Do We Really Have To Choose?

[Autodidact]

Well, I don't know the mechanisms, myself. I'm just saying that it seems like the most efficient thing to do would be to somehow guide the natural mechanisms already in place. Anything else would be reinventing the wheel.

Lots of "somehows" and "I don't knows" when you get down to specifics. I think the relevant question is, how, if at all, is theistic evolution different from ordinary evolution?

 

[Storm]

Lots of "somehows" and "I don't knows" when you get down to specifics. I think the relevant question is, how, if at all, is theistic evolution different from ordinary evolution?

Functionally, it's not.

 

[Quiddity]

Lots of "somehows" and "I don't knows" when you get down to specifics. I think the relevant question is, how, if at all, is theistic evolution different from ordinary evolution?

One comes with a bias and the other doesn't. Maybe...

 

[tumbleweed41]

God seems to have a knack for hiding from the measurable, don't He?

Sneaky God....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, considering I hear it from atheistic physicists, I'd have to say it is indeed possible.

If by "elegance", you mean something like "beautiful", sure - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think I take issue more with the claim of efficiency. For instance, if the purpose of the entire universe is to provide an environment for us, then I'd say that it's spectacularily inefficient.

THis strikes me an unjustified assumption.

Why? I think it stands to reason that if some type of thing fundamentally has a supernatural cause, we'll never find a natural cause for it. No?

As you yourself pointed out, the description you gave did not match that model. I am NOT arguing deism.

Okay... I'm confused. What description and what model?

Basically, what do you mean by "God"? At this point, it's not at all clear.

 

[Storm]

If by "elegance", you mean something like "beautiful", sure - beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I think I take issue more with the claim of efficiency. For instance, if the purpose of the entire universe is to provide an environment for us, then I'd say that it's spectacularily inefficient.

I didn't make that claim. I didn't claim any purpose at all, you're the one said it was necessary.

Why? I think it stands to reason that if some type of thing fundamentally has a supernatural cause, we'll never find a natural cause for it. No?

You're conflating "cause" with "mechanism" again.

Say we possess a supernatural soul. Obviously, that doesn't mean we have no brain.

Okay... I'm confused. What description and what model?

Basically, what do you mean by "God"? At this point, it's not at all clear.

You said: "A God that has absolutely no effects and does not interact with the physical universe in any way whatsoever doesn't mesh up with the theology of most mainstream religions, IMO." (the deistic model, which is not what I was arguing, as you pointed out.)

TO repeat my earlier description, I'm talking about a supernatural Creator who intervenes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You might as well ask for God's footprints.

Footprints, signature... a lot of metaphors work. What's wrong with this approach? Things that have noticable effects on the universe have, well, noticeable effects on the universe. IMO, a relevant god is a testable god.3

I've always pictured it like the sun which releases energy and can have an affect on somethings while not affecting others.


Granted, this is just me and of course there is faith involved.

And the sun is measurable in more ways than I can count.

God seems to have a knack for hiding from the measurable, don't He?

Yes, he does. He seems to be very sneaky with that noodly appendage of his.

But this is where we get into the problem of consistency and plausibility. If this god refuses to allow evidence for his existence, then how does anyone know about him in the first place? And does the idea of him sneaking around in the shadows and the gaps square with the other claims about him that come in the package of beliefs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't make that claim. I didn't claim any purpose at all, you're the one said it was necessary.

Yes. My point is that whether the universe is "efficient" depends on the purpose we infer for it.

You're conflating "cause" with "mechanism" again.

The concepts are related, but I don't think I am.

Say we possess a supernatural soul. Obviously, that doesn't mean we have no brain.

And what physical effect is this hypothetical supernatural soul supposed to have caused?

You said: "A God that has absolutely no effects and does not interact with the physical universe in any way whatsoever doesn't mesh up with the theology of most mainstream religions, IMO." (the deistic model, which is not what I was arguing, as you pointed out.)

But I think you were arguing it. As I said to Victor, a relevant god is a testable god. If God has physical effects on the universe, IOW, if God is a theistic god, then he would create signs that point to his existence. Therefore, absence of those signs would point to his non-existence.

What I'm saying is that a theistic God can potentially be excluded.

The point that I was trying to make is that if you're going to argue that God can never be excluded, then you're arguing for a deistic god.

TO repeat my earlier description, I'm talking about a supernatural Creator who intervenes.

In that case, I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Physical intervention implies physical evidence. The question of whether a supernatural Creator who intervenes exists is squarely within the purview of science, even if it's not a question that we can definitively answer today.

 

[Storm]

And what physical effect is this hypothetical supernatural soul supposed to have caused?

Neural activity, for starters.

Ph, my boy's here got to run.

 

[Quiddity]

Footprints, signature... a lot of metaphors work. What's wrong with this approach? Things that have noticable effects on the universe have, well, noticeable effects on the universe. IMO, a relevant god is a testable god.3

An african priest once told me that not a single word made him catholic. He saw how God moves people to love their neighbor and that did it for him.

Measure that.

Yes, he does. He seems to be very sneaky with that noodly appendage of his.

But this is where we get into the problem of consistency and plausibility. If this god refuses to allow evidence for his existence, then how does anyone know about him in the first place? And does the idea of him sneaking around in the shadows and the gaps square with the other claims about him that come in the package of beliefs?

I don't know. Maybe there is something to the human species and them attaching meaning to the most mudane of things.

