Bloggist plagiarizes me

[_Sethbag]

CypressChristian: if we assumed that "God did it" was the explanation for how things are in the universe, how would you explain God? You couldn't, could you? As EAllusion says, you've just replaced one "problem" with an even greater problem.

Sure, the universe is grand and all, but it's far easier to comprehend how this universe could have just existed because it exists, than that there's this infinitely wise old man somewhere with infinite magical powers who can do anything he wants, who created this entire universe 14 or 15 billion years ago, with billions of galaxies containing billions of stars each, black holes, supernovas, all the rest, just so that you and I could be sitting here in our respective man-caves arguing about it on the Internets.

[_Roger Morrison]

Cyp...C, my thoughts are in Seth's bag. I get the impression that you think it impossible/improbable that a person not declaring themselves to be Christian could be correct in this discussion? That an Atheist, simply by that fact, cannot arrive at universal truth??? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Roger

[_EAllusion]

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.

[_Gadianton]

You can't empirically test a statement like "nature is uniform" at all, because empirical tests already presuppose the truth of that premise. An empirical test, then, would just beg the question.

And EA sinks CypressChristian's battleship. I have my doubts we'll hear from Cypress again after this one.

[_The Dude]

Christians say: the order of the universe is evidence of God.

So without God, the universe would look disordered? What would a disordered universe look like? Can someone please help me imagine the universe that is implied by this piece of so-called evidence for God.

[_CypressChristian]

EAllusion

"You can't empirically test a statement like "nature is uniform" at all, because empirical tests already presuppose the truth of that premise. An empirical test, then, would just beg the question."

If you would reread my post, you would see that I would agree with this statement, in fact, this is exactly what I have already said. That was the point of bringing in the metaphysics.

"one response to this part of the problem of induction is simply to say that we must act as though nature is uniform - regardless of whether it is - because that is the only way rational discourse can take place."

I'm not saying any differently, I agree with this.

""God's nature is uniform because, well, because it is and the rest of existence is uniform because he chooses to make it so." Not only have you still failed to explain anything, but you've also smuggled your brute fact about the uniformity of nature into a more complex set of claims concerning the existence of a powerful, good, knowledgeable, etc. deity."

Here's the issue, very clearly: We are doing a worldview comparison. That is all. The question at hand is "What worldview explains the uniformity of nature?" My worldview is that a lawful, rational God created the universe and created it with universal, immaterial and absolute laws that govern nature, making it uniform. This explains the apparent uniformity we see around us. 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.

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.

[_CypressChristian]

Sethbag

"There are plenty of reasons to believe the universe operates uniformly, and no good reasons to suppose it does not."

As my previous post said, and as I explained further to EA, I know that our entire sense experience (observations, tests etc) tell us that nature is uniform. I agree with you Seth.

"if we assumed that "God did it" was the explanation for how things are in the universe, how would you explain God? You couldn't, could you? As EAllusion says, you've just replaced one "problem" with an even greater problem."

Two problems
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?
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? 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.

I'll do the same in your direction Seth. Explain to me how the universe formed itself.

[_CypressChristian]

Roger

"I get the impression that you think it impossible/improbable that a person not declaring themselves to be Christian could be correct in this discussion? That an Atheist, simply by that fact, cannot arrive at universal truth???"

I was under the impression that, to the atheist, universal truth didn't exist. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[_CypressChristian]

Dude

"So without God, the universe would look disordered? What would a disordered universe look like? Can someone please help me imagine the universe that is implied by this piece of so-called evidence for God."

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?

[_The Dude]

Dude

"So without God, the universe would look disordered? What would a disordered universe look like? Can someone please help me imagine the universe that is implied by this piece of so-called evidence for God."

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?

I can't imagine it and maybe you can help to examine the implied disordered universe that underlies this frequenly used "argument from order".

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.

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?

Where exactly do you get the idea that there was a metamoprhosis from chance (no natural laws?) to order (natural laws?)? Is this a bible-based idea?