tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6676764127245527834..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The "no evidence" chargeVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9972290444055534462011-07-06T10:50:04.912-07:002011-07-06T10:50:04.912-07:00AD: "You were ready to bail long before you a...AD: "You were ready to bail long before you accused me of loosing my cool. But I admit to losing my cool; tend to do that alot and I apologize."<br /><br />I think my comments were fairly placid before you began commenting here. But I've been caustic on occasions before, so I am willing to forgive anyone their commenting transgressions that rise to the level of rudeness I've displayed in the past. You're certainly under that threshold here, so no worries."<br /><br />AD: "Your reasons for being "about done" earlier were apparently that you weren't learning about anything new, or thinking about anything in a "new way"."<br /><br />I meant that. I do not think of you as my teacher nor my student, but (unlike some here) your comments often appear to be worth engaging. But like all of us, I do not have unlimited time and energy, and when the discussion seems unlikely to produce any new or original thinking on my part I've learned to move on.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83272248942668359732011-07-06T10:49:50.808-07:002011-07-06T10:49:50.808-07:00AD: " Whether or not you want to call it &quo...AD: " Whether or not you want to call it "theorizing", the Philosophy of Religion has 1000s of yrs worth of argument and debate regarding the existence of God to consider."<br /><br />True. But the topic here was about evidence, not about (logical) arguments and a history of debates. The title of this post is, "The No Evidence Charge." And you have already quoted me stating, (Me): " …theistic theories should offer us some kind of predictions, and it seems like that's the where we should find evidence for God." <br /><br />Ad: "We can examine the claims of either side by reading their books and considering them. The existence of God is a proper subject of study in this field. In science, it is not. Is this news?"<br /><br />Is it news to you that I am arguing that the claims made by theists do not appear to make use of evidence? It seems from the statement above that you agree with me, in which case I am not sure what argument you are making.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44546323050135172932011-07-06T10:49:32.246-07:002011-07-06T10:49:32.246-07:00AD: "I'd like to see you get more specifi...AD: "I'd like to see you get more specific on what "necessary" means here - necessary as a metaphysical/philosophical framework, an historical precursor, etc. - and then provide evidence that Jaki and "many" other historians/apologists are making this argument."<br /><br />I've already mentioned that I thought this would be a diversion from the main topic. Why do you disagree?<br /><br />Other historians/apologists equal: James Hannam, Rodney Stark, and many lesser lights (apologists) I've encountered on blogs like this one. It seems foolish for you to claim ignorance of this kind of claim, as I've encountered it so often in one form or another on sites like this.<br /><br />Regarding the kind of argument Jaki makes, he writes this: "Once more the Christian belief in the Creator allowed a break-through in thinking about nature. Only a truly transcendental Creator could be thought of as being powerful enough to create a nature with autonomous laws without his power over nature being thereby diminished. Once the basic among those laws were formulated science could develop on its own terms."<br /><br />I believe the wording there is clear enough to answer your question above.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6485326700403953122011-07-06T10:49:12.627-07:002011-07-06T10:49:12.627-07:00Me: "Of course, any scientific theory (a prod...Me: "Of course, any scientific theory (a product of naturalism) makes predictions, so while naturalism makes no predictions theories based on it do."<br /><br />AD: " Obviously if scientific theory is a product of naturalism and theories are based on naturalism, then "scientific theory depends on naturalism or theism actually being true."<br /><br />I don’t follow you here. For instance, one might say that the Night of the Long Knives in prewar Germany was a product of anti-semitism. That does not mean that the Night of the Long Knives was dependent on anti-semitism being true.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40743417384551106072011-07-02T18:01:14.309-07:002011-07-02T18:01:14.309-07:00AD: “No scientific theory depends on naturalism or...AD: “No scientific theory depends on naturalism or theism actually being true. You have asserted this, but haven't argued it.”<br /><br />TH: Whaaa? I asserted this where? Please quote me.<br /><br />AD: I already did quote you on this. You wrote:<br /><br />""Of course, any scientific theory (a product of naturalism) makes predictions, so while naturalism makes no predictions theories based on it do.""<br /><br />Obviously if scientific theory is a product of naturalism and theories are based on naturalism, then "scientific theory depends on naturalism or theism actually being true." <br /><br />TH: So what theories can we devise that are not “intentionally devised to bracket the issue of whether or not God exists,” and how can we examine their claims?