tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post9186623025682369301..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Eric Hyde on the no-evidence chargeVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66888683046803804422015-10-07T18:53:54.938-07:002015-10-07T18:53:54.938-07:00Corrected.Corrected.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69518910169343620162015-10-06T07:04:54.506-07:002015-10-06T07:04:54.506-07:00Hey Victor. I'm a big fan of your book so it&#...Hey Victor. I'm a big fan of your book so it's a pleasure to have you post a snippet from my article on your blog. Just one correction, my name is Eric not David. <br /><br />Cheers. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20917967601360416452015-10-02T05:28:51.838-07:002015-10-02T05:28:51.838-07:00VR: "And with some things, the hope of consen...<b>VR:</b> "<i>And with some things, the hope of consensus is pretty slight in the foreseeable future, so we are going to keep disagreeing. I think, for example, that atheists and theists are here to stay for a long time, and the fact that we aren't closing in on agreement does not necessarily mean that one side or the other is just being stubborn or delusional.</i>"<br /><br />When one's position entails that one cannot reason, and indeed that one doesn't even exist, then one is indeed being "stubborn [and] delusional" in holding to it.<br /><br />Being "nice" is all well and fine, but not at the cost of reason or truth.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29618311383085827422015-10-02T05:08:10.034-07:002015-10-02T05:08:10.034-07:001) God's acts are not determined by the laws o...1) God's acts are not determined by the laws of physics.<br /><br />This is the stuff of metaphysic, which I find to be meaningless. If that's the case, I have no comment on this. <br /><br />Unless you mean that god has ever interacted with this world in some way, at which point god's acts MUST be determined, at some point, by the laws of physics. If god speaks from a burning bush, then at some point that fire must burn (or it's not a fire), and at some point that voice must be heard (or it's not a voice). If god parts the red sea, then at some point that water must move (or it's not water), and at some point that water will flow back into a low point (or there's no water, and no gravity), so the only way that god could have an effect on earth is if, at some point, his actions are determined (which really just means "described" here) by the laws of physics.<br /><br />2) God has no location in space and time. <br /><br />God supposedly walked on earth at one point. God supposedly interacted with physical things, and also animals and people, etc. The above could only be orthodox and biblical if the bible doesn't mean what it says. If god was never located on earth at any place and time (which I entirely agree with), then what does the bible even mean to Jews and Christians? <br /><br />3) God's acts have no physical effects. <br /><br />This god might exist, but no one cares about this god. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27734015175196644982015-10-01T21:23:35.331-07:002015-10-01T21:23:35.331-07:00It seems to me that the statement "God is not...It seems to me that the statement "God is not physical" can mean<br /><br />1) God's acts are not determined by the laws of physics.<br />2) God has no location in space and time. <br />3) God's acts have no physical effects. <br /><br />The first true are true, orthodox, and biblical. The third is, of course unorthodox. <br />Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14041046130237411712015-10-01T20:58:00.967-07:002015-10-01T20:58:00.967-07:00Logic,
You and I were apparently thinking along t...Logic,<br /><br />You and I were apparently thinking along the same lines. The natural world is a closed system, and all "empirical evidence" will point only to things within that system. the Creator God is not an element within that system. (How could He be? If He were, He could not have created it.)<br /><br />The Incarnation (the event that Cal seems all hung up upon) is a unique, non-repeatable event within the history of the universe, and by its nature not subject to the laws normally operative within that universe. To fall back upon my (admittedly very imperfect) analogy, the painter has painted himself into the painting. This should not surprise us, as "all things are possible with God" (Luke 1:37).<br /><br />Tbis takes us back to my very first posting to this thread. Rather than repeat myself, I suggest one go back and re-read it. It's quite clear.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80433787020778166122015-10-01T20:31:59.475-07:002015-10-01T20:31:59.475-07:00I would refer you back to my post from Sept. 30 at...I would refer you back to my post from Sept. 30 at 5:43. Perhaps I misunderstood what the OP point was, but I took his "not physical" to mean "not part of the physical universe" (and thus beyond the ability of science to directly detect).<br /><br />I find the topic to be an odd hangup to fixate on.