 

[Autodidact]

An african priest once told me that not a single word made him catholic. He saw how God moves people to love their neighbor and that did it for him.

Did you notice how you're assuming your conclusion? That is the most common form of theist argument. That fact, more than anything else, confirmed by tentative atheism.

 

[Quiddity]

Did you notice how you're assuming your conclusion? That is the most common form of theist argument. That fact, more than anything else, confirmed by tentative atheism.

Of course, let's not be shy about it. We all have a bias, presuppositions, etc.

Your turn.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An african priest once told me that not a single word made him catholic. He saw how God moves people to love their neighbor and that did it for him.

Measure that.

Not to drag the thread off-topic, but I can think of one way...

More on point, though, the model of God you prescribe to doesn't have any implications for the natural world at all? No miracles? No efficacy of prayer?

I don't know. Maybe there is something to the human species and them attaching meaning to the most mudane of things.

I'm not sure how this is a response to what I wrote.

 

[Quiddity]

Not to drag the thread off-topic, but I can think of one way...

Yes, because that's all we do.... I thought you were above these tactics. I guess not.

More on point, though, the model of God you prescribe to doesn't have any implications for the natural world at all? No miracles? No efficacy of prayer?

You know it does. I just don't see the point in asking something you know we don't have an answer to. What are you trying to get at?

I'm not sure how this is a response to what I wrote.

Don't know how to expand further then I already did.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, because that's all we do.... I thought you were above these tactics. I guess not.

I'm not saying that this issue defines what it means to be Catholic, but when someone does hateful things to his neighbour, it speaks against the truth of the idea that he's being supernaturally driven to be extra-loving.

You know it does. I just don't see the point in asking something you know we don't have an answer to. What are you trying to get at?

I'm saying that to the extent a religion or a theistic model makes predictions about the world, it's testable. For instance, if the doctrine of original sin implies monogenism, then it's falsifiable (falsified, actually, IMO) by science. At any point where theology intersects physical reality, there's a potential for it to be disproven.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not saying that this issue defines what it means to be Catholic, but when someone does hateful things to his neighbour, it speaks against the truth of the idea that he's being supernaturally driven to be extra-loving.

Or it could just tell you that we are normal joes who really are driven by there own motives that have nothing to do with actual Church teaching.

I'm saying that to the extent a religion or a theistic model makes predictions about the world, it's testable. For instance, if the doctrine of original sin implies monogenism, then it's falsifiable (falsified, actually, IMO) by science. At any point where theology intersects physical reality, there's a potential for it to be disproven.

Yeah, there is. Perhaps some non-theist have been praying to the jellyfish god that the day will come when it's self-evident that this is so. Perhaps it's already here? Until then, I'll keep drinking my yummy cool aid.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course, let's not be shy about it. We all have a bias, presuppositions, etc.

Your turn.

No. Not bias. Not presupposition.
Assuming your conclusion is a specific logical fallacy, also called "circular argument" or "circular reasoning." You observe that people are kind to one another. You assume that's because God is doing that. You can do that, but you cannot use it as an argument for what you're assuming. It's fallacious reasoning. All you can reasonably say is that when people are kind to one another, you assume it's because of God.

Further, by your reasoning, when people are cruel to one another, that would be an argument against the existence of God. I doubt that you accept that reasoning, despite it being of the exact same form as yours. That is the theist's second favorite fallacy, special pleading.

And when people have no arguments other than special pleading and circular reasoning, it tells me that there is no logical basis for their position.

 

[Quiddity]

No. Not bias. Not presupposition.
Assuming your conclusion is a specific logical fallacy, also called "circular argument" or "circular reasoning." You observe that people are kind to one another. You assume that's because God is doing that. You can do that, but you cannot use it as an argument for what you're assuming. It's fallacious reasoning. All you can reasonably say is that when people are kind to one another, you assume it's because of God.

Further, by your reasoning, when people are cruel to one another, that would be an argument against the existence of God. I doubt that you accept that reasoning, despite it being of the exact same form as yours. That is the theist's second favorite fallacy, special pleading.

And when people have no arguments other than special pleading and circular reasoning, it tells me that there is no logical basis for their position.

You assume too much.

Are you reading this from some college textbook or something?

How in the world is this relevant to the thread?

 

[Autodidact]

You assume too much.

Such as what?

Are you reading this from some college textbook or something?[/quote] no.

How in the world is this relevant to the thread?

Your argument is circular. The argument you made in this thread, which I assume you think is relevant to the thread. It's fallacious. In other words, wrong. If your argument is relevant, the fact that it's circular, therefore fallacious, is also relevant.

Isn't that obvious?

 

[Autodidact]

Or it could just tell you that we are normal joes who really are driven by there own motives that have nothing to do with actual Church teaching.

I see. When you do good, that's God. When you do bad, it's because you're just normal Joes. Well, which is it, is God doing something, or are you just normal Joes?

(btw, are you trying to say that the Church does NOT teach that homosexuality is evil, and that Catholics should be involved in political activism to counter the "gay movement?" That it's just random coincidence that this Catholic organization happens to donate a huge amount of money to oppose proposition 8, having nothing to do with the fact that they're Catholic?)

To put it differently, can you see how you've set up a mechanism so that your hypothesis cannot be falsified? If the world is lovely and people do good and love one another, it means that God is causing that, therefore God exists. If the world is horrible and people do evil and hate one another, they're just normal Joes, and God exists.