<br /><br />AD: Whether or not you want to call it "theorizing", the Philosophy of Religion has 1000s of yrs worth of argument and debate regarding the existence of God to consider. We can examine the claims of either side by reading their books and considering them. The existence of God is a proper subject of study in this field. In science, it is not. Is this news?Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48812359886512222632011-07-02T17:53:53.951-07:002011-07-02T17:53:53.951-07:00TH: Of course, by also writing this in the paragra...TH: Of course, by also writing this in the paragraph above “Firstly, no one said theism was necessary to science.” you are making a histrionic statement, for clearly many historians and apologists (Jakie et al.) have made this argument, and it’s a frequent topic in apologetics.<br /><br />AD: I'd like to see you get more specific on what "necessary" means here - necessary as a metaphysical/philosophical framework, an historical precursor, etc. - and then provide evidence that Jaki and "many" other historians/apologists are making this argument.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19037137723886855882011-07-02T17:51:31.614-07:002011-07-02T17:51:31.614-07:00TH: I mentioned that I was familiar with the notio...TH: I mentioned that I was familiar with the notion and that it was a diversion from our conversation, but I did not attribute it to you, or even say that that was your position. In other words, you accuse me of poor reading comprehension by, wait for it, miscomprehending what I wrote. <br /><br />AD: Seemed an odd thing to bring up in response to me on the relationship of science and religion/theism if it wasn't really in response to me, but I'll grant that that wasn't your intention if you say so. <br /><br />TH: for clearly many historians and apologists (Jakie et al.) have made this argument, and it’s a frequent topic in apologetics.<br /><br />AD: Jaki argues for the historical significance of Christianity with regards to the birth of science, not theism in general.<br /><br />You were ready to bail long before you accused me of loosing my cool. But I admit to losing my cool; tend to do that alot and I apologize. Your reasons for being "about done" earlier were apparently that you weren't learning about anything new, or thinking about anything in a "new way". <br /><br />You don't need to list your reasons, or change them. If you don't want to discuss these matters, you're obviously free to stop blogging.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9708170195778427232011-07-02T11:13:41.893-07:002011-07-02T11:13:41.893-07:00TH: “And I think the notion that theism is necessa...TH: “And I think the notion that theism is necessary to science is laughable, but I don’t want to divert from this point.”<br /><br />AD: “What's laughable is your reading comprehension. Not only are you putting words in my mouth, but you apparently are unaware of your own. Let's get it straight. Firstly, no one said theism was necessary to science. Secondly, you claimed naturalism is.”<br /><br />Wow. I think we’re done here. Here’s why:<br /><br />You accuse me of having trouble with reading comprehension, claiming that when I wrote “...I think the notion that theism is necessary to science is laughable,” I put words in your mouth. But notice from my quote above, I did not say “You (or AD, or Alex Dalton, etc.) have asserted that theism is necessary to science.” I mentioned that I was familiar with the notion and that it was a diversion from our conversation, but I did not attribute it to you, or even say that that was your position. In other words, you accuse me of poor reading comprehension by, wait for it, miscomprehending what I wrote. <br /><br />The term for this is ironic. It’s also typical of a kind of psychological projection I see in discussions that devolve as this one has. And it’s also (from my experience) typical sign that you are letting your emotions get the best of you. Which is too bad, because I thought you started out promisingly enough, willing to construct and compare arguments. <br /><br />Of course, by also writing this in the paragraph above “Firstly, no one said theism was necessary to science.” you are making a histrionic statement, for clearly many historians and apologists (Jakie et al.) have made this argument, and it’s a frequent topic in apologetics. So again, you are simply making a false statement in the paragraph above (the first being that I put words in your mouth; clearly, I did not.)<br /><br />And then you wrap it up by claiming that I said that, “Secondly, you claimed that naturalism is [necessary to science]” But I did not say this in our comments here. Which is either a misrepresentation or a failure of reading comprehension on your part. <br /><br />I could go through the rest of your comments, but I’m done here. In my experience, when a commenter becomes unhinged in the ways I detailed above the discussion is past the point of saving.<br /><br />Cheers.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16619742529512174802011-07-02T10:53:44.299-07:002011-07-02T10:53:44.299-07:00TH: “If we add God and nothing changes, then, by o...TH: “If we add God and nothing changes, then, by one of the principles of good science (parsimony), God is not necessary to that theory. Are you denying this?” <br /><br />AD: “LOL, yes of course I agree that adding God to a theory, that was originally intentionally devised to bracket the issue of whether or not God exists, without effect, would show that God was not necessary to the theory. But we knew that from the beginning.”