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38869756997358187022015-10-01T18:19:59.704-07:002015-10-01T18:19:59.704-07:00Bayesianism is a mathematical concept, but it is u...Bayesianism is a mathematical concept, but it is used in epistemological contexts. Basically, it is a model of what confirmation is. <br /><br />Though a mathematical triviality, the Theorem's central insight — that a hypothesis is supported by any body of data it renders probable — lies at the heart of all subjectivist approaches to epistemology, statistics, and inductive logic.<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/<br /><br />My overall picture of epistemological justification goes something like this. We all start from different places, and have different initial dispositions with respect to the world as we experience it. Then, we acquire further information. Historically people have tried to pull their model of the world apart and start only from certain basics, and believe only what can be built up from there, but I don't think that's necessary, especially when the people who say we have to do it disagree about what has to be in the base. I think it makes more sense to adjust the beliefs we have as we go along and move incrementally toward consensus as evidence comes in. And with some things, the hope of consensus is pretty slight in the foreseeable future, so we are going to keep disagreeing. I think, for example, that atheists and theists are here to stay for a long time, and the fact that we aren't closing in on agreement does not necessarily mean that one side or the other is just being stubborn or delusional. I would say it's because the issue is too complex and there are too many parameters to it to be sure that we have considered everything, and fairly. It's easy to come up with motives for our opponents, but that in itself proves nothing whatsoever. <br /><br />I believe in God, but there is plenty of disconfirming evidence. It is just that the confirming evidence, all told, outweighs it. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86104365565608851772015-10-01T17:54:05.492-07:002015-10-01T17:54:05.492-07:00Me: "What would make you reconsider your appr...Me: "What would make you reconsider your approach toward what constitutes evidence? If your approach was shown to not be a correct application of Bayes theorem, for instance, would you adopt an approach that did use Bayes theorem correctly?"<br /><br />VR: "Well, to do that you'd have to show me that what I learned from a leading Bayesian theorist was wrong. Were you about to say something like this?"<br /><br />That depends on what you learned from a "leading Bayesian theorist" (whatever that means, as if Bayes theorem was a field of science instead of a mathematical tool). I think that Bayes Theorem is straightforward math, that it's slightly difficult to organize for real world problems (hence the field of statistics, or probability), and that it can be controversial when to use it. I think this is pretty uncontroversial.<br /><br />My question is: if you couldn't justify any, some, or all of the "evidence" you cite as something that could be evaluated using Bayes theorem, would that diminish your belief in the Christian god at all? <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35564669532872691612015-10-01T14:44:11.964-07:002015-10-01T14:44:11.964-07:00I can't be more explicit. My first comment dir...I can't be more explicit. My first comment direct to you gave you this challenge: <br /><br />Legion of Logic: "To anyone with any knowledge of the subject, this obviously means no Christian claims that God is made of matter and energy that are detectable by science. You know, physical stuff. Is that too hard for you to grasp? "<br />Me: "Reconcile your above with the claims of the bible. / Reconcile your above with the Christian claims of miracles." <br /><br />At first you responded, "Miracles are not God, thus claiming miracles indicate a physical deity is just dumb."<br /><br />I chose to ignore that because a) your response seems too vapid to me, and b) you (conveniently) ignore the first part of challenge, where I asked you reconcile your claim that god isn't mad of "physical stuff" with the bible. When people do that I've found that they're not interested in meaningful or thoughtful responses to the challenges I pose. <br /><br />Your response is vapid because we are talking about, per the OP, "physical proof of God’s being in the physical world" and the plain, obvious, fact that Christians cite miracles as evidence that god exists. That this underlying information needs to be explained is almost always a sure sign that you aren't engaging with my challenge. <br /><br />And you skipped my first question. So I surmised that can't rise to the challenge I posed to you in any meaningful way, and that you prefer to complain.