Metaphysical-Physicalism.

[Magical Wand]

. . . Because if he did you'd be wrong. It's the mind prone to interpret truth by looking backward into the epistemological prism that already exists

No, it is the mind not taking anything out of context the way you do.

 

[AlexanderG]

By bringing methodological naturalism into the study of the Bible it turns into an assumption that prophecy does not exist and so the methodological naturalism turns into philosophical naturalism.

How so? Under my definitions, I don't agree with your conclusion at all. Methodological naturalism is entirely open to accepting the existence of gods, miracles, or other such things, as long as there is some reliable tool that can demonstrate they are a part of our detectable reality. Such reliable tools are what I mean by "good evidence."

If something is not reliably demonstrated to be a part of reality, then a methodological naturalist will tentatively presume that this thing is imaginary, until such time as sufficient evidence is provided. This is a very good epistemology, and unfortunately for you it does not accept theism because theism does not warrant belief under this model. You may have a lot of emotional, cultural, or social reasons for believing, but those are demonstrably unreliable tools for differentiating between imagination and reality.

 

[F1fan]

In context, "spiritual" means outside the laws of physics and the existence of the material world.

What does "outside the laws of physics" mean, except imaginary? And if you are going to use the word "spiritual" to include the material world then what materially correlates to your use of it? For example the word "cat" correlates to a large set of felines, and any actual example from tiger to a house cat can be a material example. So explain the material example of "spiritual" in the world so that we all can acknowledge it exists outside of human imagination.

And in fairness, it's your bias to assume my "belief" is just a bias, while your belief (that there's nothing outside of physics and the physical world) is just plain the truth of the matter.

Sorry but it's not bias when me, and others, observe you using words that are not factual, nor using proper definitions. That has nothing to do with anyone but you since you are chosing your words. And your belief is largely irrelevant because most everyone arguing here has an objective, factual, and non-religious framework. You are arguing heavily for your religious beliefs. Do you acknowledge that beliefs are subject to error, and are not certain?

Again, you should be self-aware enough to understand that lack of faith in God, or spirituality, is just as much a bias as fullness of faith in God, or spirituality. You're using your personal bias as though its the truth, while my personal bias is just religiosity. Lack of faith in God is just as much based on a person's epistemological biases as is faith in God.

Gods aren't known to exist outside of human imagination, so how is intellectually acknowledging this a bias? I am self-aware that I have no emotional attraction to religious ideas, and can easily resist the social pressure to adopt thee beliefs. I see your appeals here as an attempt to seek validation for ideas that aren't known to be true. I suggest I am vastly more self-aware of my inner thoughts regarding the influence of religious belief in my environment. You seem to be following the strong emotional impulse to adopt religious concepts to satisfy the need for belonging that is still prevalent as a trait selected in early humans evolution.

By presenting yourself as you are, i.e., as though my belief system is out on a limb, while yours is grounded in the truth, your doing the complete antithesis of what you're telling me I should be doing by setting aside my personal predilections. In other words, you seem to be involved in a childish version of what you're telling me not to do: you have the truth, while I have silly speculation.

I'll be happy doing a Pepsi challenge as we compare our basic frameworks. Based on what I've seen you post my framework will align strongly with facts and reason and your will align heavily with religious ideas that have no basis in fact or reason. You are free to post your religious beliefs, but you aren't free from the criticism you will attract from more objective thinkers, as we observe going on here. You should be aware, but now i'm not sure.

We see this in your last message where you treat the Bible as though only a certain kind of person takes it seriously, even though millions upon millions of persons, many of them the most educated geniuses in the world, take the Bible as seriously as a heart attack. But because you don't, and those you take seriously don't, you disavow the intellect and seriousness of those who do.

I never mentioned taking the Bible seriously, I said those who examine the Bible objectively as history without religious baggage can give us an better explanation about it than any of the many different groups of theists who interpret it differently. You seem hurt by objective approaches to religion, and probably Christianity specifically. Sorry but we should all understand the history of the Bible before we hear any arbitrary believer give us their interpretation. Ideas like creationism are more easily spread among those who have no objective understanding of how the Bible was created by humans.

