Kevin Graham wrote:Donny you're out of your element. The China man is not the issue here.
Kevin Graham wrote:Donny you're out of your element. The China man is not the issue here.
Kevin Graham wrote:No, we are quoting from the movie The Big Lebowski.
Forgive.
The problem is that supernatural "explanations" aren't really explanations. They look like them, but they don't actually exhibit any explanatory power. In order to do that, they would have to take a previously ill-understood phenomenon and break it down into component phenomena that we understand. Because we don't understand God, "God" isn't a meaningful explanation.Kevin Graham wrote:sighI assume no such thing. That it is possible is not to say that it actually happened.
True, but the fact that you're willing to entertain this as a possibility, establishes my point I think. As long as it doesn't include "supernatural" anything should be considered.
Kevin, stop digging. Read the link I sent you that talks about why Dawkins brought up extraterrestrial panspermia (I can tell that you still haven't). Breathe.In the Dawkins example above, he was rather explicit about not knowing how life got started on Earth, for instance.
I'm aware of that. I never said he said he knew how it started, so what's with the straw man? I said he accepted any possibilty so long as it conformed to the dogma of naturalism. Aliens bringing life to earth fits well within that paradigm, so he considers it possible and doesn't ridicule those who entertain it. However, God is immediately excluded because it is outside the boundaries of naturalism. From a rational standpoint, both God and aliens are on equal footing. There is no direct scientific evidence that either exist. The only advantage aliens have is that they are assumed to be beings who are products of the natural universe. So atheists operatng within methodological naturalism have no problems entertaining this idea.
Uh, this is not true, and I've already explained to you why. Remember studies on the effect of intercessory prayer? There's no reason why we couldn't find evidence for theism in those studies -- at least, no reason that doesn't amount to special pleading.You claim that something could not have come about unless God did it since it can only account for the data.
Right. And this remains true for many aspects of fine-tuning that we will get into later. Science has not and I would even say cannot provided any naturalistc explanation for evidence in favor of theism.
If evidence for God were obtained, then God would immediately become part of the natural world. Naturalism, then, doesn't exclude God a priori; it excludes what we don't understand at the present time. It does so for good reason, too: because things that we don't understand can never properly be part of an "explanation" for anything.When others point out other possible options, you claim that those other people must be assuming those possibilities are true.
They don't have to accept it as true, but they clearly will before they accept the God hypothesis. That is because these other evidence-free propositions fit within their naturalistic assumption of reality. They are given consideraton because it is a way to dodge God. This is the point I have been trying to pound home. Stop pretending science is trying to find God or that it would find God if God exists (so says Dawkins). The current philosophy of science (methodological naturalism) is specifically designed to exclude God. Assumptions are very powerful and shape how we view reality as well as our arguments for it. Unless you can prove naturalism to be true, you must admit operating on an unproved assumption or else you're being intellectually dishonest. Thus far, Tarski is the only person here who has admitted this is his assumption.
Black holes and multiple universes do explanatory legwork. If they existed, they would answer a lot of questions -- actually answer, in ways that we can understand. Scientists don't posit anything ineffable, like God currently is, because even if they did, it wouldn't get them anywhere.There mere fact that it is a possibility contradicts the logic of your initial claim, no belief required, but the goal is to shift the burden of proof away from your completely unsupported (and unsupportable) ad hoc.
No, and I'm beginning to think you're incapable of ever understanding the point I am tryng to make. You guys are so absorbed in the typical New Atheist apologetic, that you automatically assume anything a theist says must fit neatly within those straw man constructions.
My point is that the typical, "God is rejected because there is no evidence" claim sounds very respectable and scientific, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Why? Because there are plenty of ideas scientists are willng to entertain without evidence. Black holes, multiple universes, etc. You hear so much about this stuff in movies and science magazines, one would think they were scientific facts. So no, the "no evidence" excuse won't do it. The real issue is the underlying assumption of reality. You refuse to acknolwedge this assumption because you cannot defend it. But by pretending it doesn't exist says more about the weakness of your own position than it does the theists.
My sandwich could not have gone missing unless a dragon ate it!
Yep, just as I thought. First Thor and now dragons. Straight from the pages of Dawkins. I guess the modus operandi is deal with anything except the actual arguments at hand. You're equating abiogenesis from dead matter with a person's ability to steal a sandwich. Now that's intellectual honesty! And keep in mind that the person doing this research is afraid he might be wrong in his assumptions. But hey, for EA, it is just as plausible as a guy stealng a sandwich?
You and JSM love to recreate the argument and present it in the dumbest form imaginable. Do you really have to resort to this nonsense? I reject every argument the two of you try to present as mine.
This frustrates you, and leaves you with two choices. You can either admit you are not representing my argument accurately or you can blame me for being so stupid that I don't know what I'm really trying to argue. You clearly opt for the latter, which is why debating this issue with you quickly becomes an exercise in futility.
The problem is that supernatural "explanations" aren't really explanations.
k like them, but they don't actually exhibit any explanatory power. In order to do that, they would have to take a previously ill-understood phenomenon and break it down into component phenomena that we understand. Because we don't understand God, "God" isn't a meaningful explanation.
not to say that God couldn't be an explanation for ill-understood phenomena. If we knew how God created the universe, or some "irreducibly complex" organelle, then God could be (at least part of) an explanation.
But Intelligent Design people are invariably content with the answer "God did it." This is the prime problem with Intelligent Design: it does not, and cannot do any legwork.
Kevin, stop digging. Read the link I sent you that talks about why Dawkins brought up extraterrestrial panspermia (I can tell that still you haven't). Breathe.
Dawkins doesn't exclude God from the possibilities. He just doesn't think it's more likely than extraterrestrial panspermia.
Uh, this is not true, and I've already explained to you why. Remember studies on the effect of intercessory prayer? There's no reason why we couldn't find evidence for theism in those studies -- at least, no reason that doesn't amount to special pleading.
If evidence for God were obtained, then God would immediately become part of the natural world.
Naturalism, then, doesn't exclude God a priori; it excludes what we don't understand at the present time.
It does so for good reason, too: because things that we don't understand can never properly be part of an "explanation" for anything.
In other words, you're completely misunderstanding EAllusion's point. EA's not saying that the RNA world hypothesis is as plausible as a guy stealing a sandwich, or that the two occur with similar frequency.
The point is that the RNA world hypothesis, like the sandwich-stealing hypothesis, is an explanation predicated on stuff we already know
while the God and dragon hypotheses are not.
That's why the first two are better than the other two
What is your definition of "explain"?Kevin Graham wrote:The problem is that supernatural "explanations" aren't really explanations.
Your problem is that you think all explanations must be scientific, or else they aren't explanations. God explains more about our existence, from a philosophical point of view, than naturalism ever will. It all comes down to our concept of reality.
not to say that God couldn't be an explanation for ill-understood phenomena. If we knew how God created the universe, or some "irreducibly complex" organelle, then God could be (at least part of) an explanation.
You're still missing the larger picture. It doesn't matter if life has evolved and there is no irreducible complexity. The question of origin still remains and it is your job to "explain" how life sprung form from dead matter with no intelligent guidance. You can refer to nature, but then you'll have to explain the source of nature, the cause of the big bang, the "explanation" as to why the various laws of nature are as they are, to allow your RNA world hypothesis to even get off the ground.
I'm familiar with non-overlapping magisteria. There's no reason to think that it's true. Evidence is evidence.But Intelligent Design people are invariably content with the answer "God did it." This is the prime problem with Intelligent Design: it does not, and cannot do any legwork.
Again, looking at these as if they were competing scientific experiments, which they are not. There is a reason why prominent scientists have maintained that religion and science answer two different types of questions, both of which pertain to our reality. You should check into that.
I'm not saying that naturalism will definitely be able to explain our existence. I'm saying that "God" is not an explanation unless and until we get a firmer grip on God's characteristics.Naturalism cannot explain our existence. It can only show paths from which we arrived. But it can go back only so far.
Kevin, stop digging. Read the link I sent you that talks about why Dawkins brought up extraterrestrial panspermia (I can tell that still you haven't). Breathe.
There is no "digging" required because you simply don't understand why I brought up Dawkins' claim that panspermia was plausible. His response does nothing to change the point I made, which is simply this. He is driven by naturalistic assumptions and he has no problems entertaining the possibility of ideas supported by no evidence. He is just a hateful person who likes to go out of his way to ridicule people who do not believe as he does. I can see why you like him.
Dawkins has nowhere excluded God. Dawkins is saying that "Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella!" If you had read the article I posted, you would know that. But you'd rather learn of Dawkins' opinions from Ben Stein instead of the source himself. Suit yourself.Dawkins doesn't exclude God from the possibilities. He just doesn't think it's more likely than extraterrestrial panspermia.
Of course he excludes God. He already said it is quite impossible that a highly complex being, which is what God would have to be, is responsible for our complexity because in his worldview, the universe goes from simple to complex, not vice versa.
Hey idiot, those intercessory prayer studies were created by theists.Uh, this is not true, and I've already explained to you why. Remember studies on the effect of intercessory prayer? There's no reason why we couldn't find evidence for theism in those studies -- at least, no reason that doesn't amount to special pleading.