<br /><br />God is real all over the bible. He walks around, he talks to people, he sets bushes on fire, parts seas, later on he divide himself and squirts out from Mary, walks around and eats and drinks talks and (presumably) pisses and craps and does everything that physical human beings (are there non-physical ones?) are supposed to do (plus supernatural stuff). The god of the Judeo Christian bible is about as physical as it gets. <br /><br />The OP wants to pretend that the stuff in the bible isn't part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that is because subsequent Christians find it more and more embarrassing that the bible has all these cool stories about god doing really cool, physical stuff in the world, but hasn't been heard from since. <br /><br />So, guys like the one who wrote the OP want to pretend that Jews and Christians never even believed in all that physical, real stuff in the first place. <br /><br />At least that's what it seems like to me. Now do you really need me to phrase the above into a question, and put a question mark at the end, to recognize your challenge, and to muster a meaningful or at least thoughtful response? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16280960030150454422015-10-01T13:01:36.295-07:002015-10-01T13:01:36.295-07:00Haha. I have an irrational hatred of my own typos....Haha. I have an irrational hatred of my own typos. Probably shouldn't type on a phone as quickly as I can.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70235409436134494292015-10-01T12:46:47.405-07:002015-10-01T12:46:47.405-07:00Legion,
In this case, I think "you also was ...Legion,<br /><br />In this case, I think "you also was unable" is entirely appropriate!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69199124816410023892015-10-01T12:16:52.631-07:002015-10-01T12:16:52.631-07:00Were unable. These things seriously need an edit f...Were unable. These things seriously need an edit functionKevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89894221778845459462015-10-01T12:16:06.183-07:002015-10-01T12:16:06.183-07:00Well Cal, not only could you not even quote yourse...Well Cal, not only could you not even quote yourself, you also was unable to refrain from posting yet again your "dear boy rabbit hole" gibberish. Looks like my bet was safe.<br /><br />If you can't even be bothered to give an alleged challenge in a mature fashion, I'm not too concerned with responding. VR gave a similar, though smaller, list of evidence than I would have, and a similar opinion on the ridiculous charge of "no evidence". <br /><br />I feel bad cluttering up his comments section responding in kind to you, so I'm bowing out unless you present a question or request in an appropriate form.<br /><br />Sorry VRKevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65235759463694573462015-10-01T09:55:23.506-07:002015-10-01T09:55:23.506-07:00Well, to do that you'd have to show me that wh...Well, to do that you'd have to show me that what I learned from a leading Bayesian theorist was wrong. Were you about to say something like this? <br /><br />Bayes' Theorem REQUIRES quantifiable prior probabilities to have any meaning, especially when those probabilities are likely to be low. And miracles are not miracles if they are not highly improbable. <br /><br />I'm afraid that's not the only way Bayes' theorem is used. It is often used that way, but the theorem allows for a plurality of assessments of priors, where reasonable people with different priors can come to different conclusions. How much improbability attaches to the miraculous nature of a claim is going to depend on background beliefs. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33998166497411383982015-10-01T09:04:42.643-07:002015-10-01T09:04:42.643-07:00I agree that we should share our definition for ev...I agree that we should share our definition for evidence. <br /><br />What would make you reconsider your approach toward what constitutes evidence? If your approach was shown to not be a correct application of Bayes theorem, for instance, would you adopt an approach that did use Bayes theorem correctly?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44326256101313552282015-10-01T08:41:48.516-07:002015-10-01T08:41:48.516-07:00My own response to the "no evidence" cha...My own response to the "no evidence" charge is, I think pretty well known, and it goes like this: <br /><br />We first have to define what evidence is. <br /><br />I understand evidence in Bayesian terms. For me, X is evidence for Y just in case X is more likely to exist given Y than given not-Y. By this definition, something can have evidence for it and be false. <br /><br />There is a whole boatload of stuff that look to me to be a LOT more likely to exist if God exists than if God does not exist. Some of it's in the Bible, most of it isn't. <br /><br />Here's a short list: <br /><br />1) The fact that we can reason about the world. The fact that it is even possible to go from evidence to a conclusion. If this isn't possible, then science isn't even possible. But that implies that our acts of reasoning are governed by the laws of logic, as opposed to the laws of physics. But naturalism says the laws of physics govern everything, and the laws of logic are superfluous as an explanation for any even in the universe. <br />2) That there are stable laws of nature, so that the distant past resembles the recent past. It's easy to imagine an atheistic world with no stability at all, where the laws keep changing for no reason. Why is that not the world? <br />3) The we have just the right cosmic constants for life to emerge. <br />4) That DNA allows for gradual change, as opposed to being completely static or so radically changeable that it