<br /><br />LOL as well.<br /><br />So what theories can we devise that are not “intentionally devised to bracket the issue of whether or not God exists,” and how can we examine their claims?Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79961114824417837992011-07-02T10:44:11.736-07:002011-07-02T10:44:11.736-07:00AD: “No scientific theory depends on naturalism or...AD: “No scientific theory depends on naturalism or theism actually being true. You have asserted this, but haven't argued it.”<br /><br />Whaaa? I asserted this where? Please quote me.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10538931038414783332011-07-02T07:25:46.783-07:002011-07-02T07:25:46.783-07:00AD: "You should take more time when you read ...<b>AD:</b> "<i>You should take more time when you read peoples' posts and stop jumping right to demanding evidence for God.</i>"<br /><br />At the same time, this foolish and dishonest person whom you were addressing already *has* the irrefutable evidence that God is: and that evidence is himself; that he is a self and a rational mind. <br /><br />That there are selves and rational minds living in this material/physical universe is not only inexplicable on the presumption of atheism, but is logically contrary to atheism. Therefore, atheism is seen to be false. Therefore, it is seen that God is.<br /><br />The reality of the human self is the very sort thing these people demand as the only evidence for God that is admissible. And how do they deal with the evidence? Why, they wave their hands and declare either:<br />1) that there are no selves, there is no consciousness, there are no minds; it's all an illusion;<br />2) that minds and the perception of selfhood "emerge" from neurological activity -- that the mind is just a buzzing in the brain -- BUT, this is just a different way of phrasing 1) above.<br /><br />These so-called atheists, to maintain their God-denial, are reduced to denying that they themselves exist -- just as John Donne said they must, when he said, centuries ago: "<i>He must pull out his own eyes, and see no creature, before he can say, he sees no God; He must be no man, and quench his reasonable soul, before he can say to himself, there is no God.</i>"<br /><br />Helping the fence-sitters see that this is where God-denial *must* end can only be a good thing.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21622188407771270422011-07-02T07:10:32.158-07:002011-07-02T07:10:32.158-07:00AD,
As you're noticing, it's just about im...AD,<br />As you're noticing, it's just about impossible to have a rational discussion (or argument, if one prefers that word) with most internet-atheists. And, in fact, with most of them, due to their behavior, specifically their intellectual dishonesty, it is logically impossible to have that discussion.<br /><br />The best one can hope to do with most of these internet-atheists is to point to them, and identify the illogic and irrationality (and dishonesty, when applicable) of their "arguments" for the sake of the fence-sitters and "wobbly theists".Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39083952318822389042011-07-01T21:09:32.326-07:002011-07-01T21:09:32.326-07:00TH: I think I’m about done here. Unless you want t...TH: I think I’m about done here. Unless you want to want to make a positive case that there is something like a hypothesis for God that could call evidence on its behalf, I think we’re at the point of diminishing returns; I’ve heard all of this before, and I’m learning that when I stop learning new things or thinking about things in new ways it’s more efficient to move on.<br /><br />AD: You should take more time when you read peoples' posts and stop jumping right to demanding evidence for God. The topic at hand is what kind of predictions we can expect from theism, and particular brands of theism. If you want to discuss that, I'm fine to do that, but please stop misconstruing this conversation as an actual argument for the existence of God. We're arguing about whether or not theism(s) make predictions at the moment. That discussion would be prior to arguing about whether or not such predictions are confirmed. Let me know if you can see the difference. I myself am getting weary of the typically impatient/immature skeptical "show me proof of God right now or I'm gone!!!", which it looks like you are descending into.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29785498502545267202011-07-01T21:04:13.947-07:002011-07-01T21:04:13.947-07:00TH: So, the attributes of man should be congruent ...TH: So, the attributes of man should be congruent with God because man was made in God’s image (which is another way of saying that man has attributes that are congruent with God). This kind of argument is normally called begging the question.<br /><br />AD: LOL, no. <br /><br />If Christianity is true, then we should see some aspect of man that is congruent with the concept of divine personhood. I never actually said man *has* those attributes, or *assumed* that he does, *because* he was made in God's image. Once again, you fail to distinguish between a prediction and an argument. Basic reading comprehension here.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17545940372847172512011-07-01T21:01:07.261-07:002011-07-01T21:01:07.261-07:00TH: Which makes it not so valuable as a prediction...TH: Which makes it not so valuable as a prediction now, doesn’t it? <br /><br />AD: Um, only if we assumed that evolution was somehow not capable of being a means by which a god might bring about our existence.