Challenge to Evolutionsts

[Autodidact]

Certainly, but I am used to it.



I believe the metaphysical naturalist is referring to perceptions of our physical senses. If we are limited to our physical senses to obtain knowledge, then I would agree with you. But supposing the possibility of revelation and a priori knowledge changes the conclusion.

Well, as long as we've left the topic of evolution and derailed into atheism, and metaphysical naturalism, I'll give up and go there.

Yes, you're right again. BUT, and it's a big but, if you allow that possibility, then you open yourself up to all kinds of other problems, like my personal revelation from the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You don't have any consistent way to dispute it.
There is such a thing as a priori knowledge, if I recall my intro to philosophy correctly, but it just doesn't get you to God. It gets you to 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[Autodidact]

That's always the problem, isn't it? Science works in terms of competing models. You can complain about the places where a given model doesn't completely fit the evidence, but unless you have an alternative scientific model or revision to the current model that better fits the known evidence, it doesn't change the fact that the model you are complaining about remains the most probable model from among the choices available. I've never received an answer in any of these threads about the ID/Evolution "debate" (and I use the term loosely) as to what specifically the alternative model would be that fits the evidence better than the current theory of biological evolution.

There's a rather obvious reason for that . . . :sarcastic

I have. It's called the Magic Poofing Model. God magically poofed each "kind" into existence. And never, never, ask what a "kind" is.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Nice job distorting the text quoted. Where, precisely, do I maintain that the consensus of scientific inquiry is true by virtue of it being a consensus?

I don't know, maybe by suggesting that any counter position should be considered "perverse".

Good grief. Stop wasting our time with this drivel.

As long you continue to attack every appeal to God, I will continue asking what evidence you have against the belief in God.

Efficiency? What a joke ...

Huh?? I suppose if a scientist were presented with a scientific challenge and said "gee, it must be God" and didn't pursue it, he would be just as effective as the scientist that followed methodological naturalism.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

BUT, and it's a big but, if you allow that possibility, then you open yourself up to all kinds of other problems, like my personal revelation from the Invisible Pink Unicorn. You don't have any consistent way to dispute it.

But does not having a consistent way to dispute it mean that personal revelation is not possible?

Spirituality would be really dull if we could approach it with the scientific method.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Efficiency? What a joke ...

Huh?? I suppose if a scientist were presented with a scientific challenge and said "gee, it must be God" and didn't pursue it, he would be just as effective as the scientist that followed methodological naturalism.

I understand how you might be confused. After all, 'efficiency' and 'effective' both start with e-f-f.

 

[Random]

But does not having a consistent way to dispute it mean that personal revelation is not possible?

No.

Spirituality would be really dull if we could approach it with the scientific method

QFT, but that wouldn't stop some, if there were a way to measure consciousness. Always remember, the only constant in science is reductionism. And simple men love making things simpler.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm still waiting for those objecting to "natural mechanisms" to provide a specific supernatural mechanism

 

[Random]

I'm still waiting for those objecting to "natural mechanisms" to provide a specific supernatural mechanism

Perhaps in reality, "natural" and "supernatural" are interchangeable in context. That is, perhaps super-natural is simply either a regressive or progressive state of nature itself.

 

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps in reality, "natural" and "supernatural" are interchangeable in context. That is, perhaps super-natural is simply either a regressive or progressive state of nature itself.

And perhaps the center of the earth is composed of Jell-O.

Unfortunately, neither one of those "what ifs" answers my request for a specific supernatural mechanism.

 

[Random]

And perhaps the center of the earth is composed of Jell-O.

Unfortunately, neither one of those "what ifs" answers my request for a specific supernatural mechanism.

Typical snarky laziness.

Go study Metaphysics and philosophy and discover the answer for yourself.

Besides, I wasn't even the one you were addressing the original question to, was I? Honestly, why are so many atheists a disgrace to atheism?

 

[Jose Fly]

Random,

Typical snarky laziness from a fool

Brilliant rebuttal there "Random".

Go study Metaphysics and philosophy and discover the answer for yourself

Sure, just because you say so.

Besides, I wasn't even the one you were addressing the original question to, was I?

No, but you elected to respond nonetheless, didn't you? And the response you gave was a meaningless, "what if" with no substance to it at all. Don't blame me for the inherent emptiness of your own post.

