Bloggist plagiarizes me

[_Sethbag]

Evidence can't contradict the uniformity of nature. The very notion of empirical evidence already presupposes that nature is uinform. What the uniformity of nature refers to, in this case, is that the fundamental rules by which nature operates are consistent throughout time and place. If what we know about "natural laws" changes, we just modify what we think natural laws are. When you make a prediction, you premise that prediction on the notion that the future will behave in a way that resembles the past. Since this can change at any moment, no amount of past observation can prove it.

So in other words, the scientists are always right. ;-) I can live with that.

[_Sethbag]

The atheistic worldview is that the universe, everything we see around us (and the fact that we can see at all!) is a product of pure chance, a role of the cosmic dice. Chance is the opposite of uniform, chance is the opposite of law-like. Chance cannot explain the apparent uniformity of nature, cannot explain our sense experience.

Hold on here, Buckaroo. Where does "chance" enter into it? What do you mean "chance"? Do you mean chance as in, it's possible this universe might not have existed at all?

If so, how do you justify this? Scientists don't know how or why this universe exists, they just know that it does in fact exist. Where does "chance" enter into it? Are you saying that scientists have actually discovered the mechanism by which this universe came about, and that there was a distinct possibility, through that mechanism, that the universe might have failed to come into existence? If you believe such a thing, then you're claiming far more than the scientists claim.

There is no roll of the cosmic dice here. The universe exists, and we know that because we're here, in it, discussing it. This isn't the result, so far as we know, of an "accident", a "chance", or a random good luck shake of some dice.

In order to be able to claim that there was any less certainty of the universe existing without God than with God, you need to be able to provide some good evidence and support for the mechanism of universe production which resulted, or could not have resulted, in this universe's existence. I don't think you've done that.

[Anonymous]

EAllusion
As you are suggesting EA, we must all go about our lives as if nature is uniform, believing it IS so and inducing that it WILL BE so. Atheists must believe this with blind faith while Christians, by faith in an rational God, have a reason for this belief. Not having a reason for a particular belief is irrational.

If EAllusion is correct, then atheists can be really comfortable with this belief, because every attempt to measure or quantify how things are will result in their beliefs being confirmed.

Your "proof" that there must be a God reminds me an awful lot like the rational "proof" that there must be a luminiferous ether serving as the carrier of electromagnetic waves. I mean come on, there has got to be this ether, right? Or else, how the heck do these waves propogate?

[_Gadianton]

Your premise is metaphysical, or uniformity in nature is metaphysical? Either way I disagree. I observe uniformity in nature every day.

Of course we see uniformity every day, that's one of my points. However, the statement, "nature is uniform" is a metaphysical statement. In order to empirically test that nature is uniform, we would have test every single square inch of nature to see if it acted the same way. Since that's impossible, we test a miniscule amount of nature and believe the rest follows suit. "Nature is uniform" is a metaphysical belief because it cannot be empirically tested.

Like you said, our sense experience tells us that nature is uniform. The Christian worldview allows us to explain our sense experience while the best the atheistic worldview can do is, "Well nature is uniform because nature is uniform, it is because it is." Which, obviously, isn't an explanation at all.

No, no Cypress, no agreeing with EA who left your battleship laying in a wrecked heap at the bottom of the ocean. This is what you said. You are not saying the same thing as EA did. I am just pointing it out that this one hasn't slipped past.

[_Sethbag]

Sethbag
1. That's not what we're talking about. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. We are discussing what explains the uniformity of nature, naturalism CANNOT explain/account for the uniformity of nature while the Christian God does. In order to make this point you must first concede that God IS an explanation for the uniformity of nature, are you doing this?

The Christian God no more accounts for uniformity in nature than does the hypothesized Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't just imagine a being that theoretically solves some imagined problem, and then proclaim that the fit is so good it simply must be real. Humans are sophisticated problem solvers, and what you're doing in justifying your own faith in God is really just an exercise in problem solving. What you can't sidestep is, however, the fact that your Christian God is still just a figment of your imagination.

2. The God of the Christian worldview is unexplainable. That's the point. He created all things. As created beings, how would we have the capacity to describe our Creator?

Evolutionary biologists and geneticists don't seem to have a problem explaining and describing the processes by which we came about. What you posit as an unsolvable problem doesn't actually seem that impossible after all.

The Christian God you imagine to exist is just your Ace up the Sleeve. You can pull him out at will, to solve all sorts of problems. You can use him to explain to others how they ought to think and act. You can use him to back up the claims of certain individuals to power over other people. You can pull him out to claim you've solved any particular problem in philosophy, science, or any other discipline. But you've priveleged your imagined God with a sort of philosophical immunity. You see, you have created a God which can't be explained, which you use to dodge the problem of how to explain him, while simultaneously demanding an explanation from everyone else.

