Good morning mob.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. You're going to get a lot more s*** for this statement than if you had just offered a somewhat-indefensible conception of God (or at least, you should).
I can assure you, the fact that I'm a theist is enough to guarantee this, period. In the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, "these Mong broads are like badgers!"
The fact that you can not respond to my points, without offering demands and ridicule, shows how weak your positions are. You cannot deal with the fact that my position is precisely the same as Einstein's and Flew's. Even Hawking said the fact that the universe has a beginning makes it reasonable to assume a creator. This needs repeating because you repeatedly ignored it. I don't recall anyone chastizing them for daring to say these things without offering a scientific model detailing God's proposed values. They didn't feel the need to offer up a scientific concept, and neither do I. Why should I?
This is just a red herring gimmick the New Atheists came up with and you guys are simply mimicking them, with no understanding of the fact that these kinds of demands have no value, other than rhetorical. It is just your way of forcing your opponent into your paradigm, while avoiding the elephant in the room: the fact that the cosmological evidence is pointing more and more directly towards God. The God hypothesis explains all the evidence you're pretending doesn't exist. The evidence strongly points to an intelligent source being responsible. Even aspects of evolution require an intelligent design, such as flight. The fossil record doesn't even begin to prove, in a scientifc manner, the leaps made by evolutionary biologists who simply assume a crawling creature evolved into a flying creature with no intelligent guidance.
I'm not rejecting evolution, I am simply saying reason dictates that it could not have happened without intellectual guidance. I had a past discussion on this issue and I think that is what led to the confusion about me being an ID proponent, supposing I rejected evolution. I don't. This is something EA wrote many months ago and I'm not sure how I missed it:
It's hard to take Kevin seriously when he talks about the mutation that turned fish into birds. Why not talk about the mutation that turned reptiles into humans? Or prokaryotes into maple trees? It might not be obvious to him, but he is betraying a stark lack of background knowledge necessary to have a conversation on the level he wants to. If it were possible, I think he could benefit a lot from 3 or 4 college level bio courses. It wouldn't have to be organic evolution. Just zoo, botany, genetics, and ecology.
Here's a link to a fun NOVA episode on issues surrounding understanding the origin of flight:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/microraptor/producer.html
EA thinks my question is answered in college science classes, but I think this is because he misunderstands the question. He thought I was disputing evolution in general, but there was a reason I was referring to specific mutations: these strongly imply intelligent design. EA does this all the time. He misrepresnts, either intentionally or not, and then proceeds to use his misunderstanding as a basis to declare his opponent ignorant. Posioning the well is usually his first step in any debate.
So why did I talk about birds and not trees? Because this species poses a problem for scientists hoping to explain the development of flight via natural selection, adaptation, ecological pessures, etc. The growth of wings suggests teleological design. These mutations supposedly took thousands of years to take place so during this transition there had to be an "end"(flight) that was known for these "means" (gradual growth of wings) to occur.
EA apparently didn't understand my point and read the article in question or else he would have realized it proved my point. It essentialy stated that scientists have not the foggiest idea how wings first emerged or why, and even worse, the fossil record does not support the popular theories. Don't believe me? Go read it yourself.
The biologist Steve Vogel explained via analogy that,"Nature in effect must transmute a motorcycle into an automobile
while providing continuous transportation." I found this citation the other day and it pretty much dovetailed with my previous argument. How could creatures evolve from crawling to flying ones while traveling efficiently? How could they do so without intelligent guidance and how would that have benefited them when their evolution would have left them vulnerable to predators? Nothing flies without first understanding and complying with the law of aerodynamics. Did mutating genes learn these laws and comply accordingly? Is that the source of intelligence? Either way, intelligence had to be involved at some point in the process. What ecological pressures could possibly force something to seek refuge in the skies in order to survive? Evolution doesn't even begin to answer these questions. But
guided evolution explains everything.
Stephen Jay Gould once said, "Our inability,
even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediaries in many cases has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Apparently, Dawkins didn't get the memo.