You're assuming if you knock down one supernatural argument, you've discredited all supernatural claims. But your argument about intercessory prayer was ridiculous, and I explained to you why. There is no reason to expect a spiritual concept like intecessory prayer to do what you thought it must do, if there is to be such a thing as a spiritual realm. The problem with militant atheists is that they insist on setting the rules on how spiritual things must work, so they can plug them into their little experiments that are designed to produce conclusions they've already made.
I'M NOT USING THIS EXPERIMENT TO DISPROVE YOUR THEISM, idiot. I'm using it to combat your drooling-idiot assertion that the scientific method excludes God.You don't even understand that belief in a personal God is merely one flavor of theism. It doesn't define theism as you would have it. I don't believe in a personal God, so there is no reason I would expect prayer to do diddly. So why are you using this experiment to disprove my theism?
No, if God is apart from the Universe, then it's still true that if evidence for God were obtained, then God would immediately become part of the natural world.If evidence for God were obtained, then God would immediately become part of the natural world.
Not if God created the Universe and is therefore apart from it.
If that's what the judge said, then he got it wrong. However, I don't trust your characterization of what the judge said, because the odds are very good that you learned it secondhand from Ben Stein.Naturalism, then, doesn't exclude God a priori; it excludes what we don't understand at the present time.
You're not going to get away with redefining terms to suit your argument. Methodological naturalism explicitly rejects God, and that was one of the driving factors in the Dover trial. The judge made it perfectly clear that this was the standard philosophy of contemporary science.
It is not the case that we understand nothing about them. You are like a false statement generator.It does so for good reason, too: because things that we don't understand can never properly be part of an "explanation" for anything.
Uh huh, like multiverses, black holes, string theory... we use these to explain all kinds of things, and yet we understand nothing about them.
Who do you think you're kidding? The only difference between these ideas and the existence of a deity outside of space-time, is that the latter is immediatly excluded from detection according to methodological naturalism. Why? Because it isn't science unless it can be falsified, which I suppose God could have been falsified if it were shown that we live in an infinite Universe with no natural laws, and that life could spring forth by a random mixture of natural elements. That would essentially falsify God.
And as I noted several times before, this is just how "science" is defined today; it wasn't always so. Teleological arguments developed by Aristotle were once considered the best science available, but times change and paradigms shift. I suspect there will eventually be another revolution once it becomes clear just how limited naturalism is when it comes to explaining our existence.
I've already explained it to you. Twice. You missed the point. Twice.In other words, you're completely misunderstanding EAllusion's point. EA's not saying that the RNA world hypothesis is as plausible as a guy stealing a sandwich, or that the two occur with similar frequency.
No, but he implied it very strongly. What the hell is the point of an analogy then?
Do you know what the word "predicated" means? I'm saying that we understand the basic principles of chemistry that we think underlie RNA abiogenesis. DUMBASSSSSSSSS.The point is that the RNA world hypothesis, like the sandwich-stealing hypothesis, is an explanation predicated on stuff we already know
But you're not being honest here. You don't "know" anything that you keep implying to be true with this article. The guy doing the science behind it admits he might very well be wrong. It is the online atheists and a giddy journalist trying to sell papers for a failing newspaper who seem to be so certain about it. Oh, and scientists like "Dr. Joyce, an expert on the chemical origin of life at the Scripps Research Institute,"(bias anyone?) who are also anxious to see their life's work come to fruition. Yeah, no surprise they're excited.
Your breezy bifurcation is hardly indicative of someone who can come up with a reason that God and Puff the Magic Dragon are significantly different.while the God and dragon hypotheses are not.
Dragons no, God yes. Your desire to equate God with Puff is hardly indicative of someone who has been paying attention.
What do you mean by "life"? We've been creating organic molecules in the lab for decades now.Nobody is challenging those established facts. Its the conclusions that even the author has doubts about. But as I said, there is no reason to believe life began from an RNA world. Possible is hardly plausible, plausible is hardly probable, and probable is hardly definitive. You're taking it all for granted for polemical purposes. Until life is created by experiment, it isn't science to insist it can be done naturally. You're light years away from establishing this.
LOL, facts are just a conspiracy against your cherished belief in a sky-daddy, are they now? How pathetic.That's why the first two are better than the other two
The first is based on scientific facts that have been arranged in a way to drive a conclusion.
You're equating abiogenesis from dead matter with a person's ability to steal a sandwich. Now that's intellectual honesty! And keep in mind that the person doing this research is afraid he might be wrong in his assumptions. But hey, for EA, it is just as plausible as a guy stealng a sandwich?