Physicist Sean Carroll suggests that someday science can rule out God — revealing his philosophical agenda under the holy lab coat, yet again

UB: What happens when we “create” and “test” “knowledge” and find that our ability to “create” and “test” “knowledge” is inescapably depedent on prior “knowledge” of how to recorded and transfer the information within our bodies? Hey! I know what we do, we go on full automoton protect mode. If anyone should bring it up, we simply deadpan and repeat:

What happens when I present the following criticisms? - Theoires are tested by observations, not derived from them. [a --> Theories are not mechanically derived from observation but, per inference to best current explanation, are creatively synthesised to explain observed uniformities and facts in the world. This is a strawman. In addition, theories are subject to test on factual adequacy in light of fresh facts vs predicted ones.] - Observations cannot make a theory more probable [b --> This is one of CR's drumbeat assertions. There are some sets of observations that can so establish an inferred best explanation that they warrant the conclusion that the underlying explanation is true to moral certainty. As CR has been confronted with in recent days, the inference to the reality of the electron is a case in point. of course there is another side to this, where despite the strength of the evidence that FSCO/I is indeed a good sign of design as cause,t hat is often dismissed on a priori materialism disguised as reasonable scientific methodology, and sustained by false accusations on inference to the supernatural. Where, in absence of empirically warranted evidence to sustain the evo mat account of OOL, it is assumed to have been by spontaneous generation in some pre life environment and also in absence of such empirical warrant on the origin of body plans, evidence of minor adaptations is grossly extrapolated to the point of the fallacy of hasty generalisation to be claimed as evidence of said body plan level macro evolution. For, such macro evo on blind chance and mechanical necessity "must" have happened. Why? because in the end of a priori materialism imposed on origins science, cf the rebuke to this here, in context. I must repeat, contrary to CR's confident manner assertion, observations can make some explanations morally certain, such as the electron.] - Induction is missing a key step, which no one has provided guidance for [c --> More confident manner assertion. Induction is in fact the major part of real world reasoning, where we argue in light of evidence and on the premise of experiencing a world that exhibits pervasive uniformities that make it predictable [dropped heavy objects near earth fall at 9.8 N/kg] and which ground confident inference from sufficient observations to reliable generalisation. More broadly, induction is that type of reasoning in which the grounding evidence and the dependent reasoning do not DEMONSTRATIVELY PROVE the conclusion, but provide support for it. So, CR is trying to hold induction to the standard of deduction, conveniently ignoring that the very premises used in most deductive arguments are inductively warranted as plausible. As in Socrates is a man -- per observation originally and now reliable and consistent reports. Then, Men are mortal -- per observations of graveyards etc and also the nature of the human frame that makes it reasonable to accept mortality as a characteristic of biological creatures including humans. So, Socrates is mortal, by logical entailment. Confirmed by historical report and the fact that the man is no longer with us.] - We cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework [d --> the generally understood explanatory framework for induction by generalisation of observed patterns is that we live in a world in which such patterns are common. So, this objection is put up in the teeth of the abundant reason why induction is routinely done. This is a failure on CR's part of duties of care to be accurate and fair in reasoning.] - Your argument ignores other forms of epistemology that do not rely on justiificationism [e --> sets up a strawman, and fail=s to recognise that such arguments have been found wanting by comparision with the overwhelming consensus of mankind that reasoning from observed pattern to general conclusion held provisionally is reasonable, and that it is reasonable in general to draw conclusions that are suppor5ted by evidence but not necessarily proved beyond correction by them. We cannot live without acting like this, so we may as well embed it into our life as reasoning creatures. This is also foundational to science.] - Knowledge emerges from material arrangements of matter. [f --> Foolish assertion delivered with confident manner in order to erect a strawman.] Hey! I know what we'll do, we'll just keep repeating that everyone knows that we use induction in science and that knowledge is warranted, true justified belief. [g --> Closed minded dismissal of that which is well supported, in order to proceed to asserting that which is not.] In other words, what else do you expect me to conclude other than you cannot or refuse to recognize your conception of knowledge is an idea that is subject to criticism? [h --> On the contrary, we can conclude that, since we have looked at the alternatives and find them wanting, with CR as a good case in point of why, there is good reason to accept the view that knowledge is warranted, credibly true belief.] Given that I've asked you directly several times to clarify if you think knowledge is justified by authoritative sources, every one of those quotes could have been avoided by simply denying it. [i --> This is the William Perry radical relativist agenda again, and it willfully ignores the fact that 99% of real world arguments do rely on authorities starting with the dictionary. The issue is which authorities are credible in general and on specific cases in contention. That, calling forth an audit of the quality of said sources, and then an assessment on the merits of fact, reasoning and assumptions. But that is an old old story, conveniently ignored to pretend that those who CR is dealing with are blind adherents of discredited theological theocratic authorities, i.e the creationists and the like he so despises.. . ] So, I'll ask you yet again…