For what it's worth, most historians of philosophy would rate Wittgenstein above Popper, and Wittgenstein took the Bible as seriously as I, and millions of other's do.

Again with your logical fallacies. Who cares?

Your statement seems perfectly relevant to the accusation that you confuse your personal worldview with reality.

My worldview differs from yours in that I try to base it on facts, reasoning, science, expertise, and I work to avoid making any more assumptions that I have to. Your's is highly dependent on your religious beliefs. This is not always a problem for those who can set their beliefs aside, but you seem completely immersed and are trying to reconcile the many dilemmas this creates.

The Gospels are accepted as reality by more people in the Western world than not. And yet you feel comfortable insinuating that because you don't believe it, it's therefore not reality, or relevant.

Irrelevant, and another fallacy. Christians adopt a religious framework about the Gospels due to exposure to religion in their social experience. Believers end up believing these ideas but don't understand why they believe it. No one comes to a factual and reasoned conclusion that God exists, or that the Gospels are true. Believers adopt whatever religious framework they are exposed to. This is why religion is largely a geographic phenomenon. Let's not pretend people believe in religious ideas because it is a field of study that leads to knowledge and some expertise.

 

[Magical Wand]

Based on what I've seen you post my framework will align strongly with facts and reason and your will align heavily with religious ideas that have no basis in fact or reason.

I believe you, and I lost all doubt when John wrote: "Quantum physics tried to help the layman understand that there is no outside, external world. ... we create our world out of bits and pieces of external reality."

Haha

 

[John D. Brey]

I believe you, and I lost all doubt when John wrote: "Quantum physics tried to help the layman understand that there is no outside, external world. ... we create our world out of bits and pieces of external reality."

You might be confusing me with Princeton physics Professor John Archibald Wheeler?

There is not a single sight, not a single sound, not a single sense impression which does not derive in the last analysis from one or more elementary quantum phenomena. Objective? Not until the observing sense, or observing device – by its geometry, its layout, and its adjustment – has chosen the question to be asked, and by its registration has made a record long enough lived to produce internal or external action, has an elementary quantum phenomenon taken place that contributes to the formation of what we call reality.​

Or Harvard biology Professor Richard Lewontin?

These are simple and obvious examples of the generality that it is the biology, indeed the genes, of an organism that determines its effective environment, by establishing the way in which external physical signals become incorporated into its reactions.​

And:

The common external phenomena of the physical and biotic world pass through a transforming filter created by the peculiar biology of each species, and it is the output of this transformation that reaches the organism and is relevant to it.​

And finally:

Plato's metaphor of the cave is appropriate here. Whatever the autonomous processes of the outer world may be, they cannot be perceived by the organism. Its life is determined by the shadows on the wall, passed through a transforming medium of its own creation.​

Werner Heisenberg:

Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. That, however, is impossible.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

What does "outside the laws of physics" mean, except imaginary?

"Meta-physical." Beyond the physical. And I quoted Popper saying he believes science comes from man's innate ability to impose meta-physical (meta-physics) concepts on the physical world.

Where have you been for the past hundred messages or so?

Sorry but it's not bias when me, and others, observe you using words that are not factual, nor using proper definitions. That has nothing to do with anyone but you since you are chosing your words.

One of the words I chose is "metaphysical":

: of or relating to the transcendent (see transcendent sense 1) or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses ---fleeing from experience to a metaphysical realm— John Dewey.​

And you said:

What does "outside the laws of physics" [i.e., meta-physics] mean, except imaginary?​

But Popper said:

. . . I am inclined to think that scientific discovery is impossible without faith in ideas which are of a purely speculative kind, and sometimes even quite hazy; a faith which is completely unwarranted from the point of view of science, and which, to that extent, is “metaphysical" [imaginary].

Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 38.​

Phd. physics Professor John Archibald Wheeler said:

It from bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.​

Linking Popper's anti-inductivist philosophy to Wheeler's statement above, we could say that the "yes or no questions" asked, to "elicit answers" from the physical world, are not themselves derived by any physical demand, principle, or law-of-physics-based contingency. I believe that's what the Daniel Dennett quote in this thread means by saying man's mind is "free" from the physical exigencies that rule over all other biological organisms. In Popper's parlance, all science derives from man's meta-physics, his metaphysical ability to ask imaginative questions of nature that throw nature for a loop since he (nature) knows the one asking the questions will soon be ruling the roost.



John

 

[F1fan]

"Meta-physical." Beyond the physical. And I quoted Popper saying he believes science comes from man's innate ability to impose meta-physical (meta-physics) concepts on the physical world.

This still doesn't explain anything. The word "metaphysical" exists but what does it correlate to in reality? You keep referring to nonsense words that have fuzzy and ambiguous meanings (mostly religious) and are essentially the man behind the curtain. Most in this discussion can't work with this type of vagueness. Your definition was: " of or relating to the transcendent (see transcendent sense 1) or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses ---fleeing from experience to a metaphysical realm— John Dewey."

How does "metaphysical" and "beyond the physical" not equate to imaginary?

How does an ordinary mortal being (even you) able to conclude anything exists outside of physics and the physical when we can't sense it? You're either incorrect in referring to it, or you have some magical method that the rest of us don't have. So here's your chance.

Where have you been for the past hundred messages or so?

​

Like others, trying to hone some clarity from your posts.​

 

[John D. Brey]

Like others, trying to hone some clarity from your posts.​

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Robert Jastrow, Astro physicist.​

When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.

Frank J. Tipler, Phd. Physicist.​

When he wrote the quotation above he was still a Jewish agnostic. He has since converted to Christianity and his latest book is called, The Physics Of Christianity.



John

 

[F1fan]

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Robert Jastrow, Astro physicist.​

When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.

Frank J. Tipler, Phd. Physicist.​

When he wrote the quotation above he was still an agnostic. He has since converted to Christianity and his latest book is called, The Physics Of Christianity.



John

You completely ignored the relevant part of my previous post: my questions. Are you being deliberately evasive?

 

[John D. Brey]

You completely ignored the relevant part of my previous post: my questions. Are you being deliberately evasive?

It seems like you've implied everything I've said in this thread is evasive? Why should I not double-down?



John

 

[F1fan]

It seems like you've implied everything I've said in this thread is evasive? Why should I not double-down?



John

I've asked you to clarify the meaning of words and phrases you have been using. Is there a problem?

 

[Magical Wand]

You might be confusing me with Princeton physics Professor John Archibald Wheeler?

There is not a single sight, not a single sound, not a single sense impression which does not derive in the last analysis from one or more elementary quantum phenomena. Objective? Not until the observing sense, or observing device – by its geometry, its layout, and its adjustment – has chosen the question to be asked, and by its registration has made a record long enough lived to produce internal or external action, has an elementary quantum phenomenon taken place that contributes to the formation of what we call reality.​

Or Harvard biology Professor Richard Lewontin?

These are simple and obvious examples of the generality that it is the biology, indeed the genes, of an organism that determines its effective environment, by establishing the way in which external physical signals become incorporated into its reactions.​

And:

The common external phenomena of the physical and biotic world pass through a transforming filter created by the peculiar biology of each species, and it is the output of this transformation that reaches the organism and is relevant to it.​

And finally:

Plato's metaphor of the cave is appropriate here. Whatever the autonomous processes of the outer world may be, they cannot be perceived by the organism. Its life is determined by the shadows on the wall, passed through a transforming medium of its own creation.​

Werner Heisenberg:

Some physicists would prefer to come back to the idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist independently of whether we observe them. That, however, is impossible.​

John

No, I'm sure I quoted you (at least, your interpretation of what a physicist wrote). In any case, I'm well acquainted with recent formulations of quantum mechanics and the majority of them are Realist Interpretations, that is, they posit there is an external world independent of the observer (e.g., Objective Collapse interpretations, Many Worlds Interpretation, Hidden Variables, Consistent theories.). So, these quotes -- regardless of whether they're being taken out of context or not -- need not worry the non-solipsist.