Honestly, why are so many atheists a disgrace to atheism?

Where did I say I was an atheist? Are you able to read minds now?

 

[Random]

Brilliant rebuttal there "Random".

Yes, I thought so. :flirt:

Where did I say I was an atheist? Are you able to read minds now?

>SIGH< Should have known better than to post in this damn forum anyway.

Nevermind.

You misunderstood: all I was trying to say was that in some views, natural and supernatural form part of a false dichotomy since without and exact system of metaphysics which is empirically provable, one cannot correctly and scientifically define the difference between the two.

That's all. If you find this "empty", then there's nothing more to be said.

peace and blessings,
Random/Conor

 

[painted wolf]

ok kids... let all play nice.

the fact of the matter is that metaphysics has no place in physics, nor religion in science.
That isn't to say you can't be religious and scientific... but one should not be used to evidence the other. Religion requires that some things happen at the behest of forces 'outside' reality.
Science demands that anything that happens in this reality be explained in this reality.

Bad metaphysical semantics are still a bad argument against science. lol

wa:do

 

[Nick Soapdish]

my request for a specific supernatural mechanism.

That doesn't make any sense. If a supernatural occurrence was mechanical, then it would be natural and we should reclassify it. Supernature goes against our ability to apply natural laws (i.e. mechanisms) against it, and that, in my opinion, is the distinguishing factor between it and nature.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I understand how you might be confused. After all, 'efficiency' and 'effective' both start with e-f-f.

I thought it was a good e-f-f-ort on my part.

 

[Valjean]

That doesn't make any sense. If a supernatural occurrence was mechanical, then it would be natural and we should reclassify it. Supernature goes against our ability to apply natural laws (i.e. mechanisms) against it, and that, in my opinion, is the distinguishing factor between it and nature.

Good point. Science seeks the mechanism behind phenomena. Religion posits magic as the underlying mechanism.

 

[Random]

That doesn't make any sense. If a supernatural occurrence was mechanical, then it would be natural and we should reclassify it. Supernature goes against our ability to apply natural laws (i.e. mechanisms) against it, and that, in my opinion, is the distinguishing factor between it and nature.

Very well said. :yes:

 

[Autodidact]

But does not having a consistent way to dispute it mean that personal revelation is not possible?

Not necessarily, but you better start sacrificing 10.1% of your income to the IPU quick and in a hurry. Don't worry, I collect on her behalf. Want my PayPal account info?

Spirituality would be really dull if we could approach it with the scientific method.

If by dull you mean verifiable, then yes, it would lose its unique charm. No more Xenu, no more Moroni, no more Giant Malaysian Teapot. It would just be regular old reality, which frankly I find weird and incomprehensible enough not to need unique yet invisible deities just to liven things up.

 

[Jose Fly]

That doesn't make any sense. If a supernatural occurrence was mechanical, then it would be natural and we should reclassify it. Supernature goes against our ability to apply natural laws (i.e. mechanisms) against it, and that, in my opinion, is the distinguishing factor between it and nature.

Ah, so there is no such thing as a supernatural mechanism. Therefore: 1) the term "natural mechanisms" is redundant, and 2) there is no practical, meaningful alternative to natural mechanisms (redundancy aside). If you feel I'm wrong on that last point, feel free to offer a specific alternative that is not merely a bald assertion or a reliance on the "God of the Gaps" argument.

Also, laws and mechanisms are not the same thing. For example, the Laws of Thermodynamics describe certain principles, but they are not mechanisms by themselves.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Not necessarily, but you better start sacrificing 10.1% of your income to the IPU quick and in a hurry. Don't worry, I collect on her behalf. Want my PayPal account info?

You should say what you mean because no theist gives invisible pink unicorn arguments any credit. The analogy is just silly and serves only to ridicule those that believe in a divine creator rather than provide a meaningful logical argument.

If by dull you mean verifiable, then yes, it would lose its unique charm. No more Xenu, no more Moroni, no more Giant Malaysian Teapot. It would just be regular old reality, which frankly I find weird and incomprehensible enough not to need unique yet invisible deities just to liven things up.

That regular old reality is actually pretty comprehensible. But, by itself, it is indifferent, mindless and without purpose. I find it strange that you or anyone else would be satisfied and content with that "reality" (both on an intellectual and a emotional basis), but then again, I am not you or anyone else.