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85243296289898906762011-07-01T20:59:30.523-07:002011-07-01T20:59:30.523-07:00AD: “If God created the world (I should say *unive...AD: “If God created the world (I should say *universe* here as that is what I meant) to be inhabited by man, "the world should in some sense appear to be made for man."<br /><br />TH: But this isn’t a prediction that differs from a world in which God does not exist, as the fact of our existence indicates that the world is in some way made for us. And black holes, and everything else that’s in our world. This appears to be an observation trying to pass itself off as a prediction.<br /><br />AD: Note that I made no claims about the actual world. You are making that claim and begging the question. I'm simply talking about what we should observe, *if* the world were made by God. You don't seem to understand the difference between a prediction and claims that a prediction is confirmed by some state of affairs. And to assert that "the fact of our existence indicates that the world is in some way made for us" only satisfies the prediction by abusing the English language. On naturalism, the world would not "be made for us" which clearly indicates intention/purpose/forethought. We would simply be adapted to the way the world is. Big difference.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58375894612915087632011-07-01T20:51:25.556-07:002011-07-01T20:51:25.556-07:00TH: And I think the notion that theism is necessar...TH: And I think the notion that theism is necessary to science is laughable, but I don’t want to divert from this point.<br /><br />AD: What's laughable is your reading comprehension. Not only are you putting words in my mouth, but you apparently are unaware of your own. Let's get it straight. Firstly, no one said theism was necessary to science. Secondly, you claimed naturalism is. You wrote:<br /><br />"Of course, any scientific theory (a product of naturalism) makes predictions, so while naturalism makes no predictions theories based on it do."<br /><br />Here's a laughable claim - that *the* scientific theory is a "product of naturalism". But putting that aside, basically, here you are asserting that individual theories are based on naturalism. I challenged you to name such a theory and demonstrate such dependence on the truth of naturalism, and you failed to do that, but then changed your claim. You wrote:<br /><br />"Every theory is based on the fact that God, or spirits, or something non-natural is not necessary."<br /><br />Well, of course, no theory in science is based on this either. That's just a freethinker bumper-sticker, that comes from misappropriating the irrelevant comments of a religious scientist. But this is actually now a new claim - do you realize this? How about supporting your first claim, first?Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23787529005660041422011-07-01T20:41:26.179-07:002011-07-01T20:41:26.179-07:00TH: Then you agree that the existence of God is me...TH: Then you agree that the existence of God is meaningless to scientific theories? <br /><br />AD: The *philosophical* and metaphysical issues of naturalism and theism are bracketed out of science, for good reason - scientists aren't trained to deal with them. Many theistic scientists past and present see theism as providing the framework and impetus for their research though, and many also see certain aspects of science as confirming theism. No scientific theory depends on naturalism or theism actually being true. You have asserted this, but haven't argued it. <br /><br />TH: If we add God and nothing changes, then, by one of the principles of good science (parsimony), God is not necessary to that theory. Are you denying this? <br /><br />AD: LOL, yes of course I agree that adding God to a theory, that was originally intentionally devised to bracket the issue of whether or not God exists, without effect, would show that God was not necessary to the theory. But we knew that from the beginning.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45665287671055102052011-07-01T20:14:27.016-07:002011-07-01T20:14:27.016-07:00AD: “Again, name a scientific theory that would be...AD: “Again, name a scientific theory that would be different if we posited the bare existence of a deity.”<br /><br />Then you agree that the existence of God is meaningless to scientific theories? If we add God and nothing changes, then, by one of the principles of good science (parsimony), God is not necessary to that theory. Are you denying this? <br /><br />“I never said theism was *necessary* to anything. I was responding to your question that "So if we are to approach the world form a theistic understanding instead (as well?), what sort of explanations and predictions would we then encounter?". We already know the answer to this. We've seen it in the history of modern science. Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon (aka "the father of the scientific method"), Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, etc. all approached the world from a theistic understanding, and we see that they created and carried modern science to great heights.”