 

[Brian2]

How so? Under my definitions, I don't agree with your conclusion at all. Methodological naturalism is entirely open to accepting the existence of gods, miracles, or other such things, as long as there is some reliable tool that can demonstrate they are a part of our detectable reality. Such reliable tools are what I mean by "good evidence."

If something is not reliably demonstrated to be a part of reality, then a methodological naturalist will tentatively presume that this thing is imaginary, until such time as sufficient evidence is provided. This is a very good epistemology, and unfortunately for you it does not accept theism because theism does not warrant belief under this model. You may have a lot of emotional, cultural, or social reasons for believing, but those are demonstrably unreliable tools for differentiating between imagination and reality.

In what you said you seem to be showing that what I said (below) is right.
>>By bringing methodological naturalism into the study of the Bible it turns into an assumption that prophecy does not exist and so the methodological naturalism turns into philosophical naturalism.<<

 

[Brian2]

Even if I grant that Christians came up with the idea of uniformity of nature, that doesn't mean belief in uniformity is a "religious belief". In fact, the principle of uniformity can be justified without mentioning religious belief at all.

Can they be justified without first showing that there are laws in nature?
Then it would be easy to justify philosophically what has been shown to be true. It in fact would be an imperative.

You wrote: "But naturalism is not something that science has concluded. Science cannot say one way or the other about the existence of a God/s."

That's just an unjustified assertion. The opposite is true, actually. Many apologists argue it is possible to, at least in principle, find scientific evidence of a creator (for example, if science proves the universe came out of nothing physical, that would be evidence of a creator). Of course, you may need philosophy to conclude anything from the scientific discoveries, but science is heavily required. Moreover, supernatural events can in principle be discovered by science. For example, parapsychologists claim to have scientific evidence of a supernatural world and so on. The only problem with this field is that the scientists commit of a lot of methodological mistakes; but that doesn't meant the correct method can't find supernatural events.

I said what I said because that is just the nature of science. It cannot say one way or the other about the existence of a god/s. This is even something that science asserts and atheists assert.
Yet of course atheists like to see in science evidence that there is no God/s and theists like to see the opposite.

You wrote: "Methodological naturalism, as a conclusion can be changed,,,,,,,,,,,,,but because of people and power structures etc are at play not too many scientists are willing to say, it was a miracle, as an answer to any problem."

That's just conspiracy non-sense.

It's not a conspiracy so it isn't conspiracy nonsense.

You wrote: "Methodological naturalism has thus turned into an axiom and nobody in science can speak against it without being put on the outer."

Something can't "become" an axiom. An axiom is assumed without evidence (for if evidence is presented then it wouldn't be an axiom at all). The axiom of science is evidentialism. Methodological naturalism is a conclusion (as Carrier explained in that article).

Evidentialism in science means having evidence that is acceptable to the sciences-----------naturalistic evidence. So the axiom of evidentialism means methodological naturalism.

You wrote: "Any science which has a God as an assumption behind it is seen as a pseudo science"

Any non-axiomatic (non-basic) belief that is just assumed to be true isn't just non-scientific, but irrational. That is, it is not just irrational from a scientific point of view, but also from a philosophical point of view. In fact, even educated fundamentalists recognize this fact and that's why many of them (such as Alvin Plantinga and Alston) try to make belief in God axiomatic.

I won't make a belief in God axiomatic but as I said above methodological naturalism is assumed so it must be non scientific and irrational.
But in all this don't get me wrong. I'm not against the scientific method and naturalism in science as part of that. Science is science and theology is theology and it is irrational to assume that Goddidit is the answer and it is irrational to assume that goddidnotdoit is the answer when investigating science. Those answers belong to faith and not to science.

 

[AlexanderG]

In what you said you seem to be showing that what I said (below) is right.
>>By bringing methodological naturalism into the study of the Bible it turns into an assumption that prophecy does not exist and so the methodological naturalism turns into philosophical naturalism.<<

You are equating a tentative working model with a metaphysical statement concerning absolute reality. They are literally the opposite of each other.