Dart refuses to answer
Antishock, do I really need to go look up all the threads where this has been addressed?
Here is
one, but I know there are pleny others.
I know for a fact that I discussed this with CK for the first time about a year ago. Later I did so with EA, the Dude, Tarski, and others. The only quality I can attribute to God is that it/he/she is an intelligent force, because that is where the evidence leads. If the evidence later suggests it is a man of plasma floating on a throne around Uranus, then I'd be happy to plug that into a scientific model. But so far the evidence doesn't suggest it, so I feel no reason to attribute anthropomorphic qualities whatsoever. Unlike so many atheists, I do not go beyond the evidence.
What is my "ontological explanaton" for the universe? Put it this way,
there is absolutely nothing that science has proved about the universe that I disagree with. If you think I should, then take your best shot. Tell me what cosmological facts must be at odds with my acceptance of God. Just one.
The Big Bang suits me just fine. What you have to explain is why an atheist who accepts the big bang isn't obligated to explain where matter came from, yet a theist must. This is the kind of special pleading one finds throughout Dawkins.
Do I believe Jesus Christ existed? Yes I do. That doesn't make me a Christian anyore than believing Muhammad existed makes me a Muslim. Just because have proved idiots like Bill Maher have flat out lied about Jesus, doesn't make me a Chrristian. It just means I'm someone who respects the truth, even if others don't. By the way, I noticed you've used Robert Spencer's work on numerous occassions. Far more than I have ever referenced Vox Day (once!). I guess following you're own logic, you must be "stealth Catholic." Say it ain't so antishock. Say it ain't so!
Your statements are not grounded in any understanding of Popper, philosophy of science, atheism, or as best I can tell, anything.
What exactly did I say that was wrong? That atheists have used Popper's distinction of science/nonscience to argue against God? This is established fact and you haven't even begun to prove otherwise. Again, all one has to do is read through the ubiquitous examples on this forum, as well as those appearing on MAD. You're just pulling the usual EA stunt by declaring I have no understanding of XYZ because I argued something I never really argued. It is almost as if you immediately begin with every response, assuming I don't know anything, and then you proceed to reinterpret what I said in the most twisted way to accomodate that premise. You should really abandon this gambit because I've always been here to correct your straw man, and ultimately it reflects poorly on you. Though in the short run, I suppose it might give you and your buddies here a temporary rush of superiorority, making it all worth it. This is usually the case for ego junkies. I suggest rehab, because it would make these discussions much more civil and productive.
As far as what you are saying now, indeed the lack of explanatory power is the chief problem for the type of design arguments you want to make and other ones to
But God explains far more than you're willing to concede. It explained plenty for Einstein as it does for me. The evidence strongly points towards an intelligent source for so many of the universal phenomena that manifest themselves here on earth as well as in the cosmos. On earth the strongest evidence for me is consciousness and guided evolution. In space we know that the universe appears to have been a put up job. All teh laws are mathematicaly intwined which suggests teleology.
There has to have been an intelligence behind so many of these things that cannot be explained in the pradigm of materialism. You avoid this fact with the usual diversions, making the God hypothesis appear to create more trouble than its worth, as if the hypothesis raises more questions than it answers. This is just a Dawkins ploy that ignores the fact that these questions exist already. It is very much like the Mormon apologetic that asks a gazillion questions about the Book of Abraham papyri, making it all too much trouble to get into so they dismiss it on those grounds.
What existed before the big bang? Where did matter come from? How did life originate from dead matter? You take solace in the "we don't know," but theists can't? These questions already exist, it is just that those in the pious followers in the religion of materialism accept on blind faith that some day their priests in labcoats will be able to provide answers. It isn't based on evidence, and it sure as hell isn't science. It is a materialistic paradigm driving permitted assumptions while excluding others.
That's just a fancy way of saying it doesn't effectively explain anything because it lacks traits of good explanations.