<br /><br />I think you misunderstand my question. I am not saying that theism is a hindrance to science – clearly, many good scientists have been theists. But many have been men, and many have had beards, and many have been Hungarian, and... you get the picture. (And I think the notion that theism is necessary to science is laughable, but I don’t want to divert from this point.) The question is, If God is added to any scientific theory (and you are free to show me where God is part of a scientfic theory – right now, I haven’t seen you mention that), what would change? Please just answer this question.<br /><br />AD: “If God created the world (I should say *universe* here as that is what I meant) to be inhabited by man, "the world should in some sense appear to be made for man."<br /><br />But this isn’t a prediction that differs from a world in which God does not exist, as the fact of our existence indicates that the world is in some way made for us. And black holes, and everything else that’s in our world. This appears to be an observation trying to pass itself off as a prediction.<br /><br />AD: “And this doesn't bar out an evolutionary explanation of origins in any way.”<br /><br />Which makes it not so valuable as a prediction now, doesn’t it? <br /><br />AD: “As for 3., how can a prediction beg a question?”<br /><br />Really? If I were to predict that tomorrow will unfold in exactly the way that it should, I haven’t really made a prediction – I’ve just restated that events will occur, and called that a prediction. <br /><br />AD: “...man should appear to have certain attributes that are congruent with the attributes of God (note: I'm speaking of the concept of God here), etc. " Wouldn't that be the case, *if* man were made in God's image?" <br /><br />So, the attributes of man should be congruent with God because man was made in God’s image (which is another way of saying that man has attributes that are congruent with God). This kind of argument is normally called begging the question.<br /><br />I think I’m about done here. Unless you want to want to make a positive case that there is something like a hypothesis for God that could call evidence on its behalf, I think we’re at the point of diminishing returns; I’ve heard all of this before, and I’m learning that when I stop learning new things or thinking about things in new ways it’s more efficient to move on.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29015544144575299812011-07-01T16:50:49.500-07:002011-07-01T16:50:49.500-07:00TH: I think one is maybe the best case for a Chris...TH: I think one is maybe the best case for a Christian prediction. It may still be wrong. Unfortunately, other religions "predict" that the universe had a beginning, but most importantly the universe having a beginning is not evidence, per se, for a theistic God, nor the Christian one.<br /><br />AD: We were discussing whether or not theistic understandings make any predictions, and I'm not sure how its relevant that another religion predicts this as well. It doesn't really argue against a particular religion actually making certain predictions to point that out. I think there's plenty of evidence but that is not exactly the topic either.<br /><br />TH: 2 and 3 don't seem to be predictions at all. I think the first is an observation that's better explained by Evolution (which does make real, testable predictions), and 3 just seems to beg the question.<br /><br />AD: 2. as a prediction seems to work quite well. If God created the world (I should say *universe* here as that is what I meant) to be inhabited by man, "the world should in some sense appear to be made for man." And this doesn't bar out an evolutionary explanation of origins in any way. As for 3., how can a prediction beg a question? I'm not making an argument. I wrote "man should appear to have certain attributes that are congruent with the attributes of God (note: I'm speaking of the concept of God here), etc." Wouldn't that be the case, *if* man were made in God's image? That is what I'm saying, ON Christian theism, 3. would seem to be predicted. I am not arguing that man indeed *does* have attributes traditionally associated with the concept of the Christian God. Indeed, many naturalists would deny this. However, it should be true, if Christianity is true.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27889414550118614652011-07-01T16:41:27.984-07:002011-07-01T16:41:27.984-07:00TH: Every theory is based on the fact that God, or...TH: Every theory is based on the fact that God, or spirits, or something non-natural is not necessary. As they story goes, we "have no need for them in our hypotheses." <br /><br />AD: No scientific theory is based on this; it is not even a topic of discussion amongst scientists. Quoting an anecdote from Laplace, who was actually religious, doesn't tell us anything about the philosophical foundation of scientific theories. Again, name a scientific theory that would be different if we posited the bare existence of a deity.<br /><br />TH: And others who are not theists did as well. It's unremarkable that men who helped us emerge from a more superstitious time were inculcated in the culture in which they grew up. But most importantly, if theism was essential to their theories, why do none of their theories rely on the existence of a God? Where is God in their hypotheses?