is completely unpredictable. <br />5) That monotheism arose against all odds in a polytheistic world in a country that hardly qualifies as a world superpower, and that it persisted in spite of the efforts of the superpowers like Assyria, Babylon, the Seleucids, and the Romans, to get it to assimilate into a polytheistic culture. <br />6) That the disciples of Jesus got in the faces of those responsible for Jesus's crucifixion and told them that the Jesus they crucified was Lord and God, and lived to tell the tale and found Christianity. (If they killed Jesus, they can kill you too). <br />7) That archaeology has discovered that if Luke was writing a story about the founding of Christianity, it wrote it in such a way that the "research" for his "fictional" story was corroborated centuries later by archaeology, "research" that would have required him to know all sorts of detail from Jerusalem to Malta at just the right time in the first century. <br />8) That Christianity became the dominant religion of an empire in spite of getting no help, and intermittent persecution, from the political leaders of that empire, for nearly three centuries.<br /><br />I can understand concluding, at the end of the day, that this evidence is outweighed by the evidence for atheism. What is beyond my comprehension is the idea that this somehow isn't evidence AT ALL.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74418836279053990512015-10-01T07:54:08.596-07:002015-10-01T07:54:08.596-07:00Legion: "Interesting. I ask Cal to quote his ...Legion: "Interesting. I ask Cal to quote his questions, and he keeps with his "dear boy rabbit hole" schtick. I guess I should just imagine what his questions are."<br /><br />I forgot that you asked this. <br /><br />Pretty much everything I've written here is a challenge. You can choose to rise to that challenge, or you can continue to do as I have described: Apologists: "My dear boy / Look, a rabbit hole! / I won't deign to answer / You should be banned / We agree that amongst ourselves we will deny that there is a problem / etc."<br /><br />Challenges are questions. You can choose to rise to them, and answer the challenges laid before you, or you can divert, and complain. <br /><br />Which will you do? [<--Does that invite you to respond differently?]Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71062547546684779822015-10-01T07:38:01.384-07:002015-10-01T07:38:01.384-07:00I'm not sure I could name a favorite composer,...I'm not sure I could name a favorite composer, but Moonlight Sonata is one of my all time favorite songs of any style or era.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62356601559097094582015-10-01T06:58:08.081-07:002015-10-01T06:58:08.081-07:00Following Legion's example, I'll lay my ow...Following Legion's example, I'll lay my own cards on the table:<br /><br />Favorite color? the blue the western sky is about 30 minutes after sunset<br />Favorite food? pizza<br />Favorite drink? "English Breakfast" tea with milk<br />Favorite movie? anything directed by Yasujiro Ozu<br />Favorite book series? Lewis's <i>Space Trilogy</i><br />Favorite insect? ladybug<br /><br />I'll even add one:<br /><br />Favorite composer? Gustav Mahler or Ralph Vaughan Williams (tie)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51606046510993959192015-10-01T06:55:07.093-07:002015-10-01T06:55:07.093-07:00grodrigues: "Judging the collective group of ...<b>grodrigues:</b> "<i>Judging the collective group of atheists by a certified idiot like Carl is unfair -- but you already know that, so you must have something else in mind.</i>"<br /><br /><b>B.Prokop:</b> "<i>You are correct that we shouldn't lump all atheists in with one know-nothing troll, but note that I was referring only to "militant" atheists. Theirs is a special breed of ignorance.</i>"<br /><br />You're both wrong, of course. This is a variation on the (false) insistence that "atheism is an intellectually respectable position". <br /><br />But, the difference between the likes of a 'Cal Metzger' and a 'Jeffrey Jay Lowder' is one of degree, not of kind; and *every* God-denier will behave and "reason" just as this most recent apparition of 'The Troll' is doing if one logically corners them. The difference between them is that some God-deniers can tolerate tighter corners than others can.<br /><br /><b>B.Prokop:</b> "<i>Theirs is a special breed of ignorance.</i>"<br /><br />*ALL* atheism is based in that self-same "special breed of ignorance", and it's a <i>willful ignorace</i>: they *will not* see what reason shows them, and every one of them will deny the efficacy of reason if that is what it takes to protect their God-denial from rational evaluation.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34046472186334705912015-10-01T06:36:39.868-07:002015-10-01T06:36:39.868-07:00LoL: "Furthermore, while Ilion's point is...<b>LoL:</b> "<i>Furthermore, while Ilion's point is honestly a topic I haven't put much thought into until today, it inherently does not matter to the idea of whether science can directly detect God.</i>"<br /><br />Nor was it meant to.