I guess here is the part where you go read a scientific basis in some journal for what must count as traits for "good" explanations? This is your problem. Your mind is so closed because you've limited yourself to particular scientific paradigm developed by people who propose things and then let the most popular idea flourish. When the most popular one manifests itself, you declare it absolute law and let it drive your conclusions in everything. Scientific paradigms have changed over time, and you as an atheist are picking the parts of various ones that appeal to your brand of radical atheism. But real scientists generally know there is nothing unreasonable about assuming the existence of God. Remember Hawking! I've demonstrated this on numerous occassions, and yet you consistently ignore the citations I present, and instead wait for the slight mention of someone you can actually attack, like Vox Day and start attacking him on positions I never even agreed with. Good grief!
But that doesn't rest on Popperian falsificationism. Heck, the idea that falsifiability is a desirable trait of empirical explanations for things doesn't rest on falsificationism.
See what I mean? Totally misrepresent what I said. I'm not talking about what is generally "desirable." I don't pretend to know the desires of thousands of atheists, even if you do.
You missed the point, which is this: the idea that one argument is science and another is not science,
rests upon Popper's criterion of demarcation. Atheists here don't complain because the God theory isn't "desirable" to them. They complain because they say it isn't
science therefore it can't be true. By what standard do they argue it isn't science? By appealing to Popper's philosophy, whether or not they even realize it derives from Popper - some do, some apparently don't. You've done nothing to prove me wrong and you certainly haven't shown that I misunderstand Popper. The only way you can pretend to do so is by misrepresenting what I've argued. I guess some things never change.
To wit, explanatory power is a notion accepted by the vast majority of philosophers of science, whereas Popper is not.
Popper is a notion? You're weren't clear on this point.
You can't reject the notion of explanatory power by pointing out that some of Popper's ideas fail.
Too bad for you, I haven't rejected the notion of explanatory power. I believe it can be helpful sure. In fact, I believe God explains far more than any alternative theory favored by atheists. I simply pointed out that this is another aspect of Popper's philosophy of science, which atheists have adopted. They simply assert that God explains nothing, therefore it isn't science, and therefore it isn't true.
This is a non sequitur. Aside from the fact that truth is not only determined by science, "explanatory power" is just nother way of referring to persuasiveness, and clearly this has proved persuasive to many highly intelligent, former atheists (Einsten and Flew still haven't been dealt with). One theory has more explanatory power than another only, "if it offers a better metaphor, it if
accounts for most if not all the known data in a more persuasive way." (
Evaluating Scientific Evidence, p.46)
The multiplicity of universal constants that share the common denomintor value that they are necesary for life on earth, and that they are clearly tied together mathematically, has teleology written all over it, and is therefore best explained with the hypothesis of a superior intelligence responsible for writing these laws. This takes in more evidence than the atheistic approach, which is to just ignore these evidences and say its just the way they are as a result of a random universe. Talk about explaining
nothing!
Having said this, the usage of explanatory power varies in science, from scientist to scientist, from field to field. It isn't the universal standard for determining truth as presented by atheists on these forums:
While an oceanographer suggested that, "Almost everything comes down to explanatory power," a planetary scientists indicated that, "I see more of the opposite -- models tend to be very specific to the task at hand." A geologist noted that both approaches were used within that field. In this case, he suggested that the
use of explanatory power was largely a matter of personal choice: "This varies widely. Some people only want to explain their data or the regions they study without much concern for generalizing. Others think that developing models that explain only one area with no applicability anywhere else in the world is a waste of time." It didn't get any better as the field shifted from the core sciences to engineering, math, and computer science. A mathematician indicated that explanatory power isn't actually used in his field, which favors "relevance," or the ability to solve problems or provide further understanding of the formal system by which mathematics operates. He did note, however, that mathematicians engage in a similar process of testing the limits at which something can be generalized. One engineer noted that, "A lot of value is given to explanatory power," while a second claimed, "Very little is focused here." -
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science ... /9/16/5315
When I get back in town I will start a thread in celestial addressing antishock's questions in further detail, so it will be an easy reference point for future requests. It really gets old having to explain myself so many times, but what really gets old is the accusatons leveled against me for being a "stealth christian" or what not.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein