings for yourself? Hopefully, you can see where this is headed before you get yourself in any deeper trying to defend your selectively hyperskeptical double-standard.
Why would you think an extraordinary claim should get by on less?
Well, in the first place I wouldn't attempt to legitimize my bias by referring to any claim as "extraordinary". It might be extraoridinary to me, it might not be to someone else. Such a subjective evaluation should be left at the door and the claim should just be held up to the same standard as any other claim. Why should I require "extraordinary" evidence in one case, and "ordinary" evidence in another? Just to satisfy the bias of those who subjectively consider one claim extraordinary and not another? That is an irrational double-standard. Now let's examine SS's backtracking and handwaving in detail: WJM said: "Just because claims about a thing vary wildly or are contradictory doesn’t mean that none of the claims have credibility;" SS handwaves: "but it also does not mean that ANY of them are credible. They could all be incredible. Because SS's first comment was: "There are so many contradictory claims that none have credibility;" Look at the structure of the sentence: SS is claiming that none have credibility because there are so many. Now he is backtracking and saying that it doesn't mean by itself any are credible or non-credible - but that is not what he said. He said "there are so many contradictory claims that none have credibility. Why say something so inane as "There are so many contradictory claims it doesn't mean any of them are credible or non-credible." So much for his handwaving backtrack. Here is some more backtracking:
You are correct that the mere fact that claims about deities vary wildly and are contradictory is not, of itself proof that all such claims are false, but unless some claim can be distinguished by being demonstratively credible, the sheer plenitude of conflicting claims is reasonable cause to refuse to accept any of them until some evidence is shown which makes one or more stand out from the herd. It’s a simple, pragmatic and reasonable choice.
Previously SS had said:
I said that claims about deities vary wildly. There are so many contradictory claims that none have credibility; at least not unless some deity shows up and sorts them out. That has never happened to my knowledge.
First, SS insists that because there are so many contradictory claims none of them have any credibility; now, he says that because there are so many contradictory claims that he is not required to accept any of them "... until some evidence is shown which makes one or more stand out from the herd." Now, might there be some evidence brought forward that makes one or more claims of a deity "stand out from the herd", short of SS personally meeting that deity? Or has SS backtracked from his original demand of face to face evidence?
So far, no such distinctive claim has been demonstrated to my knowledge.
Willful ignorance does not a rebuttal make. Such evidence has been presented in the form of the logical arguments, the moral arguments, the fine tuning evidence, etc., - enough evidence to make a sound case for the existence of a first cause intelligent designer/creator of the universe, as ground of being and certain abstract absolutes.
So, until then, in the absence of credibility, I will lean on Ockham’s Razor and give my preference to the simplest, most testable options (none of which involve deities) and wait on the results.
The theory that billions of humans have been erroneously deluded; that the fine-tuning of the universe is explained either by happenstance something-from-nothing or the existence of an infinite number of universes; that our sensation of conscience, morality and free will and the universal authority of logic and mathematics to objectively determine true statements is a deluded mirage of haphazardly interacting chemicals is the most efficient answer to those questions is patently false. The existence of a supernatural ground of being, first cause creator of the universe is the most efficient cause. That mess you propose is just the most efficient given your a priori commitment to atheistic naturalism.
An essential feature of verification under the scientific method is that we trust but verify; verifying not only theories, but also verifying RESULTS. If you have an experiment we could try, please let us know.
We were not just talking about scientific evidence; we're talking about sufficient evidence to believe a propposition. But, as far as science is concerned, the fine-tuning evidence is certainly repeatable. SS took my argument about the variances of personal eyewitness testimony and appears to rebut it with an emotion-laden theological outburst:
Exactly, and yet stories from China match up reasonably well. And if I have my doubts, I can just go there myself! IS YOUR GOD JUST A REALLY BIG COUNTRY? Is he so capricious and arbitrary that to some people he appears as Jehovah and to others he’s Ra? Or Odin? Or Baal? Really? Is your god schizophrenic? How does anyone make your god submit to an examination?
SS seems outraged that "my" god won't take the effort to make itself appear to be the same thing to all those who experience it. IOW, SS realizes my argument that personal witness testimony always has variances, even contradictory ones, is valid when it concerns any other thing people witness, experience and subjectively process and interpret, so he switches to a theological argument and insists that, essentially, no god worth proposing would allow people to have variant eyewitness perspectives and personal experience interpretations. SS, you should know that a lot of how a person experiences a thing is determined by their own a priori views, expectations, knowledge and personal experience. Just because some people experience a thing and call it god doesn't mean that thing is god; just because some people experience god and come away with contradictory views/interpretations doesn't mean that they both didn't experience god. That's the nature of eyewitness & personal experience accounts. The logic here really isn't that difficult - unless, of course, one's "logic" is driven by an priori commitment to deny theism at all costs.William J Murray
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Regarding #197; Gees Marfin, and when I’m done spoon feeding you, will I need to wipe your chin too? Will you be ready for your nap? The information you request is available out there in the big Wide World of the Internet. Let me make it simple for you: 1. The natural process by which life arose is not yet fully understood. 2. The natural process by which life arose is potentially discoverable, but it will take time. 3. A supernatural process by which life would be created is not even potentially discoverable. 4. So... if anyone wants to discover how life came to be, only research of the natural process offers an opportunity to discover the answer. 5. There is no law of logic, reason, or science that requires a theory to be verified by—Wednesday! Or any other dead-line. It takes as long as it takes. Sorry if I’m a bit snarky here, but. Come. On. There’s nothing I just wrote that’s news to anyone. sean s.sean samis
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Regarding #196;
The fact that the account is 2,000 years old and handed from person to person doesn’t change whether it’s true or not.
Querius; that is correct if somewhat incomplete. If accounts like it are the basis of your belief, you are not believing in God, but in the accounts of mere humans: fallible, frail, limited, sinful. And of course there are other accounts; some older, some newer, all handed from person to person which are the bases of beliefs in very different deities. Their vintage and provenance does not change whether they are true or not either. For me, personally, I cannot find a reason to treat any of these as reliable. Whatever deity might actually exist, he, she, it, or they hide from me. sean s.sean samis
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
Regarding #194
I’ll also take the time now to point at another irrational aspect of that original post of yours where you said: “I said I can’t trust the evidence for deities because it comes from an unreliable source (humans) and cannot be tested or verified.” If humans are an unreliable source, SS, what is going to “test or verify” the original evidence? If humans are unreliable sources of evidence, then you have no reliable sources of evidence for anything whatsoever.
I’ll spell this out this for you: I cannot trust the evidence for deities for TWO REASONS. 1. because it comes from an unreliable source (humans) AND 2. because it ALSO cannot be tested or verified. If evidence for deities could be tested or verified, then my objection would be satisfied. But it cannot be. Humans using the scientific method can be trusted to test and verify claims because part of the method requires them to show the rest of us how they did it. An essential feature of verification under the scientific method is that we trust but verify; verifying not only theories, but also verifying RESULTS. If you have an experiment we could try, please let us know. Regarding
Thus agreeing that your statements in 157 were not logically valid.
No. You need me to spell this out too. Just because claims about a thing vary wildly or are contradictory doesn’t mean that none of the claims have credibility; but it also does not mean that ANY of them are credible. They could all be incredible. Just because claims about a thing vary wildly or are contradictory doesn’t mean ... that none of the claims are logically valid; but it also does not mean that ANY of them are logically valid. They could all be illogical. Just because claims about a thing vary wildly or are contradictory doesn’t mean that ... all of the evidence for each claim is categorically equal; but inequality of evidence does not mean that ANY of the evidence is credible. It is possible all the evidence is distributed along a continuum from outrageously impossible to merely very, very, very unlikely. You are correct that the mere fact that claims about deities vary wildly and are contradictory is not, of itself proof that all such claims are false, but unless some claim can be distinguished by being demonstratively credible, the sheer plenitude of conflicting claims is reasonable cause to refuse to accept any of them until some evidence is shown which makes one or more stand out from the herd. It’s a simple, pragmatic and reasonable choice. So far, no such distinctive claim has been demonstrated to my knowledge. So, until then, in the absence of credibility, I will lean on Ockham’s Razor and give my preference to the simplest, most testable options (none of which involve deities) and wait on the results. To put it a different way: If supposition X offers only one, untestable, unverifiable explanation, it is not a valid scientific theory. If X offers a billion untestable, unverifiable explanations, it remains not a valid scientific theory. And of course, I assume you are aware of the difference between ‘untestable’ and ‘untested’. Regarding testimony about China;
China is a big place, full of entirely different kinds of locations. Also, different people can come away with entirely different personal perspectives about China ...
Exactly, and yet stories from China match up reasonably well. And if I have my doubts, I can just go there myself! IS YOUR GOD JUST A REALLY BIG COUNTRY? Is he so capricious and arbitrary that to some people he appears as Jehovah and to others he’s Ra? Or Odin? Or Baal? Really? Is your god schizophrenic? How does anyone make your god submit to an examination? Claims about your god and China are categorically different. Regarding:
I think you’re mixing “rational” up with “scientific”. There is nothing about god or the supernatural which defies rational explanation depending upon one’s premises.
Exactly. All explanations of deities depend on a prior bias; believing accounts of China, Obama, or Jefferson do not.
if we have good rational arguments for the existence of god, good scientific evidence for the existence of god, and lots of testimonial evidence that god exists (but which suffers from the same endemic variances as all eyewitness testimony can), then it seems to me that it is possible to have a credible belief in god – if you applied the same rules of evidence to god that you do to anything else in life.
If we did, but we don’t, so we can’t. There’s lots of testimony, but it’s all over the map. Travelers from China can bring home pictures, but I’ve never seen photograph of any deity. Applying the same rules of evidence as I do to other things discredits all evidence of deities. There are lots of stories, but no pictures, no recordings, no physical evidence, no travel directions so I retrace their steps; no way to test or observe the deity; nothing but unverifiable tales.
Why would something you think is extraordinary require “extraordinary” evidence? Who gets to define what an extraordinary claim is, and who gets to define when the necessary measure of “extraordinary” evidence has been provided?
Why would you think an extraordinary claim should get by on less? For science, the standard is the probability of the evidence supporting the claim or the probability of the evidence being coincidence only. And claims of probability are themselves subject to review and verification. Most of your evidence for deities can be explained without any deity. There is no direct evidence of any deity, it is all inferred, usually as arguments from ignorance. What science needs is evidence that can be verified, reverified, and which can be demonstrated to be improbable without a deity. For a reasonable person, the reply to “God did it.” is “HOW?” A billion people giving a billion conflicting and contradictory explanations adds up to A mountain of reasonable doubt. That’s me: a doubter. Not an atheist, but a doubter. sean s.sean samis
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Sean S .Why at 147 did you not take the golden opportunity to put me in my place, by presenting all the wonderful scientific evidence to show how life began naturally,but instead like most atheists you did not produce a shred of scientific evidence for your so called scientific position. Please answer me this simple question , as of today what has science shown conclusively in the matter of the origin of life,is it that life always comes from pre existing life or life has arisen for non life , I await the scienceMarfin
June 20, 2016
June
06
Jun
20
20
2016
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
1 2 3 8

Leave a Reply