I am open to evidence for gods, spirits, magic, or anything else supernatural. I will become convinced that these things exist just as soon as good evidence warrants that belief. So far, I have seen no such evidence and I have been actively studying this topic for years. I'm a reasonable, open-minded person and I don't believe in your god because there is no good evidence, and I think you're irrational to believe it. Face that directly. Own it. Deal with it. Stop mischaracterizing my position, or denying that I think the things I am telling you that I think.

You probably don't want to feel irrational, or think that other reasonable people think you are irrational, and so you are trying to bring my epistemology down to your unjustifiable, unreasonable level. But it's not working.

 

[AlexanderG]

Evidentialism in science means having evidence that is acceptable to the sciences-----------naturalistic evidence. So the axiom of evidentialism means methodological naturalism.

I won't make a belief in God axiomatic but as I said above methodological naturalism is assumed so it must be non scientific and irrational.
But in all this don't get me wrong. I'm not against the scientific method and naturalism in science as part of that. Science is science and theology is theology and it is irrational to assume that Goddidit is the answer and it is irrational to assume that goddidnotdoit is the answer when investigating science. Those answers belong to faith and not to science.

I think you're mischaracterizing what science means by "nature" or "natural." Science is the study of everything that can be demonstrated to be real, to exist outside of our mere imaginations. If you can reliably show that ghosts exist, have certain properties, and then create an accurate predictive model to describe their behavior, then they will become a part of science. The same goes for gods.

There is no scientific axiom that excludes the possibility for a god to exist. If you bring reliable evidence that demonstrates a god's existence, then science will incorporate that fact into its model of reality. Science will accept any method that can reliably distinguish between imaginary things and real things. The problem is that currently, there is no evidence to pull any god out of the category of imaginary concepts that we made up in our minds. There is no such indication that gods actually exist in objective reality, or likely exist. For that reason, it is irrational by definition to believe gods exist, and it has nothing to do with presuppositions or axioms against it. It comes down to basic epistemology and what paths to truth are reasonable to utilize.

If you want to believe things because a book says that the book is true, and it claims a god exists, that is your prerogative, but the rest of us will recognize the circular reasoning and justifiably call you irrational. The same goes if you believe because you have a good feeling that you attribute (without evidence) to an invisible spirit, or if you can't explain certain coincidences, or you rely on your belief in a god to have personal hope, meaning, and purpose. These are demonstrably unreliable methods to determine true facts about reality, and to use them is unreasonable.

 

[Brian2]

To the best our knowledge, that is untrue. If irreducible complexity is ever discovered in any biological system, it will be irrefutable evidence of an intelligent designer, although this need not be a god, just a powerful intelligence. But whether that intelligence is of natural or supernatural origin, the implication would be that something exists in some biological system that could not have been assembled by undirected biological evolution.

We have no news of any such discovery, although several biological systems have been offered as irreducibly complex, but in case, shown not to be. These include the eye, the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, and the clotting cascade. In each case, it was suggested that such an arrangement couldn't have assembled itself piecemeal, since the system doesn't work if missing any part, and the intermediary forms wouldn't be selected for by natural selection, since they had no function and therefore conferred no survival advantage. In every case, the claim was debunked.

Nevertheless there is still irreducible complexity in nature where no answer has been found. Some go beyond what the scientific knowledge tells us and by faith assume that an answer will be found.

Science does. I do. The ideas aren't fully formulated yet, but we are far from no idea.

Creationists are often unaware of what is known. They don't study the science, and they wear a faith-based confirmation bias that won't allow them to see contradictory evidence. One creationist on RF has been telling us for years that there is no evidence for evolution, just speculations and assumptions. All that means to the educated is that she doesn't know what they do. You're leaning that way yourself - making claims that what you know is all that is known.

Science cannot rule out supernaturalistic claims for the origin of the universe and the life in it, but it need not. It's job is to continue investigating reality and describe what is there, not rule out what others claim might be there. If they ever find evidence better explained by imputing an intelligent designer such as irreducible complexity, then they will have cause to consider such a possibility.

But for now, no known barriers to a completely naturalistic explanation are known, and those that have ruled such a possibility off of their list of candidate hypotheses for nature have committed a non sequitur fallacy by so doing. There is no rational way to exclude the possibility that no god exists or is needed to account for reality. There is no observation, argument, experiment or algorithm that rule out either a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic account. They're both on the table until such time as one or the other can be ruled in or out.

So, science goes on investigating nature. In the case of the origin of life, progress is made every year demonstrating how the elements of life could have assemble themselves without intelligent oversight.

The elements of life assembling themselves without intelligent oversight does not rule out a designer and creator of course, but science seems to have shifted the goal posts in it's definition of life to call assembled elements "life".
The only thing we do know at the moment is that life comes from pre-existing life. Beyond that there is speculation and some people by faith seem to want to believe the speculation instead of what is known about life.

Also untrue. We know quite a bit about how the universe evolved and assembled itself, and none of what we have discovered required an intelligent builder.

When I said we know nothing about where the universe came from I did not mean that we know nothing about the laws of physical and how they have contributed to the universe being what it is.

If by faith you mean belief insufficiently supported and often contradicted by evidence such as belief in a flat earth, creationism, the pandemic as hoax, the American election as stolen, etc., then no, faith is not required to justify trust in the methods of science. One can use his eyes. The proof is in the pudding. No more is needed to know to confirm to you that the science and engineering that underlay the manned Apollo moon missions was correct than that several human beings were taken to the moon and back successfully. We make the same judgement with a car or appliance manufacturer. If their product lasts longer or otherwise performs better than the competition, we understand that their methods for designing cars are valid. If a particular physician gets consistently better results than his peers, that is evidence that he processes information better. One needn't know how he does it, just that he gets results, and that therefore his methods are valid.

We expect the methods of science to continue generating ideas that can be used to predict nature as it has in the past. We also expect that none of these ideas will contain a god, as the history of science has been to show that a god is not needed in any scientific theory to give it more explanatory or predictive power. You could add angels pushing electrons around to the science of electronics, or a god to the theory of evolution, but neither idea adds anything of value to the science, and so there is no reason to do that. Theists often frame that as an anti-God prejudice, but it's actually a manifestation of the tried and true principle of parsimony in scientific modeling, which insists that no more complexity be added to an explanation than is needed to account for observations.

'''Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.""

What you are saying sounds like an argument from ignorance to me.
Some things will never be known through science and that is fine. It of course will not stop science from continuing the search, and it is fine not to know.
What people conclude about the existence of God from science is a matter of faith however and preconceptions and if the conclusion is said to come from science then I would say it is because of wrong thinking.

An interesting phenomenon of creationist apologetics is the failure of the apologist to recognize that his arguments only work on other faith-based thinkers, such as those reading creationist websites. He never seems to notice that when he brings these same arguments to those well trained in the sciences and in critical thinking, that they in every case tell him that his argument is incomplete and/or fallacious, or if he does, attributes it to intellectual dishonesty on the part of his critics rather than that his arguments just don't cut it with the knowledgeable.

The fact is that apologetics is for faith-based thinkers, and really should only be shared with them. It's purpose is to counter the advantage science has by being empirical and rational by attempting to convince scientifically unsophisticated religious readers and listeners that their beliefs are just as rational and supported by reason and evidence.

It is true that scientifically illiterate can be bamboozled by YEC and especially when there are YEC scientists telling them things. The same of course can happen when non YEC scientists speak to those who are not YEC.
Science does of course have the advantage in it's fields and the areas of evidence they have to use.

We'll see things such as nobody has ever witnessed a dog give birth to a cat, or science has proved that life can only come from other life. Here, they're seemingly appealing to empiricism like a scientist would, but using specious arguments that are easily debunked by others not found frequenting creationist sites or Sunday schools, such as a creationist is apt to find here on RF.

Is it true that life does not have to come from other life,,,,,,,,,,,,,or is that a speculation that science has and is investigating? I think the latter,,,,,,,,,,,even if it does not stop you from believing the former.