You can't have it both ways. If your imagined Christian God is inexplicable, and doesn't need to be explained, then I don't have to explain anything to you about how the natural universe operates or came to be. I can just claim that it exists, and is inexplicable, and I'm on pretty much the same level as you.

You are basically asking me a question you KNOW is unanswerable just so you can point and say, "See!!" and feel better about having no reason for believing nature is uniform.

And how is this different from your "I have no reason to believe that nature is uniform either, except to say that God did it, but I can't explain how or why God did it, so in reality I haven't explained anything at all, but I've defined my God in such a way as to dodge any requirement to explain him, so I win."

Explain to me how the universe formed itself.

I don't know how the universe formed itself. Scientists are working on evermore sophisticated models to explain how the universe formed from the aftermath of the Big Bang, taking us earlier and earlier back into the results of that cosmic explosion. What happened before the Big Bang, I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does either. I'm OK with that. But one thing is for sure. Not knowing how or why the universe exists, there is no basis whatsoever to suppose that it might not have existed. Ie: as far as we know, there might never have been any alternative to the universe's existence.

[_Sethbag]

Is that an argument against the anthropic principle or are you just saying that since you can't imagine it therefore it's not possible? Can your provide me with a reason to believe that a pure chance beginning to the universe could explain the order we see around us? Chance becoming orderly all by itself?

Again, explain "chance", and what evidence about the universe leads you to the conclusion that there was in fact "chance" involved in the creation of the universe, including the possibility of it having come out any differently than it did.

[_EAllusion]

So in other words, the scientists are always right. ;-) I can live with that.

No. I think there is some confusion over what "uniformity nature" means in this context. What it means is that the fundamental properties of nature do not change over time and place. Objects might behave differently in time and place, but beneath it all, there is some coherent set of properties that guide those differences. In order to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow on the basis of past observations, you have to assume that nature is uniform. Otherwise, you have no basis for confidence that the rules of nature won't change overnight and the sun won't rise tomorrow because, say, the fundamental forces of physics work differently now. You might point out that nature hasn't changed in the past so you shouldn't think it will tomorrow, but saying that the future is going to resemble the past, again, already is presuming that nature is uniform. That doesn't mean scientists are always right. It just means that induction, which science uses, presupposes the uniformity of nature.

This person is using one of the prongs of a rare theistic apologetic usually called the transcendental argument for God or "TAG" for short. Here's an explanation of his argument here:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/archive/in ... 80583.html

The presuppositionalist argument with respect to science can be summarized as follows:

1) Science at its root is essentially inductive: it reasons from the particular (“these experiments showed that objects dropped on the earth fall in such and such a manner�?) to the general (“therefore all objects dropped on earth will fall in that manner�?).

2) Induction is not deductively rational: e.g. one cannot validly deduce the conclusion “All dogs have sharp teeth�? from the premises “Rex has sharp teeth�? and “Rex is a dog�?. The TAG argues that all secular attempts to describe the principles of science have produced deductively fallacious results (such as Hypothetico-deduction being an affirmation of the consequent, etc). [1] It then argues that “inductive skepticism�? is the only rational position for a non-theist -- Inductive skeptics deny the possibility of ‘strong’ inductive arguments, and assert that all inductive arguments are equally ‘weak’. In other words, they claim that one cannot rationally prefer any general axiom over another upon the basis of ‘particular’ evidence. Thus one cannot take the knowledge that the sun has always risen as supporting the claim that the sun will rise tomorrow.

3) But Induction is rational is the universe is uniform: If the universe is uniformly stable and run according to discoverable rules, then it is possible to eventually discover those rules via induction. If you know those rules, then you can know that the sun will rise tomorrow because you will know why. So if we know that the universe is uniform, then inductive skepticism is untenable; the question is, “How can we know it is uniform?�? The TAG argues we can only know presuppositionally.

4) Uniformity is only compatible with Christianity: If the Christian worldview is true, then God wants us to learn about the universe and our place in it. Learning would be impossible if the universe was not uniform (there would be nothing constant to learn). Therefore if God exists, the universe would be uniform. Furthermore, God promised Noah that the seasons would continue; which can be interpreted to mean the laws of the universe would continue. [2] Supposedly, no other worldview can say the same about uniformity, as a matter of deriving that principle from its deepest core assumptions. Allegedly, this is especially true with materialism -- inchoate matter does not entail uniformity.

5) Therefore, when one practices Science, or uses Scientific evidence in arguments, one is presupposing the existence and nature of God: i.e. Science is rational, and scientific knowledge possible, if and only if God exists. Thus Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary.

It's a rather disorienting argument if you don't have a precise grasp of why it is total crap.

naturalism CANNOT explain/account for the uniformity of nature while the Christian God does.