<br /><br /><b>LoL:</b> "<i>In order to demonstrate the necessity of a creator deity, all it takes is the ability for the listener to reason. Take all the things we know (or at least suspect) to be true about our world and universe, from science and observation and experience, and which does it support better, atheism or theism? I maintain that there are zero good arguments for atheism, no matter how much science they throw around, so the default logical position is theism. Or deism, I suppose. Atheism will have to become far more advanced of a position before [amy rational being] can even seriously entertain it as a possibility.</i>"<br /><br />Atheism (including "agnosticism", which is the atheism-that-will-not-own-the-name) will *never* meet this criterion; and that people like Reppert and Vallicella -- people who know, or *ought* to know, that there is no "there" to atheism -- continue to insist upon treating atheism as an intellectually respectable and viable position, is .... grrrr.<br /><br />There are "zero good arguments for atheism, no matter how much science they throw around", in part because it is the false position, and in part because <i>reason itself</i> points inescapably to the Creator-God. Thus, *every* attempt at an atheistic argument has at its heart at least one logical fallacy. Perhaps it was different in other eras, but in this time it seems the most popular logical fallacy amongst the God-deniers is question-begging, as amply illustrated in this very thread.<br /><br /><b>LoL:</b> "<i>To demonstrate the truth of Christianity over other religions or deism? I personally would not be able to do that purely with deductive logic, but there is plenty of supporting evidence in its favor.</i>"<br /><br />It's well known that without recourse to Revelation, reason cannot get us all the way to the specifically Christian doctrines. How could it? That God became man and lived among us and allowed us to murder him and that *that* is his means to restore us to himself -- reason can no more derive that from first principles than it can that you chose to go to Cleveland.<br /><br />Nevertheless, reason can get us quite a ways to Christianity. For instance, reason can establish these fact that have to be true for Christianity to be true --<br />. there is a Creator-God;<br />. this Creator is personal: a 'he' rather than an 'it';<br />. there is *one* God;<br />. the God is a multiplicity of Persons (*);<br />. that 'deism' is an inadequate understanding of God;<br />Of course, when starting from false premises, reason can also lead to false ideas about God. For instance, the pagan pre-Christian Greeks reasoned that God is impassive, and this false idea has been brought into Christianity. But the false premise from which the pagans started -- an artifact of their culture -- is that love is a <i>weakness</i>. And, more generally, that 'desire' or 'want' necessarily arises from 'lack'; whereas, in truth, 'desire' or 'want' can also arise form 'abundance'.<br /><br />Consider: a mother <i>wants/desires</i> to give suckle to her newborn, one might even say that she <i>needs</i> to do so; and likewise, the child <i>wants/needs</i> to suckle . Yet it is not the mother who lacks, but rather the child; the child's want/need is borne of lack, but the mother's want/desire is borne of plenty.<br /><br />(*) the non-Christian neo-Plaronic philosophers even reasoned that "The One" is three persons.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26769063608236637052015-10-01T06:24:11.694-07:002015-10-01T06:24:11.694-07:00Interesting. I ask Cal to quote his questions, an...Interesting. I ask Cal to quote his questions, and he keeps with his "dear boy rabbit hole" schtick. I guess I should just imagine what his questions are.<br /><br />Favorite color? dark blue<br />Favorite food? cheeseburger<br />Favorite drink? Pepsi, but the high fructose corn syrup hurts my stomach<br />Favorite movie? couldn't say<br />Favorite book series? Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan<br />Favorite insect? dragonfly<br /><br />Do those answer your questions, Cal? If not, quote your questions from your previous posts, or admit you haven't actually asked any worthwhile questions. Also, just to try an experiment, ask them without a single assumption or insult built in, and no nonsensical loaded questions like "Do you oppose atheists pointing out that you have no evidence?"<br /><br />I bet you can't do any of those. <br />Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23033607598905500102015-10-01T05:52:35.806-07:002015-10-01T05:52:35.806-07:00grodrigues,
You are correct that we shouldn't...grodrigues,<br /><br />You are correct that we shouldn't lump all atheists in with one know-nothing troll, but note that I was referring only to "militant" atheists. Theirs is a special breed of ignorance.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17572187182659571942015-10-01T04:26:07.347-07:002015-10-01T04:26:07.347-07:00Apologists: "My dear boy / Look, a rabbit hol...Apologists: "My dear boy / Look, a rabbit hole! / <b>I won't deign to answer </b> / You should be banned / <b>We agree that amongst ourselves we will deny that there is a problem </b>/ etc."<br /><br />grodrigues: "<b>But you are right, we should not lay our pearls before swine</b>"<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.com