Here, those arguments are counterproductive to the apologist. Here, his errors are cited. It seems to me that there is zero hope of advancing the creationist agenda in a mixed venue like this one. The creationists routinely are show their errors and dismissed as unqualified to discuss the science.

Or maybe the creationist knows this and doesn't care. Perhaps he sees himself as a martyr in the lions' den doing what he thinks he is commanded to do by his God even in the face of adversity and rejection, which are described as a virtue. It's a common theme in evangelism.

I'm not a YEC but of course am in the same boat when it comes to arguing creation, but not on quite so much rocky ground as the YEC. My problem is when I dare to say that science does not know some things and that the beliefs of atheists in evolution as science tells us it happened, is a matter of faith.
My problem also seems to be in the area of biblical interpretation when an atheist does not seem to want a Bible that can fit in with what evolution tells us.
I prefer to point out things that many don't seem to know about the sciences that tell us about the past however. That is does not know it all and seems to interpolate (based on the assumed truth of evolution) and call that interpolation "science" much of the time.

 

[Magical Wand]

I think you're mischaracterizing what science means by "nature" or "natural." Science is the study of everything that can be demonstrated to be real, to exist outside of our mere imaginations. If you can reliably show that ghosts exist, have certain properties, and then create an accurate predictive model to describe their behavior, then they will become a part of science. The same goes for gods.

There is no scientific axiom that excludes the possibility for a god to exist. If you bring reliable evidence that demonstrates a god's existence, then science will incorporate that fact into its model of reality. Science will accept any method that can reliably distinguish between imaginary things and real things. The problem is that currently, there is no evidence to pull any god out of the category of imaginary concepts that we made up in our minds. There is no such indication that gods actually exist in objective reality, or likely exist. For that reason, it is irrational by definition to believe gods exist, and it has nothing to do with presuppositions or axioms against it. It comes down to basic epistemology and what paths to truth are reasonable to utilize.

If you want to believe things because a book says that the book is true, and it claims a god exists, that is your prerogative, but the rest of us will recognize the circular reasoning and justifiably call you irrational. The same goes if you believe because you have a good feeling that you attribute (without evidence) to an invisible spirit, or if you can't explain certain coincidences, or you rely on your belief in a god to have personal hope, meaning, and purpose. These are demonstrably unreliable methods to determine true facts about reality, and to use them is unreasonable.

I appreciate your efforts to explain the issue to Brian, but I suspect he doesn't care. I sent an article to him where it was explained that methodological naturalism isn't an axiom and etc, but he keeps repeating the same thing without addressing those arguments.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nevertheless there is still irreducible complexity in nature where no answer has been found.

There are no known examples of irreducible complexity in biological systems.

Of course claims of irreducible complexity are falsifiable in the sense that if they are false claims, they can be refuted, but there is no algorithm for deciding if a system is irreducibly complex. Even if such a thing existed and was considered for possessing irreducible complexity, that can't be decided. It's always possible that the naturalistic pathway hasn't been identified yet, which might have been the case with the bacterial flagellum if it weren't known that it was a repurposed bacterial structure.

This a lot like circumstantial evidence in legal matters. If it is consistent with the police's suspicions, it doesn't rule the suspect in, but if it is otherwise, it can rule the suspect out. Before DNA testing, forensics might be able to tell you that the killer had type A blood, which rules nobody in, but millions out. Irreducible complexity in biological systems can be ruled out if it's not there, but never demonstrated if it is.

The elements of life assembling themselves without intelligent oversight does not rule out a designer and creator

No, but it makes one unnecessary. The history of science has been the demonstration that the universe can assemble itself (except life, which hasn't been demonstrated yet nor ruled out) and run itself day to day without an intelligent builder or ruler. What's left for this God to do now that we know that the sun doesn't require Apollo to drag it through the sky, nor Thor to make the thunder, nor angels to push electrons through wires?

Newton thought that a God was needed to keep Jupiter and Saturn's gravity from throwing planets like the earth into the sun or out of the solar system into interstellar space. His calculations suggested that planetary orbits should not be stable, so he invoked a God to explain what he couldn't explain otherwise. Then came Laplace about a century later with some new mathematics (perturbation theory) that solved the three-body gravitational problem and showed that the solar system was stable without the hand of God periodically making ad hoc corrections. Napoleon asked Laplace where God was in his conception of celestial mechanics, to which Laplace famously answered that he had no need of that hypothesis, and a god was relieved of yet another duty.

This progression is the origin of the phrase 'God of the gaps,' referring to the remaining gaps in knowledge at any given point in the evolution of scientific knowledge as the shrinking place for the god to find a job it is needed to do.

science seems to have shifted the goal posts in it's definition of life to call assembled elements "life".

As science progresses and evidence accumulates, the narrative is modified to reflect this new understanding. Modern thought about life is that it is a chemical process. My underground major was biochemistry, where we learned the chemical pathways that comprise metabolism and the regulation of that metabolism (homeostasis) to keep the chemistry happening (don't let the serum potassium levels get too high or low if you want the heart to continue beating, nor the body temperature, nor its pH, etc. - all chemistry). Abiogenesis is also called chemical evolution.

The only thing we do know at the moment is that life comes from pre-existing life.

I'll bet that you don't believe that. You believe that God created the life in the universe. Is a disembodied intelligence alive? I'd answer no, since it doesn't do the things living things do such as reproduce, grow, develop, repair, etc., and it isn't made of cells like all living things we know of are, but it's not important how we answer. If you consider God alive, then God would be an example of life that didn't come from other life, and if you agree with me that a disembodied mind like God should not be called alive, then that which you do consider alive came from a nonliving entity.

What people conclude about the existence of God from science is a matter of faith however and preconceptions and if the conclusion is said to come from science then I would say it is because of wrong thinking.

I can conclude that the God of the Christian Bible doesn't exist from both the evidence underlying the theory of evolution, and from pure logic (theodicy problem), but not that other kinds of gods can't or don't exist. The deist god cannot be ruled out, but it also doesn't need to be considered, since its existence or nonexistence would be equally useless information (apatheism). That's why I call my form of atheism agnostic atheism. I don't know if gods exist, and make no claim that none do.

But keep in mind that that is also the status of leprechauns and vampires, for which I also have no observation, argument, experiment or algorithm that can demonstrate that they don't exist somewhere.

Yet in the end, I agree that science does not rule gods out, and that people that say that there are no gods are unaware of what the limits of their knowledge are. I know that they can't know that even if they don't, and are taking a small leap of faith if they claim that they do.

What you are saying sounds like an argument from ignorance to me.

 

[John D. Brey]

I think you're mischaracterizing what science means by "nature" or "natural."

The materialist is forced to use the word `natural' in a purely tautological way. For if the materialist considers the state of the universe at the big bang `natural' (every particle in perfect harmony within a space less than the size of a pea) - then it's difficult to imagine a place where the word `natural' wouldn't apply. If everything is natural - then nothing is natural. The term `natural' must differentiate one state from another - otherwise it's employed in a totally meaningless way. If everything in the universe is considered `natural', then it's superfluous to call any one process within that universe `natural'.

Tautological Oxymorons.​

Science is the study of everything that can be demonstrated to be real, to exist outside of our mere imaginations.

The laws of physics are presumably real. And yet they're invisible but for their manifestation. God is like that. It took human imagination to imagine that the so-called natural world ran according to invisible laws that can only be seen through their manifestation.

God is like that.

In the same way an aborigine will wiggle, spit, and scratch his behind when told the world functions by invisible laws and principles "Show me a law so I can eat it . . . I'm hungry" (he retorts), the modern aborigine, who must be brought to accept the laws of nature kicking and screaming, still screams when told that just like the invisible laws that are manifest in "real" things, God is invisible, and yet manifest in all that is real.

"I won't believe Him till I can see him" (the modern aborigine replies). "I want to see him so I can nail him down so he can't get in the way of my disbelief in him." ---------" . . . Aw . . . Hell No . . !" ------the modern abo says when he sees billions of people wearing the nailed-down God betwixt their breasts so that he must acknowledge him and ignore him wherever he goes.

John