are you denying that you hold a pre-enlightenment, authoritative conception of human knowledge? [j --> Drumbeat repetition of the already confuted, as though its repetition can manufacture warrant out of thin air.] Specifically, the fundamental flaw in creationism (and its variants) is the same fundamental flaw in pre-enlightenment, authoritative conceptions of human knowledge: its account of how the knowledge in adaptations could be created is either missing, supernatural or illogical. In some cases, it’s the very same theory, in that specific types of knowledge, such as cosmology or moral knowledge, was dictated to early humans by supernatural beings. In other cases, parochial aspects of society, such as the rule of monarchs in governments or the existence of God, are protected by taboos or taken so uncritically for granted that they are not recognized as ideas. While empiricism is an improvement it still depends on inductivism, so it still shares the same fundamental flaw. Is there something in the above you disagree with? Better yet, wouldn’t such a conception explain objections to Darwinism? And not just any objections, but specific objections that we see here and elsewhere? If someone thought the knowledge of how to build the biosphere could only come from some ultimate authoritative source, would it come as a surprise they would conclud the biosphere cannot be explained without a designer? And if Darwinism were true would, would they not then conclude there could be no knowledge? Everything would simply be meaningless and random and astronomically unlikely, which is a commonly argued strawman of evolutionary theory. Finally, since everything is not random and meaningless, would they not conclude Darwinism must be false? I don’t know about you, but this sounds very familiar.

[k --> Empty repetition of the false does not make it true, cf the markup already done this morning, and CR evidently does not recognise that he is wasting people's time to have to repeatedly correct him. That, too, is rude and a distraction from serious matters. Notice for instance how this thread is way off track from the topic in the OP.] Is there something in the above you disagree with? If so, please point out where and exactly how your view differs, in detail. [l --> Long since done over and over but willfully and rudely ignored.] You can put this to bed right hear and now. Is your conception of human knowledge an idea that is subject to criticism? Yes or No? [m --> CR here sets up a strawman, and seems to imagine that he is dealing with illiterates who do not know about the debates on knowledge. The very fact that I have used warrant rather than justification as the pivotal term should tell him that I am reflecting for just one instance the impact of the Gettier counter examples. (Cf here for a basic illustration.) His appeals to Popper have been addressed also, just ignored. I simply note that Popper's corroboration is an instance of unacknowledged admission of the validity of inference to best current empirically grounded explanation in science.] I won't be holding my breath. [n --> Onlookers, this is yet another example of recycled continued misrepresentations and already long since cogently answered talking points. This is a way of evading and side tracking from the substantial issue at stake and a means of reinforcing a position that patently cannot stand on its merits, starting with the hole in the evolutionary materialist narrative of origins that is presented by the origin of life challenge, cf here on. KF]critical rationalist

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

08:03 PM

8

08

03

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF: Do you understand that the declaration — which you have been corrected on before — is a slander, meant to poison the atmosphere: Just so I have this straight, you're insinuating that I'm ignoring *your* comments? [a --> CR attempts a turnabout, where the issue is not personal pique, but his willful ignoring of well warranted facts regarding a known canard, the "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" accusation so often resorted to by a certain class of ID objectors. cf correction here in context.] Again…

Specifically, the fundamental flaw in creationism (and its variants) [b --> This is a case of attempted proof by citation of one's earlier assertion of errors that were corrected by pointing to corrective resources, ignored. Drumbeat repetition of falsehood and citing one's earlier errors as thought hey establish facts, do not constitutte warrant.] is the same fundamental flaw in pre-enlightenment, authoritative conceptions of human knowledge [c --> This is an allusion to the ill-informed consensus on intellectual and ethical development in college promoted by William G Perry from 1970 on, that it is intellectual progress to move from an alleged naive authoritarianism marked by black and white dualist thinking to radical relativism, cf correction here on] : its account of how the knowledge in adaptations could be created is either missing, supernatural or illogical. [d --> Strawman on a red herring side track. Design, based on intelligence, is how functionally specific complex organisation and associated information are routinely observed to be caused, including in the posts in this thread and the underlying software that makes the computers involved work. This is a case of refusal to accept that there is a broad base of observations of a uniform pattern on which a generalisation can be made inductively. One backed up by the needle in the haystack analysis that shows why it is that chance and necessity without intelligent direction on the gamut of our solar system or observed cosmos, are not credible sources of FSCO/I. But on the pretence that inductive reasoning and in particular inference to best current empirically grounded explanation may be dismissed -- this is the foundation of science we are dealing with here -- CR wishes to suggest that there is no warrant for the sort of conclusions made by design thinkers. In short, his root problem is with logic, and he has for instance shown himself unable to handle the way that we have comet to accept that to moral certainty, electrons are real sufficiently so that hey are the foundation of Electronics, on which PC technology, the technology he is using to post here, is built. In addition, he snidely appeals to anti-supernatural prejudice. He knows or should know that since Plato,t eh true issue has not been appeal to the supernatural but that there is an alternative to chance and mechanical necessity observed, intelligence working by art, which may leave empirically reliable signs. The whole design theory project is an investigation of whether there are such signs, which has been strongly answered on evidence, yes. On that, it is then reasonable to see that things in the natural world that we experience that re replete with such signs, credibly are designed. CR and others do not have empirical counter examples that can stand scrutiny so they now are resorting to convoluted and tendentious philosophical arguments that try to undermine inductive thinking. Thus we see the astonishing spectacle of the self-proclaimed champions of science seeking to undermine the foundations of science. In this case, they do not even notice that Popper's reference to preferring corroborated theories is tantamount to acknowledging that these are best current explanations, i.e. warranted on a provisional basis. Much as Newton said of scientific findings 300+ years ago.] In some cases, it’s the very same theory, in that specific types of knowledge, such as cosmology or moral knowledge, was dictated to early humans by supernatural beings. [e --> Further appeals to prejudice.] In other cases, parochial aspects of society, such as the rule of monarchs in governments or the existence of God, are protected by taboos or taken so uncritically for granted that they are not recognized as ideas. [f --> Yet more appeals to prejudice, driven by uncritical acceptance of a distorted, strawmannish caricature of the intellectual climate of the past few centuries. The clips from Newton above should suffice to show that something is very wrong with this picture.]

What is ID explanation for how this knowledge is created? [g --> Here we see a pretence that design theory has not given an account of the credible cause of FSCO/I where we encounter it. This is a strawman, and a willful distortion maintained in the teeth of repeated correction. This is arguing in bad faith.] Does it even explicitly have one at all? And, if only implicitly, what might it be? Care to enlighten us? [h --> This is a case of willfully pretending that that which is in front of one's very eyes does not exist. To create this very post CR acted as an intelligent being, a designer who configured matter and energy using technologies to create and send a message that is chock full of FSCO/I. When such a one as CR has to pretend that what he is doing is not a case in point of a massively evident inductive pattern, that self referential inconsistency is proof in and of itself that he is patently wrong to the point of self-referential absurdity.]

Any theory of an organism’s improvement raises the following question: how is the knowledge of how to make that improvement created? [i --> Yes, indeed. So, kindly explain to us the empirically warranted grounds on which FSCO/I has been seen to be created by blind chance and mechanical necessity, without intelligent direction. This very message you yourself typed, CR is evidence that intelligence is a known cause and means by which knowledge and more particularly FSCO/I is created. You even choose to substitute a tendentious term, in order to dodge the patently obvious. You have been long since told that it is highly reasonable for reasons of robust adaptability that once we have a vNSR system in hand, we should have built in adaptability that allows for fitting to niches in a varying environment. Similarly, we know that to one extent or another it is common for functional capacities to be built into software by designers from the outset, AND for such to intervene from time to time to inject new capacities. All of this is familiar form the world around you if you will but simply look and listen with an ope mind.] Was it already present in some form at the beginning? A theory that it was represents creationism. [j --> Canard, based on a strawman. CR knows that Creationism -- as the very Creationists will themselves confirm -- represents a movement that argues that we were not there from the outset of origins, but the Creator was. So, we ought to take the record presented by God seriously and adapt our scientific explanations to that record. Design theory, as the WAC's point out, does not do this, but instead asks whether inference on sign is reasonable and reasonable in the context of signs that may point to design as cause of FSCO/I. Going beyond that, design theory then analyses the evidence and concludes that FSCO/I is indeed an empirically reliable sign of design. However, from the outset of modern design theory in the very first technical book in the mid 1980's, TMLO, has pointed out that while empirical evidence may warrant inference to design as causal process, it does not on the biological evidence warrant inference to a designer definitively within or beyond the cosmos as the agent of that design process. Design theory on biology is no shortcut around worldview level debates and discussions on comparative difficulties. The evidence for cosmological finetuning (cf here and onward) -- which CR has consistently not taken up and addressed cogently -- makes it a reasonable argument that a cosmos set up to a fine tuned operating point that facilitates C-chemistry aqueous medium cell based life from the roots of the underlying physics, puts design of the overall cosmos on the table, which would point to a designer beyond our cosmos, but that, too does not short circuit the worldview level discussions thast need to be taken up if one is to have a responsibly arrived at view of reality.] Did it just happen? [k --> More strawmen off a red herring sidetrack, about to be battered with a 2 x 4] If so, the theory represents spontaneous generation [l --> of course, the gap where there is no root to the Darwinian tree of life, as OOL is in a shambles, is a case of appeal to spontaneous generation of life, without adequate warrant. Notice, onlookers, how often objectors to design theory want to put a red line around discussions of OOL, the better to avoid a case where since self replication on a vNSR is off the table, the favourite out of appealing to natural selection is not there. Not to mention, the vNSR is based on FSCO/I and is a pivotal instance of the reason why the inference to design is reasonable. Ont eh progress of Venter et al we have good reason to suggest that a molecular nanotech lab several generations beyond where we now are, cold invent cell based life such as we see on earth. That is a SUFFICIENT cause of cell based life on the only place where we observe it. Not a necessary and sufficient cause, but it is to be noted.] – such an example is found in Lamarckism, which assumed we still see simple creatures (such as mice) today because a continuous stream of simple creatures is being spontaneously generated. [m --> Strawman caricature, loaded with invidious suggestions and associations]

Does ID's theory *not* imply is was present at the beginning? [n --> Design theory as pointed out repeatedly but willfully ignored in haste to make obfuscatory and dismissive talking points infers that per proper empirical investigation, FSCO/I is a good sign of design, and then on seeing it in a context where there is no reasonable alternative explanation, infers that it is the best empirically warranted explanation for the phenomena of the living cell. Which includes digital codes, algorithms, co-ordinated implementing machines and the like. Such IBCE is exactly the method advocated over the past 200 years by the champions of origins sciences. CR et al do not wish to engage this, so they duck it. The objections to ID are selectively hyperskeptical.] So, my declaration is meant to poison, but point out the flaw in both creationism and the current crop of ID. [o --> Drumbeat repetition of a slander laced strawman in the teeth of adequate and repeated correction does not warrant it.]

I suggest you read the Weak Argument correctives in the resources tab, esp no’s 1 – 5 and onward to no 8.

The particular argument I'm does not exist in those resources. [p --> False. As in "creationism in a cheap tuxedo" etc etc.]

In this thread, I am insisting on a modicum of basic civility and respect.

Given your accusations, are you immune from this? [q --> Turnabout, compounding false accusation, intended to create the perception of hypocrisy.]

You need to withdraw that intended atmosphere-poisoning invidious association, and never use it again.

So, you will be providing ID's explanation for how the knowledge of biological improvements is created, so there will be no reason to point it out again? [r --> Further pretence that that which has been repeatedly presented does not exist. At this stage, this is willful disregard for the truth with the hope that that which is false or should be known to be false, will be taken as true. There is a sharp, short word for that sort of continuing misrepresentation, that you would do well to ponder CR.]

If you insist on using it, I am afraid I will — for cause — have to request you to leave this thread and any further thread of which I am owner.

If I insist on criticizing both creationism and ID, in that both represent bad explanations due to the missing or supernatural explanations for said knowledge, then you'll ban me from your threads, rather than accept and genuinely respond to that criticism? [s --> More continuing misrepresentation.]

In short, such behaviour is dishonest and disrespectful when sustained in the teeth of evident correction.

"Corrections" which are based on misrepresentations that I keep correcting and you keep ignoring. [t --> Drumbeat repetition of a continuing misrepresentation, maintained in the teeth of abundant evidence and correction to the contrary, and in defiance of duties of care to the truth and to fairness. CR here shows that he is not dealing in good faith and is not adding anything positive to the discussion. That is the context in which as I have already indicated, I am asking him to leave this discussion and not to return to any thread of which I am owner. That can be rescinded if and when he learns better and takes back the sort of willfully continued misrepresentations I have corrected yet again above.KF]critical rationalist

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

08:03 PM

8

08

03

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

critical rationalist is a bot?Mung

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

05:33 PM

5

05

33

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Now CR, it seems you have great hope, contra Godel, in the advance of human knowledge by purely materialistic means (since I take it you don't believe that man has a transcendent consciousness/mind), your blind faith in this is so much so that, from what I can gather of what you wrote, you think that man will someday create entire universes, and/or computer simulations of universes that will be indistinguishable from real universes. One problem with your vision, besides a stunning lack of humility, for this unlimited capacity of humans to evolve to the point someday to create universes, is that nobody has a clue how to create even a single photon of this universe much less photons we may choose to use in a different universe of our own making,... the other problem is that we do not, ourselves, live in a computer simulation right now.

Quantum Computing Promises New Insights, Not Just Supermachines - Scott Aaronson - December 2011 Excerpt: And yet, even though useful quantum computers might still be decades away, many of their payoffs are already arriving. For example, the mere possibility of quantum computers has all but overthrown a conception of the universe that scientists like Stephen Wolfram have championed. That conception holds that, as in the “Matrix” movies, the universe itself is basically a giant computer, twiddling an array of 1’s and 0’s in essentially the same way any desktop PC does. Quantum computing has challenged that vision by showing that if “the universe is a computer,” then even at a hard-nosed theoretical level, it’s a vastly more powerful kind of computer than any yet constructed by humankind. Indeed, the only ways to evade that conclusion seem even crazier than quantum computing itself: One would have to overturn quantum mechanics, or else find a fast way to simulate quantum mechanics using today’s computers. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/science/scott-aaronson-quantum-computing-promises-new-insights.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=science

I also liked this insight, from a computer programmer with a PhD in Physics, about a fundamental difference between human consciousness and computer programs:

The simple fact is this, despite years of experience writing many complex codes, I can not write a computer program that disobeys me. I don’t even know how to do it. I can write computer programs that have bugs and don’t perform what I thought they were going to do; I can write computer programs that make pseudo-random choices. I do not know how to write a program that disobeys. I would contend it can’t be done. But the ability to disobey the Creator is the essence of consciousness. Otherwise it’s just complicated programming with random choices. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/human-consciousness/#comment-363067

CR, Your folly reminds me of the arrogance displayed by Barrow and Tippler in 'The Anthropic Cosmological Principle":

Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661 This preceding video, at the 6:49 mark, has a very interesting quote: "So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they're atheists basically, there's no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That's what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler's solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves." - Michael Strauss PhD. - Particle Physics

Now CR like you I have great enthusiasm for advancing human knowledge myself, but, not to dampen your unbridled enthusiasm, perhaps it should help you to know something about our current state of knowledge. The foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments;

An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011 Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf Can quantum theory be improved? - July 23, 2012 Excerpt: However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html

Now CR this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science! Moreover, finding ‘free will conscious observation’ to be ‘built into’ our best description of foundational reality, quantum mechanics, as a starting assumption, 'free will conscious observation' which is indeed the driving aspect of randomness in quantum mechanics, is VERY antithetical to the entire materialistic philosophy. The other major theory that we have today is General relativity, and though no one has yet done an experiment showing that it will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory, it none the less has stood up to every test thrown at it (to 15 decimal places of accuracy as of today). And those two theories refuse to be joined together into a 'theory of everything'. The reason why I bring up the irreconcilability of those two primary theories of man is, contrary to what you would hold as a starting assumption, Jesus Christ offers a very credible, empirically backed, reconciliation of those two primary theories of modern science:

The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Pictures, Articles and Videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

Now CR, reflect on this a bit, why should such a reconciliation by Christ of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics even be on the radar scope of reason??? This should, at the very least, give you a bit of a pause as to this whole resurrection of Jesus thing that you seem so confident did not happen (by the way, as is evidenced in your belief of man creating universe, methinks you, as of right now, have a tendency to severely misplace your confidence) :) verse and music:

Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Evanescence - The Other Side (Lyric Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiIvtRg7-Lc

bornagain77

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

05:02 PM

5

05

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

#39 hmmm, What happens when we "create" and "test" "knowledge" and find that our ability to "create" and "test" "knowledge" is inescapably depedent on prior "knowledge" of how to recorded and transfer the information within our bodies? - - - - - - Hey! I know what we do, we go on full automoton protect mode. If anyone should bring it up, we simply deadpan and repeat: . Sep 5: because people do not recognize their own conceptions of human knowledge as as an idea that would be subject to criticism and Sep 6: further suggests you do not recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism and Sep 9: you are unable to recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism and Sep 9: you cannot recognize your specific conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism and Sep 11: as if you simply cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism and Sep 15: you do not recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism and Sep 18: you are merely offended that your conception of human knowledge is an idea that would be subject to criticism and Sep 19: you cannot recognize your own conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism and Sep 20: just because you cannot recognize your own conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism. and Sep 20: your authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge is ideas that is subject to criticism etc, etc, etc...Upright BiPed

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

04:36 PM

4

04

36

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CR:

Can you point out the difference?

Can you point out the fallacy?

It’s as if you think God had to raise Jesus at that specific time, or even at all, before he would be able to raise everyone else, despite God supposedly being all powerful.

There are certain Christians who, even though Jesus claimed he would return within a specific period [I think you need to revisit your understanding of Mt 24 i/l/o Eph 3:14 - 21 and 2 Pet 1 & 3; but this is not a theological forum. KF], are still awaiting his return today, some 2000 years later. So I suppose it's possible there could be a cult today still waiting for his resurrection, even though he said it also would take place within a specific period of time. But it would make Paul's preaching rather pointless. And there's no reason to think Paul would have been preaching at all, inasmuch as his own conversion was tied to his attempt to stamp out the resurrection cult. He went from denying to proclaiming. I don't know what this has to do with your bizarre view of how it is possible to know something or what qualifies as "true" knowledge.

This is what I mean by a bad explanation, as God’s supposedly has no limitations, so he could do it regardless.

It may be a bad explanation but not for the reason you think. You apparently don't know what you're talking about. Jesus predicted that he would be raised, and that it would be within a given time frame. [Mung, yes, in three days, which is what happened the first Easter Morning, or there would have been no church founded on the witness of the core 500 witnesses. KF]Mung

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

04:12 PM

4

04

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CR: Do you understand that the declaration -- which you have been corrected on before -- is a slander, meant to poison the atmosphere:

creationism (and it’s variants, such as ID)

I suggest you read the Weak Argument correctives in the resources tab, esp no's 1 - 5 and onward to no 8. That and other reasonably accessible sources will suffice to show that design theory is not a variant of or a disguised hidden agenda form of creationism and/or some alleged theocratic agenda, as such terms are usually used. Never mind the drumbeat repetition of this canard by the irresponsible and outright dishonest all over the internet. In this thread, I am insisting on a modicum of basic civility and respect. You need to withdraw that intended atmosphere-poisoning invidious association, and never use it again. If you insist on using it, I am afraid I will -- for cause -- have to request you to leave this thread and any further thread of which I am owner. In short, such behaviour is dishonest and disrespectful when sustained in the teeth of evident correction. KFkairosfocus

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

04:02 PM

4

04

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

...have you ever heard of a Dyson sphere?

Only in science fiction novels. But yes.Mung

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

03:57 PM

3

03

57

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mung, Resources are not scarce. What's scarce is the knowledge of how to utilize them. Again, unless it's prohibited by the laws of physics, the only think that would prevent us from using energy from the sun, the massive amounts of hydrogen in intergalactic space, or even an entire uninhabitable solar system is knowing how. For example, have you ever heard of a Dyson sphere? Not to mention, we cannot predict the impact new knowledge we will create will have in the future. For example, people in 1920 didn't consider nuclear power or the internet unlikely. They didn't conceive of them at all. As such, it's unclear how they could factor them into how they will effect the future. This is why I keep pointing out the genuine creation of knowledge is the key point of conflict between creationism (and it's variants, such as ID) and Darwinism. ________ [Onlookers, this is where we see insistent repetition of a canard in action. CR has been corrected previously and pointed to resources on which he could have formed a more reasonable view, but he simply insists of further spewing slander-laced talking points. KF]critical rationalist

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

03:31 PM

3

03

31

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

1 Cor 17: And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

Do you not consider those undesired consequences? What's the difference? ________ [At this point, CR shows himself evidently unable to understand an implication argument, of form p => q => r => s. But NOT_p, upending the lot. He imagines a fallacy of undesirable consequences, failing to see that we have here a modus ponens chain suspended from p, where -- on morally certain facts adduced in context, and that in the midst of a contentious debate so if Paul had his facts wrong he would have invited dismissal -- p is falsified so the whole suspended chain falls to the ground as p is snipped. The rhetorical context is to point out a contradiction, claiming to be Christian while clinging to the Greek disdain for the body which leads to denial of the resurrection of the dead. That too is a clue that Paul was arguing for that which he confidently knew to be true as a matter of fact, reported in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, and he was therefore charging straight up the hill against the overwhelming consensus of the learned and popular thought in Greek culture; which in due course, his work overturned. And, we must recall, in the same context, he alludes to his former state as the hammer of the Sanhedrin, the first arch persecutor who literally made bloody havoc of the church. Now, JLA, do you also see why UD is not a proper forum for theologically tinged debates? While the above is about CR's failure to deal properly with implication arguments, it will doubtless be twisted for years to come into a "proof" that this is merely about creationism in Barbara Forrest's cheap tuxedo. When in fact, manifestly, what is happening is that CR has shown himself unable to recognise and correctly address an argument of form modus ponens, upended by countering the chief premise on a pivotal fact established on 500+ witnesses. KF]critical rationalist

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

03:11 PM

3

03

11

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mung; Here’s a different test: If Jesus was not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain. CR: Wouldn’t that represent the fallacy of undesired consequences, rather than a test? Mung: No. Because?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/in+vain

Vain: Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless: a vain attempt. in vain 1. To no avail; without success: Our labor was in vain.

Can you point out the difference? Furthermore, are you suggesting that God couldn't have chosen to resurrect Jesus at some time in the future, or not even at all, yet still resurrect everyone else? It's as if you think God had to raise Jesus at that specific time, or even at all, before he would be able to raise everyone else, despite God supposedly being all powerful. I'm having difficulty reconciling these to claims. This is what I mean by a bad explanation, as God's supposedly has no limitations, so he could do it regardless. That is possible because the details of how God supposedly resurrects people are unrelated to resurrections, except via the claim that he will resurrect everyone itself. This is in contrast to a long chain of independent, hard to vary explanations.critical rationalist

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

03:02 PM

3

03

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CR: Did you read the context of 1 Cor 15:1 - 20, written by Paul of Tarsus 55 AD, before suggesting a fallacy on seeing a snippet? Let me clip the last part, just to illustrate a case of correctly logical inference on implications, which are counter-factual and are countered by the testimony and declaration of the known truth -- 500 + eyewitnesses including the writer -- that upends the lot:

1 Cor 15:12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

As to the why of his assertion in v 20, cf the citation and discussion of 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, here on in context. This is the official summary of the church's testimony on the 500 core witnesses, about 20 of whom can be specifically identified. And, it dates to 35 - 38 AD, within a decade of the events of Passion Week, and in the same city; maintained in the teeth of bloody official opposition. That, is a proper use of implication logic, and an application of fact known to moral certainty on eyewitness testimony. KFkairosfocus

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

02:56 PM

2

02

56

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Interesting as this discussion is, it's worth pointing out that it wouldn't matter to either theology or to design theory if Carroll were correct. All Carroll is asserting is that a meta-induction over the history of science makes a posteriori arguments for God's existence increasingly less plausible. That doesn't matter (too much) for theology, because it doesn't rule out a priori arguments, and it doesn't rule out anything about design theory, because design theory (according to design theorists) neither presupposes nor entails theism.Kantian Naturalist

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

02:10 PM

2

02

10

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

critical? rationalist?

While we will never be able to rule out the existence of non-material being that did not want to be discovered, took no actions or merely sat on the sidelines wishing us on, this will eventually be irrelevant.

It's irrelevant today.

Due to the open-ended stream of knowledge creation, at some point in the future, anyone will be able to design a more harmonious, moral, biosphere. And they will do so using exponentially more powerful computers created from this same open-ended stream of knowledge creation.

whooey. Where are they going to get the energy to operate?Mung

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

01:51 PM

1

01

51

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Of related interest, here is recent video of Dr. Hugh Ross that has his powerpoint slides visible: Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Ybornagain77

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

01:47 PM

1

01

47

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Wouldn’t that represent the fallacy of undesired consequences, rather than a test?

No.Mung

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

01:45 PM

1

01

45

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

steveo and kf, here is a John Lennox interview where, at the 28:09 minute mark, he answers the question "Is your God a God of the gaps?"

Questions and Answers with Professor John Lennox - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tr7dCphnkw

I thought the entire interview of Lennox was one of John Lennox's best. Quote of note to the overall topic

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (NASA Astronomer Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, p. 116.)

bornagain77

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

01:34 PM

1

01

34

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Mung: If Jesus was not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain. Wouldn't that represent the fallacy of undesired consequences, rather than a test?critical rationalist

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

01:19 PM

1

01

19

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

SteveO: I see:

God is not a “God of the gaps”, he is God of the whole show.

Ironically, it is newton who said much the same in his General Scholium to Principia. That is the whole God of the gaps scheme has been a strawman from the beginning. KFkairosfocus

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

12:42 PM

12

12

42

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

John Lennox, responding to a different "God of the gaps" statement, made the following points:

The internal combustion engine is arguably more relevant than Henry Ford to the question of how a car works, but not for why it exists in the first place. Confusing mechanism and/or law on the one hand and agency on the other...is a category mistake easily made by ignoring metaphysics. ..his concept of God is one that no intelligent monotheist would accept. His "God" is the soft-target "God of the gaps" of the "I can't understand it, therefore God did it" variety. ...like Dawkins and Hawking, (he) regards God as an explanation in competition with scientific explanation. That is as wrong-headed as thinking that an explanation of a Ford car in terms of Henry Ford as inventor and designer competes with an explanation in terms of mechanism and law. God is not a "God of the gaps", he is God of the whole show. Indeed, it was belief in an intelligent Creator that convinced the great pioneers, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Clerk Maxwell, Babbage and many others that science could be done. C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver."

steveO

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

12:15 PM

12

12

15

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

While we will never be able to rule out the existence of non-material being that did not want to be discovered, took no actions or merely sat on the sidelines wishing us on, this will eventually be irrelevant. Due to the open-ended stream of knowledge creation, at some point in the future, anyone will be able to design a more harmonious, moral, biosphere. And they will do so using exponentially more powerful computers created from this same open-ended stream of knowledge creation. At which time, the "designer" of our biosphere will seem immoral and intellectually uninteresting. The latter will not be so easily brushed off as theists will not longer want to claim the biosphere as the handiwork of their "God" - just as they no longer claim thunder today.critical rationalist

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

11:34 AM

11

11

34

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The difference is we believe Jesus was raised from the dead and you don’t.

lol. it's ok. I forgive you. This is the internet, after all. You probably don't know me from, well, adam.Mung

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

07:20 AM

7

07

20

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Of related interest, in this following debate, Dr. Hugh Ross shows that, far from science being antagonistic to God, advances in modern science are revealing the universe to be the handiwork of God:

Hugh Ross vs Lewis Wolpert - Is There Evidence For A Cosmic Creator? (uploaded Sept. 5 2012) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF1xSErF_f4 Description: Recorded at Imperial College London, Christian astrophysicist Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe debates atheist biologist Lewis Wolpert. Ross brings evidence for God from Big Bang cosmology, explaining why scientific advance provides a testable model of biblical creation. Wolpert says that belief in God is a by-product of evolution and nothing more.

bornagain77

September 20, 2012

September

09

Sep

20

20

2012

03:55 AM

3

03

55

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Physicist Sean Carroll suggests that someday science can rule out God" All that means is that S.C is an idiot. Nigga PLEASE!CentralScrutinizer

September 19, 2012

September

09

Sep

19

19

2012

10:56 PM

10

10

56

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: My response, at my personal blog, to the same Yahoo News headlines LiveScience article on a C4 Coptic language -- ancient Egyptian speech -- MS that speaks about a wife of Jesus. (It seems that Dan Brownism now haunts the fringes of academia.) In so responding, I link here on the authenticity and warrant for the gospel and the C1 canonical gospels. There is an obvious, politically tinged cultural agenda to dechristianise our civilisation on propagandistic pushing of claims and stories that fail to be responsible or fair or accurate, and over the past while Yahoo has been deeply involved in pushing it. At a deeper level, since at least the past 180 years -- I here refer to Heine's prophetic rebuke -- there has been a push to promote intellectual systems that are post Christian, in defiance of predictable consequences. For instance, I was shocked to see how ideological commitment on a radical and irretrievably flawed relativism is seen as appropriate intellectual "development" since William G Perry published his studies on what was happening to naive students at Harvard, in 1970. Believe it or not, this is widely seen as a focus for what college should do as an educational aim. (Astonishingly, serious critiques of the Perry scheme on the fallacious nature of such relativism are as rare as hen's teeth. If you want to know the why of what is happening in power elite circles and the media, especially the contempt that serious Christian commitment is now increasingly viewed with, here is your answer. For, repeatedly and often destructively, the doctrine of the college seminar room and hall of residence in one generation, becomes the policy of government in the next.) Let me cite this translation of Heine:

"So the natur-philosoph will enter into terrible association with the original powers of nature. He will be able to conjure up the demonic forces of Old Germanic pantheism, and that lust for battle which we find among the old Germans will awaken in him, which does not battle to destroy, or to conquer, but solely for the sake of the battle itself. Christianity – and this is its greatest merit – has to some extent tamed that brutal Germanic lust for battle, but could not destroy it; and if ever that restraining talisman, the cross, breaks, the savagery of the old fighters will rattle forth again…The old stone gods will then emerge from their forgotten ruins and rub the dust of millennia from their eyes. Thor, with the giant hammer, will spring up at last, and destroy the Gothic domes…and when you hear crashing, as it has never crashed before in all of world history, you will know, German thunder has finally reached its goal. With this sound, eagles will fall dead from the sky [--> The eagle is a symbol of both air power and the USA], and lions in the most distant desert in Africa [--> As in, Rommel vs the British 8th Army] will pull their tails between their legs and crawl into their royal caves. A play will be enacted in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like a harmless idyll [--> Nazism, a profoundly anti-Christian system animated by just that spirit of false messiahship in political guise] ...And the hour will come. As on the rows of an amphitheater, nations will gather around Germany to see the great game of battle" (pp. 116-17).

Remember, this is in 1833 or 4. As Prof Yair goes on to observe:

Heine wrote it in 1834, and 99 years later Thor came to power. And his giant hammer banged so hard, that eagles fell down from the skies and lions shivered in their caves. And the world stood in the amphitheater and watched the burning of the book and the butchery of its people. So 99 years later Heine's words indeed became real. He knew that. He was no prophet, but a good philosopher. And he knew that ideas and deep cultural codes keep hammering reality. This is why ideas matter so much.

We cannot say that we have not been warned that we are irresponsibly playing with civilisation destroying fire. KFkairosfocus

September 19, 2012

September

09

Sep

19

19

2012

10:47 PM

10

10

47

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

If the gospels are false, then why should we trust that there is a God?

Here’s a different test: If Jesus was not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain.

Mung, you are exactly right, if you are referring to the God of the Bible. You seem to know the Bible pretty well! These were the inspired words of the apostle Paul himself meaning they are God's words. The difference is we believe Jesus was raised from the dead and you don't. The apostle Paul's life was radically changed 180 degrees when he met the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. He staked his life on the truth of the resurrection. His radical life change that caused him so much personal loss and suffering is strong testimony to the truth of the resurrection.tjguy

September 19, 2012

September

09

Sep

19

19

2012

09:17 PM

9

09

17

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

If he predicts someone else can do this then that else must be smarter then him! So perhaps this admitted smarter folks will say otherwise about God being tossed out! Predictions be damned and get on with it! Do you need more research money? Where should we send our cheques?!Robert Byers

September 19, 2012

September

09

Sep

19

19

2012

06:51 PM

6

06

51

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

If the gospels are false, then why should we trust that there is a God?

Belief in God, even biblically, comes prior before belief in the Gospels. I'm Catholic, but if tomorrow Christ's body were provided, I wouldn't become an atheist. The rational step would be a theist or deist.nullasalus

September 19, 2012

September

09

Sep

19

19

2012

05:12 PM

5

05

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

If the gospels are false, then why should we trust that there is a God?

Here's a different test: If Jesus was not raised from the dead then our faith is in vain.Mung

September 19, 2012

September

09

Sep

19

19

2012

05:07 PM

5

05

07

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Realize of course that Carroll's fantasy is precisely comparable to extrapolating that at the present rate of discovery, some day Science will have enough information to resurrect scientific determinism from the clutches of chaos, quantum mechanics, and the ghost of Kurt Gödel.Querius

September 19, 2012

September

09

Sep

19

19

2012

04:23 PM

4

04

23

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link