The Christian God, as opposed to the Islamic God, does not account for the uniformity of nature. That's the problem. Assuming God is law-like, then saying nature is law-like as a result of this has failed to explain anything. It simply takes the brute fact of "law-likeness" and assumes it of God thus failing to explain why existence has a law-like quality to it. And any inductive proof of God's law-likeness, such as appealing to what it says in the Bible, already has to presume the law-likeness of nature, thus begging the question. Saying God is law-like is not anymore justifiable than saying the universe - as in the fundamental nature of reality - is law-like. I'm not saying we should do this; I don't think we should. I explained a type of metaphysical pragmatism that is rather distinct from it. I'm just saying that your approach is no better than that (actually worse).

[_Sethbag]

Christianity as the only alternative to solipsism just doesn't interest me very much, because solipsism itself isn't very interesting.

If it turns out I'm really just a brain in a jar somewhere and this entire universe is being fed to me as part of some cosmic computer simulation, then so be it. In the meantime, I'm going to go to the store to buy some Walla Walla onions and green bell peppers, because when my wife and daughter get home from church, I'm making fajitas.

[_CypressChristian]

Dude

"What would a disordered universe even "look" like? If you see this as a counter-argument -- and maybe it is one -- then the direct response would be for you to give a description of a disordered universe. If it is really a compelling description then it would help the theological argument. If you can't think of something good, then I think it shows a hidden weakness in your position."

Ok, challenge accepted. In a disordered universe, science wouldn't be possible because induction wouldn't be valid. There would be no universal, natural laws so any natural phenomena that occured would be an isolated, random occurance, that would have nothing to do with any subsequent natural phenomena. As such, cause and effect would be invalid, we wouldn't would have any reason to think that one event would necessarily lead to another. In fact, our entire sense experience would be unintelligible. Since there are no natural laws, and as such nature won't act the same way given the same set of conditions, I stub my toe today and it would an incredibly painful experience but tomorrow I could stub my toe and it would be the best thing I've ever felt. Since things could be so variable in a disordered universe, we wouldn't be able to make rational decisions about what to do next, because literally ANYTHING could happen next.

Do I start my car? I don't know, since there are no natural laws, the amount of combustion per amount of fuel could have multiplied several times over since the last time I started my car and this time it blows me up. Should I drink this water? I don't know, in a disordered universe the chemical makeup/interactions between water and my body might have changed so that water burns away all my organs on contact. See how wonky it all gets? Our entire existence is based on the fact that nature is uniform but atheism cannot explain or account for this uniformity.

[_CypressChristian]

Sethbag

Hold on here, Buckaroo. Where does "chance" enter into it? What do you mean "chance"? Do you mean chance as in, it's possible this universe might not have existed at all?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines chance as: 1a. "The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause."

In the atheistic worldview, the universe was uncaused right? It just . . . happened. So therefore it had no discernable direction to which it would take the fundamental properties of the matter that makes up the universe. There was no purpose to the properties of matter. So to think that this chance beginning just happened to lead to the uniformity of nature that we observe and rely on and is better explained/accounted for with "It is because it is" is irrational.

"If EAllusion is correct, then atheists can be really comfortable with this belief, because every attempt to measure or quantify how things are will result in their beliefs being confirmed."

So you, personally, find it acceptable to explain a phenomena with "It is because it is"? You find this tactic philosophical and rational? But the situation isn't even as easy as that. Testing an extremely miniscule amount of nature, as we've done, and then inferring that the rest of nature acts the same way as that extreme minority; that's a scientific conclusion?

"What you can't sidestep is, however, the fact that your Christian God is still just a figment of your imagination."

Is this the kind of arguer you want to be? You're going to plug straight ahead without being the least bit self-reflective about the amount of faith you must have in your positions as well?

"Evolutionary biologists and geneticists don't seem to have a problem explaining and describing the processes by which we came about. What you posit as an unsolvable problem doesn't actually seem that impossible after all."

Ok now you're just making stuff up. Abiogenesis is at a standstill. They have absolutely know idea how it could have happened and every experiment in the field has utterly failed.

"The Christian God you imagine to exist is just your Ace up the Sleeve."

Even if this were true, it would merely be equal to your "Well, we don't know yet but someday science will figure it out" Naturalism-of-the-gaps argument.

"... explain how or why God did it, so in reality I haven't explained anything at all, but I've defined my God in such a way as to dodge any requirement to explain him, so I win."

So God DOES explain the uniformity of nature. Thank you for admitting as much. And yes, God IS the explanation for everything (at least metaphysically), that's exactly the point. However, I can explain how God did it. God is all-powerful and all-knowing. That's the how, because He can. And why? Well, an all-powerful God does what He pleases, and apparently it pleased Him to make the universe the way it is. Which is consistent with the Genesis account where God saw what He had made and "saw that it was good."

Basically, you have still not offered a single argument for how you account for your sense experience which tells you nature is uniform. You've offered up, "It is because it is", and, "one day science will have all the answers" which isn't accounting for anything while admitting that God does explain everything.