<br /><br />AD: You could say atheists are inculcated in the culture they grew up in as well. That's not really an argument. And its also beside the point. I never said theism was *necessary* to anything. I was responding to your question that "So if we are to approach the world form a theistic understanding instead (as well?), what sort of explanations and predictions would we then encounter?". We already know the answer to this. We've seen it in the history of modern science. Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon (aka "the father of the scientific method"), Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Kelvin, Planck, etc. all approached the world from a theistic understanding, and we see that they created and carried modern science to great heights.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44498477200921626032011-07-01T06:04:22.165-07:002011-07-01T06:04:22.165-07:00AD: "What theories are based on naturalism in...AD: "What theories are based on naturalism in any relevant way? By that I mean - name a theory that would be any different, were it the case that God or spirits, or something non-natural, existed."<br /><br />Every theory is based on the fact that God, or spirits, or something non-natural is not necessary. As they story goes, we "have no need for them in our hypotheses." Theories do not account for things that don't make a difference; they account for the fewest things that do.<br /><br />AD: "Plenty of scientists, and many of the greatest scientists - Kepler, Copernicus, Netwon, etc. - gave us some of our greatest and most revolutionary scientific theories, which they felt were very much grounded in their theistic worldview, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about here."<br /><br />And others who are not theists did as well. It's unremarkable that men who helped us emerge from a more superstitious time were inculcated in the culture in which they grew up. But most importantly, if theism was essential to their theories, why do none of their theories rely on the existence of a God? Where is God in their hypotheses?<br /><br />AD: "But Christian theism would predict things like 1. the universe should appear to have a beginning 2. the world should in some sense appear to be made for man 3. man should appear to have certain attributes that are congruent with the attributes of God, etc. And all of these obviously are confirmed according to most Christian theists."<br /><br />I think one is maybe the best case for a Christian prediction. It may still be wrong. Unfortunately, other religions "predict" that the universe had a beginning, but most importantly the universe having a beginning is not evidence, per se, for a theistic God, nor the Christian one.<br /><br />2 and 3 don't seem to be predictions at all. I think the first is an observation that's better explained by Evolution (which does make real, testable predictions), and 3 just seems to beg the question.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48008996521847481912011-06-30T20:38:22.989-07:002011-06-30T20:38:22.989-07:00TH: Of course, any scientific theory (a product of...TH: Of course, any scientific theory (a product of naturalism) makes predictions, so while naturalism makes no predictions theories based on it do. <br /><br />Alex: What theories are based on naturalism in any relevant way? By that I mean - name a theory that would be any different, were it the case that God or spirits, or something non-natural, existed.<br /><br />So if we are to approach the world form a theistic understanding instead (as well?), what sort of explanations and predictions would we then encounter? Those theistic theories should offer us some kind of predictions, and it seems like that's the where we should find evidence for God.<br /><br />Alex: Plenty of scientists, and many of the greatest scientists - Kepler, Copernicus, Netwon, etc. - gave us some of our greatest and most revolutionary scientific theories, which they felt were very much grounded in their theistic worldview, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about here. But Christian theism would predict things like 1. the universe should appear to have a beginning 2. the world should in some sense appear to be made for man 3. man should appear to have certain attributes that are congruent with the attributes of God, etc. And all of these obviously are confirmed according to most Christian theists.Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68143342731735843832011-06-29T10:04:49.350-07:002011-06-29T10:04:49.350-07:00AD: "AD: What predictions does naturalism mak...AD: "AD: What predictions does naturalism make?"<br /><br />That's my point -- terms like naturalism and theism don't seem like explanation per se. <br /><br />Of course, any scientific theory (a product of naturalism) makes predictions, so while naturalism makes no predictions theories based on it do. So if we are to approach the world form a theistic understanding instead (as well?), what sort of explanations and predictions would we then encounter? Those theistic theories should offer us some kind of predictions, and it seems like that's the where we should find evidence for God.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87935555135551095622011-06-28T20:25:43.036-07:002011-06-28T20:25:43.036-07:00TH: And by that I mean that evidence for a God exp...TH: And by that I mean that evidence for a God explanation, that does not at least involve something like prediction, seems doomed to a toothless exercise in semantics.<br /><br />AD: What predictions does naturalism make?Alex Daltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826568465831489492noreply@blogger.com