Metaphysical-Physicalism.

[John D. Brey]

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.

As the laws of nature are manifest in the functioning of nature, John's Gospel tells us God is manifest in all thought: In the beginning was the thought, and the thought was with God, and the thought was God.

As a rock is, to the laws of physics, i.e., a manifestation of them, every thought is to God: a manifestation of him.

Science requires thought as much as it requires the laws of physics. And yet in this very thread I've quoted agnostic, atheist, materialistic, thinkers, of some renown, saying the human mind doesn't appear to be subsumed in the laws of physics. It, the human mind, seems to thumb it's nose at the laws when it wants to do something the laws would forbid (like making an intelligent thinking machine in years, or decades, rather than billions of years).

Natural selection requires millions and billions of years to do what a human mind can do in a few years while watching a football game and chewing gum at the same time.

How can the thought required to imagine there are natural laws, be subsumed in those laws? Daniel Dennett says even some of his most brilliant scientist friends have a problem with something that's a product of evolution figuring out evolution, only to take over for evolution, to do what it took evolution billions of years to do, in a couple years.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

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.

. . . Except that Popper said rationalism is circular, and that irrationalism is more rationally correct than a rationalism that must have "faith" in reason before it can consider itself reasonable and rational. Rationalism is tautological. It requires blind faith in reason to believe reason is utterly reasonable.

I hate to tell you that. You're good people. And I hate giving good people bad news. Here . . . have a cookie. And in a few minutes you'll forget that what I said is true and all will be right as rain like it was before I rained on your parade.



John

 

[AlexanderG]

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

You don't seem to understand the scientific method, which operates on novel testable predictions and can include indirect evidence to validate these predictions. The existence of a god has never been supported by this caliber of evidence. Ever. It is not like that.

. . . Except that Popper said rationalism is circular, and that irrationalism is more rationally correct than a rationalism that must have "faith" in reason before it can consider itself reasonable and rational. Rationalism is tautological. It requires blind faith in reason to believe reason is utterly reasonable.

Reason is described by induction, namely a method of thought that reliably leads to desired outcomes and accurate information. As many people have pointed out, even animals can do this without making presuppositions or blind faith. And your argument that irrationality is more rational that rationality is incoherent. And why are we still caring what Popper said about anything?

I hate to tell you that. You're good people. And I hate giving good people bad news. Here . . . have a cookie. And in a few minutes you'll forget that what I said is true and all will be right as rain like it was before I rained on your parade.

Your condescending sarcasm is noted.

As the laws of nature are manifest in the functioning of nature, John's Gospel tells us God is manifest in all thought: In the beginning was the thought, and the thought was with God, and the thought was God.

How can the thought required to imagine there are natural laws, be subsumed in those laws? Daniel Dennett says even some of his most brilliant scientist friends have a problem with something that's a product of evolution figuring out evolution, only to take over for evolution, to do what it took evolution billions of years to do, in a couple years.
John

The bible says that the bible is true. This is circular reasoning that I reject. And then you make an argument from ignorance about evolution and consciousness. I'm still not seeing any evidence that warrants the belief that any gods exist.

Yeah, I think I'm done. You don't seem interested in a real conversation.

 

[Magical Wand]

Can they be justified without first showing that there are laws in nature?

Oh, that's easy. Look around you. The universe behaves in a regular way. This is what we call a law (or simply a regularity). To say there is a law of gravity is to say that gravity holds regularly.

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

That's non-sense. As long as the supernatural has some observable effect on the natural world, evidence of such a world can be discovered.

methodological naturalism is assumed so it must be non scientific and irrational.

Not true. Methodological naturalism is a conclusion. Not an assumption. If you want to claim this methodology is an assumption, you must refute the arguments presented in its favor (which can be found in the article I recommended to you and you simply ignored).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Your author seems to be warning us that if we use the concept of nature and naturalism to mean all that there is, then the term has no meaning. That is incorrect. Asserting that all of reality is naturalistic is saying that the term supernaturalistic refers to nothing real. In fact, if one considers the idea carefully, one sees that it is incoherent. It implies an order of reality capable of interacting with the natural world that is itself not natural.

A typical use of the term natural for me would be in comments such as, we have two principle kinds of answers for why life exists, one supernaturalistic involving unseen intelligence that itself antedates life and is its intelligent designer, and naturalistic answers like abiogenesis. Or, when comparing the scientific theory of biological evolution with so called theistic evolution, where at least some of the process is at the whim of an intelligence directing it, perhaps to assume a form in its own image, the primary distinction is that science's answer is purely naturalistic, that is, no intelligence is involved until intelligence evolves naturalistically to begin directing it as with animal breeding and horticulture.

And that brings us to a second meaning of natural. Beside being the opposite of supernatural, it is also the opposite of artificial. Before man, evolution was all naturalistic, but since, some artifice has been injected into the process.

I always appreciate the concern for the unbeliever shown by people who don't respect them and really are only interested in defeating them verbally. I also can't help but note that your author doesn't make the case that reality is anything but naturalistic, just that we shouldn't let ourselves think in such terms lest our words be reduced to worthlessness, so to save naturalism and allow it to have some meaning, we need to have supernaturalism as well. He doesn't explain how any of this clarifies thought or can be used in any practical way.

Also, your author seems to be having a problem at the end, when he creates an oxymoron by juxtaposing a word that means self-affirming (tautological) with one that means self-contradicting (oxymoron).

The laws of physics are presumably real. And yet they're invisible but for their manifestation. God is like that.

No, they describe things that are real. Forces and particles are real. Energy is real. The numerical relationships allowing one real state to serve as the means to predict the next one are abstractions like 2+2=4, drawn (abstracted) from reality. This law of arithmetic has no material reality. It allows us to predict that if we merge a pair of apples with another pair of apples, we'll have four apples. The law allows us to predict accurately what physical reality will be like, but is itself not physically real. The abstraction is a convenient fiction that unifies before and after states such that one can be used to anticipate the other.

You say that your God is like that, too? Can you use that idea to predict how reality will unfold? For example, if two or more of us get together and pray or have faith, we can reliably predict that a mountain will move? That's what useful fictions can do that useless ones cannot.

How can the thought required to imagine there are natural laws, be subsumed in those laws?

How can they not? Why wouldn't they? Did you have an actual argument for why you reject that, or shall we just call it your incredulity?

It requires blind faith in reason to believe reason is utterly reasonable.

Then you don't understand what evidence is or how to interpret it. The proof of the validity of the assumptions underlying the use of reason to make accurate predictions of reality comes when those predictions are shown to be accurate. Let's make a whole raft of assumptions generated by reasoning in preparation to launch New Horizons to Pluto. Let's assume a whole bunch of things about what it takes to launch a craft and guide it, for it and Pluto to be at the same place at some future calculated time, and for it to send graphic images and other data back to earth.

Did that happen? (Spoiler: yes). Then the the confidence in the reasoning underlying the mission is confirmed empirically. Those unable to see that might think that others can only thing by faith as well, not understanding how these other people are using evidence and reason to predict future reality and to establish the validity of those assumptions.

 

[Brian2]

Oh, that's easy. Look around you. The universe behaves in a regular way. This is what we call a law (or simply a regularity). To say there is a law of gravity is to say that gravity holds regularly.

Nevertheless the idea that a God of law made the universe caused the west to want to find the laws that governed the universe.
Now it is plain that the universe is governed by laws but at one time it was not plain. So if you look at the science now and the law of gravity then you can easily see the regularity and come to the wrong conclusion that the regularity was so obvious that this is the reason that people wanted to study it. It is approaching it from the wrong end of history.

That's non-sense. As long as the supernatural has some observable effect on the natural world, evidence of such a world can be discovered.

I hear of miracles happening these days.
I also see ideas having a huge effect on the world through actions of people.
That is not really accessible for science to study but scientists could check out all the miracles if they wanted to see if miracles happened.

Not true. Methodological naturalism is a conclusion. Not an assumption. If you want to claim this methodology is an assumption, you must refute the arguments presented in its favor (which can be found in the article I recommended to you and you simply ignored).

In an article that calls believers 'kooks' and says that it is really ontological naturalism because it has been shown by the number of times where the supernatural was shown not to be responsible for things, what can I say but that the author is biased and cannot see past naturalistic evidence.
The author is like other atheists who say, give me the evidence (meaning naturalistic empirical evidence) and I will believe. The author was even selective about the miracles of Jesus he chose to speak about as showing only psychosomatic healing.
Yet having said that I would agree that in science, where natural things are studied, methodological naturalism is a conclusion which can be changed given enough evidence to the contrary.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nevertheless the idea that a God of law made the universe caused the west to want to find the laws that governed the universe.

No, Western religion contributed no ideas that led to the development of science. Christianity is anti-intellectual. Thuis is what scripture teaches:

• Ecclesiastes 1:18 - "For in much wisdom is much vexation and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow

• 1 Corinthians 1:19 - "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

• 1 Corinthians 3:18 - "Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."

From that come such ideas as these from hugely influential church fathers:

• "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn." - St. Augustine

• "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther

In the West, rational skepticism was first introduced by the ancient Greek philosophers, whose skepticism about the claims that natural events were punishments from capricious gods led to free speculation about reality. Thales (624 BC - 546 BC) suggested that everything was a form of water, which was the only substance he knew of capable of existing as solid, liquid and gas. What is significant was his willingness to try to explain the workings of nature without invoking the supernatural or appealing to the ancients and their dicta. The more profound implication was that man might be capable of understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible rules that he might discover. Eventually, Thales went on to be the first to accurately predict the time of an eclipse. I expect that his religious neighbors were busy offering sacrifices at the time. The two traditions have nothing in common.

I am often told that most of the early scientists were Christian, as if that were the source of their inspiration. Newton was a theist, but when he was writing on gravity, he had to resort to pure reason applied to evidence, not faith. He learned to compartmentalize his religious beliefs and keep them out of most of his work enabling him to write the same things that an atheist with Newton's intellect could have written. There is no mention of gods in his celestial mechanics until he came to a problem he couldn't solve critically, at which point he invoked God to manually keep the solar system stable with some ad hoc adjustments to orbits to keep them stable. Laplace came along and produced the mathematics Newton lacked to solve the problem of gravitation between multiple bodies each affecting all others simultaneously (perturbation theory), and God was dismissed from yet another role in running the universe day-to-day. In fact, when Napoleon asked Laplace where God was in his work, he answered that he had no need of that hypothesis.

scientists could check out all the miracles if they wanted to see if miracles happened.

Scientists don't study claims of miracles. They only study nature. If miracles occur there, the scientists will recognize the overruling of the laws of nature and tell you that they found a miracle. But if some theists want to do scientific research in search of miracles, they are welcome to do so and submit their papers to respected scientific journals for refereeing. The ID people did that looking for irreducible complexity out of frustration that the scientific wasn't interested in the project.

The author is like other atheists who say, give me the evidence (meaning naturalistic empirical evidence) and I will believe.

What you're describing is not an atheist, but a rational skeptic and critical thinker. Evidence properly understood is the foundation for belief. If one uses any other method, they will incorporate false beliefs. If one considers that undesirable, he avoids insufficiently supported belief. This is frustrating to those whose ideas can only be believed by faith. They seem to consider these criteria too exacting, but the critical thinker considers theirs too undisciplined and indiscriminate in what it will call truth.

 

[John D. Brey]

Your author seems to be warning us that if we use the concept of nature and naturalism to mean all that there is, then the term has no meaning. That is incorrect. Asserting that all of reality is naturalistic is saying that the term supernaturalistic refers to nothing real. In fact, if one considers the idea carefully, one sees that it is incoherent. It implies an order of reality capable of interacting with the natural world that is itself not natural.

If all words are ontologically based (somewhere in their chain of signifiers/metaphors) on real thesis and antithesis (and they are) then any attempt to use a word (particularly one with ontological/metaphysical implications – like `natural’) without acknowledging the qualifying legitimacy of its antithesis – destroys the meaning of the word completely. Such an activity renders the meaning of the word completely tautologous! It’s a form of nihilism that attempts to `annihilate’ the Being of a word by severing the word from its only source of meaning -- the binary dichotomy that gives it meaning.​

If in an absolute sense, you have nothing but white and black, to remove either the white or the black doesn’t leave you with the other (either the remaining white, or the remaining black) but it leaves you with nothing at all. Regardless of the counter-intuitive nature of this fact, it is absolutely true. In an absolute sense, the white is white only in reference to black, and the black is black only in reference to white. To remove the reference point from which either entity gains its meaning (its Being) is to annihilate any meaning or Being.

This fact makes all materialistic statements meaning-less, for they use the term `natural’ as the binary opposite of something they deny exists. If the term `natural’ isn’t used to contrast some other state, then the term has zero meaning. If Nature isn’t an emergent antithesis of the infinite (the supernatural), then consequently, the materialist’s term `natural’ ends up possessing its own `infinite finiteness,’ which is an asinine oxymoron. This is a distortion of the logic of infinity; for the infinite cannot be seen or known in the sense of the finite; therefore what can be seen and known has nothing infinite about it. For the materialist, anything open to perceptions is natural. Yet to be perceived is to be finite. Infinity is not perceptible since it doesn't have boundaries. You cannot see something that has no `thing-ness’ to see. And `thing-ness’ is based on finite boundaries. Infinity has no `thing-ness’ and thus it cannot be seen or perceived.

Tautological Oxymorons.​

A typical use of the term natural for me would be in comments such as, we have two principle kinds of answers for why life exists, one supernaturalistic involving unseen intelligence that itself antedates life and is its intelligent designer, and naturalistic answers like abiogenesis. Or, when comparing the scientific theory of biological evolution with so called theistic evolution, where at least some of the process is at the whim of an intelligence directing it, perhaps to assume a form in its own image, the primary distinction is that science's answer is purely naturalistic, that is, no intelligence is involved until intelligence evolves naturalistically to begin directing it as with animal breeding and horticulture.

Natural selection is also a tautology, for if the environment in fact selects the variations that reflect, or cause, the increase of functional order – then it (the environment) possesses the inexplicable/metaphysical `selection’ power that the theory is designed to deny, or explain away. Rather than define what `selection’ is – in-itself - natural selection (as a theory) is content to presume that `selection’ is what you have when you have a selector (such as environmental niches) in the process of selecting . . . this is a tautology. The theory of natural selection says in effect: the most `unnatural’ thing in the universe - life - is in fact natural – because a selector has selected for it. The theory doesn’t give a sense to the word `natural’ – nor does it define `selection’ (in non-tautological terms) - worse - it fails even to produce a meaningful description of `life’ within its allegedly scientific paradigm. Yet the materialist presumes the combination of two completely impenetrable oxymorons (un-natural naturalness and selector-less selection) form a non-metaphysical definition of the most inexplicable thing in the universe.

Tautological Oxymorons.​

And that brings us to a second meaning of natural. Beside being the opposite of supernatural, it is also the opposite of artificial. Before man, evolution was all naturalistic, but since, some artifice has been injected into the process.

Faced with the conundrum of defining the word `natural’ in non-tautologous terms, the materialist eventually explains that the term natural (as used in the concept of natural selection) - is designed to differentiate between `artificial’ or conscious selection (like the selection performed by an animal breeder) – and a so-called `non-conscious’ selection - such as would occur absent a conscious selector. But if the materialist states that this differentiation (between conscious and natural) is simply being used as a tool to emphasize that natural selection doesn’t require a consciousness agency – then he (the materialist) has simply found another route to the absurdity of defining something by means of a negative (what it is not) rather than a positive (what it is). In this case the ploy represents a `fatal first step’ since the term natural is being used as a real ingredient of a theory – when the essence of the ingredient (its naturalness) is nothing but its opposition to a known selection (conscious selection), which must be considered `artificial,’ or wholly `un-natural,’ within the materialist’s disingenuous strategy. `Naturalness’ (as used by the materialist) literally rests on the necessity of an a priori un-naturalness! `Un-naturalness’ is the boundary condition that allows the use of the term natural.

What the materialist would consider `artificial selection’ (selection made by conscious agents) should actually (by reason of the materialist own definition) possesses the moniker `natural’ - since we know it exists. If it exists the materialist considers it natural. To the materialist, nothing that exists is other than natural. And therefore, the process, which we know for certain exists (conscious selection), should be termed `natural selection,’ and a selection whose only existence is its conceptual/theoretical opposition to this `natural selection’ (conscious selection) should be termed `un-natural selection,’ or `other-than-natural-selection’ . . . or even `artificial selection.’ The materialist’s natural selection should be called something other than natural selection since we can only speak of it as a type, or likeness, of conscious selection. Non-conscious selection should be termed `artificial’ because it cannot even be spoken of except by a `conscious’ agent who is comparing it to an actual conscious selection - a selection the materialist knows exists.

Why on earth would materialists call a selection “theory” natural - and suppose a `selection’ that is not theory - because we know it exists (conscious selection) `artificial’? Is it an Orwellian ploy? Like `Freedom is Slavery’? Or is it because the materialist refuses to acknowledge the preeminent nature of consciousness – and feels better calling it `artificial’? Likewise – the materialist apparently prefers to believe that the consciousness he calls artificial is an effect, or epiphenomenon, of the natural or inherent properties of inanimate matter? . . . It seems that the materialist’s almost religious desire to render mind (consciousness) meaningless - forces him to call the conscious selection that is absolutely real (we see it every day) artificial - and rather term a selection that is primarily hypothesis `natural’!

This rape of language occurs everywhere the materialist uses the term natural. For instance, the materialist uses the word natural to explain the `constant laws of nature’ by reason of the fact that they are inexplicable -transcendent. To the materialist, the fact that the `constants of nature’ are inexplicable makes them natural. Yet this is in exact contradistinction to what we have seen the materialist do with an inexplicable consciousness, which he terms artificial.

The materialist calls the consciousness that allows him to examine the `constants of nature’ – artificial - yet the `constants of nature,’ which are just as inexplicable, and just as necessary for the materialist to speak of anything at all – are called natural. It seems that for the materialist, everything (regardless of it’s inexplicability) can earn the moniker natural, just so long as it has nothing to do with mind or consciousness. Mind and consciousness are ever the materialist’s boggy-man! He (the materialist) seems to intuit somewhere in the recesses of his mind/consciousness - that regardless of how cohesive, or elegant, are the tautologous language of his doctrinal idiocies - nonetheless, they all melt away into a perverse parody when he attempts to speak (using mind and consciousness) of theories, and concepts, that reject the ontological supremacy of mind and consciousness!

Tautological Oxymorons.
​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

I always appreciate the concern for the unbeliever shown by people who don't respect them and really are only interested in defeating them verbally. I also can't help but note that your author doesn't make the case that reality is anything but naturalistic, just that we shouldn't let ourselves think in such terms lest our words be reduced to worthlessness, so to save naturalism and allow it to have some meaning, we need to have supernaturalism as well. He doesn't explain how any of this clarifies thought or can be used in any practical way.

Ludwig Wittgenstein felt that the essence of his magnum opus (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus) was contained in the knowledge that, ` . . . what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.’ The fact that Darwinism must couch itself in tautological redundancies – and gross inconsistencies (as in its use of the term natural) – is the Wittgensteinian proof that the scientist `must pass over in silence’ the metaphysical origins of life – as well as the functional design which is an inherent property of life. Wittgenstein further stated:

It is [as] impossible to represent in language anything that “contradicts logic” as it is in geometry to represent by its co-ordinates a figure that contradicts the laws of space, or to give the co-ordinates of a point that does not exist.

Wittgenstein is suggesting that language is designed so as to preclude the ability to couch falsehoods and errors within a meaningful grammatical proposition (at least concerning propositions designed to `explain’ the essence of a metaphysical reality within a finite language). The extraordinary profundity of Wittgenstein’s statement (he is calling language the geometry of reality – and the gauge of truth)[iii] suggests that a creationist can refute the claim that natural selection is a viable theory able to accurately represent the genesis of life, and design functionality – simple by asking the materialist to name the processes, or mechanisms, powering evolution - with zero reference to an a priori consciousness, a creator, or anything metaphysical.

The philosopher Georg Lichtenberg once said, that he often: ` . . .wished that there could be a language in which one could not even express falsehoods or an error against truth, or [in which] an error against truth were a grammatical one.’ By illuminating the fact that all linguistically encoded concepts presumed to possess the ability to `explain’ the nature of reality are in fact grossly tautological, Wittgenstein is at least partially fulfilling Lichtenberg’s wish. The fact that the materialist cannot logically clothe his so-called natural theory in non-tautological and non-contradictory language – shows conclusively - that he (the materialist) needs metaphysics even to `speak about’ his specious theory; and that without a transcendent/metaphysical state (infinity) to act as the positive for all his negatives - they cannot even be presented in language.

In Wittgenstein’s terms, the materialist is attempting to construct a two-sided triangle when he tries `to represent in language’ contradictory propositions like natural selection. This idea justifies what Wittgenstein and Russell said about the correlation of facts and syntax! The undeniable correlation of syntax to facts – is what brought Wittgenstein to the sublime realization that since language is logically related to facts, it (language) must have a symbiotic relationship to facts. From this shocking realization - Wittgenstein hypothesized that language (at its core) is a non-physical entity possessing a metaphysical transcendent grammar that is in every way as complex as life itself. The fact that the materialist cannot `speak about’ his materialistic origins of life - in non-tautological syntax – means his theory is not alive – it’s dead. It (language) can state false concepts in tautological terms – but it cannot give false concepts a life (non-tautological meaning) that they don’t already possess. In other words, life is metaphysical (unnatural), transcendent . . . and therefore, for a theory to have life – it must concede to a transcendence – it must possess un-natural (metaphysical) characteristics. To the extent that natural selection attempts to define life apart from metaphysics – it (natural selection) is a dead theory.

Tautological Oxymorons.
​

Also, your author seems to be having a problem at the end, when he creates an oxymoron by juxtaposing a word that means self-affirming (tautological) with one that means self-contradicting (oxymoron).

Natural selection is an oxymoronic tautology.

Natural selection is an oxymoron since the most `un-natural’ thing in the universe – life – (or the functional order inherent in life) - is the primary thing the term `natural’ is being used to explain. A conspicuous `un-naturalness’ seems to suffuse the very things that the materialist would use the term `natural’ to explain. This makes the materialist’s use of the term `natural’ a standard example of an oxymoron (un-natural naturalness).

Natural selection is also a tautology, for if the environment in fact selects the variations that reflect, or cause, the increase of functional order – then it (the environment) possesses the inexplicable/metaphysical `selection’ power that the theory is designed to deny, or explain away. Rather than define what `selection’ is – in-itself - natural selection (as a theory) is content to presume that `selection’ is what you have when you have a selector (such as environmental niches) in the process of selecting . . . this is a tautology.

Tautological Oxymorons.​

John

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If all words are ontologically based (somewhere in their chain of signifiers/metaphors) on real thesis and antithesis (and they are) then any attempt to use a word (particularly one with ontological/metaphysical implications – like `natural’) without acknowledging the qualifying legitimacy of its antithesis – destroys the meaning of the word completely. Such an activity renders the meaning of the word completely tautologous! It’s a form of nihilism that attempts to `annihilate’ the Being of a word by severing the word from its only source of meaning -- the binary dichotomy that gives it meaning.​

If in an absolute sense, you have nothing but white and black, to remove either the white or the black doesn’t leave you with the other (either the remaining white, or the remaining black) but it leaves you with nothing at all. Regardless of the counter-intuitive nature of this fact, it is absolutely true. In an absolute sense, the white is white only in reference to black, and the black is black only in reference to white. To remove the reference point from which either entity gains its meaning (its Being) is to annihilate any meaning or Being.

This fact makes all materialistic statements meaning-less, for they use the term `natural’ as the binary opposite of something they deny exists. If the term `natural’ isn’t used to contrast some other state, then the term has zero meaning. If Nature isn’t an emergent antithesis of the infinite (the supernatural), then consequently, the materialist’s term `natural’ ends up possessing its own `infinite finiteness,’ which is an asinine oxymoron. This is a distortion of the logic of infinity; for the infinite cannot be seen or known in the sense of the finite; therefore what can be seen and known has nothing infinite about it. For the materialist, anything open to perceptions is natural. Yet to be perceived is to be finite. Infinity is not perceptible since it doesn't have boundaries. You cannot see something that has no `thing-ness’ to see. And `thing-ness’ is based on finite boundaries. Infinity has no `thing-ness’ and thus it cannot be seen or perceived.

Tautological Oxymorons.​

Natural selection is also a tautology, for if the environment in fact selects the variations that reflect, or cause, the increase of functional order – then it (the environment) possesses the inexplicable/metaphysical `selection’ power that the theory is designed to deny, or explain away. Rather than define what `selection’ is – in-itself - natural selection (as a theory) is content to presume that `selection’ is what you have when you have a selector (such as environmental niches) in the process of selecting . . . this is a tautology. The theory of natural selection says in effect: the most `unnatural’ thing in the universe - life - is in fact natural – because a selector has selected for it. The theory doesn’t give a sense to the word `natural’ – nor does it define `selection’ (in non-tautological terms) - worse - it fails even to produce a meaningful description of `life’ within its allegedly scientific paradigm. Yet the materialist presumes the combination of two completely impenetrable oxymorons (un-natural naturalness and selector-less selection) form a non-metaphysical definition of the most inexplicable thing in the universe.

Tautological Oxymorons.​

Faced with the conundrum of defining the word `natural’ in non-tautologous terms, the materialist eventually explains that the term natural (as used in the concept of natural selection) - is designed to differentiate between `artificial’ or conscious selection (like the selection performed by an animal breeder) – and a so-called `non-conscious’ selection - such as would occur absent a conscious selector. But if the materialist states that this differentiation (between conscious and natural) is simply being used as a tool to emphasize that natural selection doesn’t require a consciousness agency – then he (the materialist) has simply found another route to the absurdity of defining something by means of a negative (what it is not) rather than a positive (what it is). In this case the ploy represents a `fatal first step’ since the term natural is being used as a real ingredient of a theory – when the essence of the ingredient (its naturalness) is nothing but its opposition to a known selection (conscious selection), which must be considered `artificial,’ or wholly `un-natural,’ within the materialist’s disingenuous strategy. `Naturalness’ (as used by the materialist) literally rests on the necessity of an a priori un-naturalness! `Un-naturalness’ is the boundary condition that allows the use of the term natural.

What the materialist would consider `artificial selection’ (selection made by conscious agents) should actually (by reason of the materialist own definition) possesses the moniker `natural’ - since we know it exists. If it exists the materialist considers it natural. To the materialist, nothing that exists is other than natural. And therefore, the process, which we know for certain exists (conscious selection), should be termed `natural selection,’ and a selection whose only existence is its conceptual/theoretical opposition to this `natural selection’ (conscious selection) should be termed `un-natural selection,’ or `other-than-natural-selection’ . . . or even `artificial selection.’ The materialist’s natural selection should be called something other than natural selection since we can only speak of it as a type, or likeness, of conscious selection. Non-conscious selection should be termed `artificial’ because it cannot even be spoken of except by a `conscious’ agent who is comparing it to an actual conscious selection - a selection the materialist knows exists.

Why on earth would materialists call a selection “theory” natural - and suppose a `selection’ that is not theory - because we know it exists (conscious selection) `artificial’? Is it an Orwellian ploy? Like `Freedom is Slavery’? Or is it because the materialist refuses to acknowledge the preeminent nature of consciousness – and feels better calling it `artificial’? Likewise – the materialist apparently prefers to believe that the consciousness he calls artificial is an effect, or epiphenomenon, of the natural or inherent properties of inanimate matter? . . . It seems that the materialist’s almost religious desire to render mind (consciousness) meaningless - forces him to call the conscious selection that is absolutely real (we see it every day) artificial - and rather term a selection that is primarily hypothesis `natural’!

This rape of language occurs everywhere the materialist uses the term natural. For instance, the materialist uses the word natural to explain the `constant laws of nature’ by reason of the fact that they are inexplicable -transcendent. To the materialist, the fact that the `constants of nature’ are inexplicable makes them natural. Yet this is in exact contradistinction to what we have seen the materialist do with an inexplicable consciousness, which he terms artificial.

The materialist calls the consciousness that allows him to examine the `constants of nature’ – artificial - yet the `constants of nature,’ which are just as inexplicable, and just as necessary for the materialist to speak of anything at all – are called natural. It seems that for the materialist, everything (regardless of it’s inexplicability) can earn the moniker natural, just so long as it has nothing to do with mind or consciousness. Mind and consciousness are ever the materialist’s boggy-man! He (the materialist) seems to intuit somewhere in the recesses of his mind/consciousness - that regardless of how cohesive, or elegant, are the tautologous language of his doctrinal idiocies - nonetheless, they all melt away into a perverse parody when he attempts to speak (using mind and consciousness) of theories, and concepts, that reject the ontological supremacy of mind and consciousness!

Tautological Oxymorons.
​

John

Sorry, but I find nothing compelling in this writer's words, plus there are mistakes. There is no such thing as selection theory, and the phrase natural selection is not tautological. Also, the materialist does not call consciousness artificial and won't until somebody creates consciousness artificially.

Since your source isn't present to answer any objections, and you failed to address my rebuttal of claims you posted as if you understood them, agreed with them, and could defend them the previous time I addressed his words, so there is nobody to respond to. Maybe this guy will. Perhaps you can invite him to come to RF so that there is somebody to debate his ideas.

Also, maybe you should be reading better philosophers that that one. He doesn't seem to know what tautology means. He doesn't make arguments, just empty claims. His argument against the words natural and naturalism have already been refuted, so no need to do that again given that there is nobody on the thread yet interested in addressing a rebuttal.

Have you ever seen the word philosophaster? Your guy fits that description very well.

 

[John D. Brey]

No, they describe things that are real. Forces and particles are real. Energy is real. The numerical relationships allowing one real state to serve as the means to predict the next one are abstractions like 2+2=4, drawn (abstracted) from reality. This law of arithmetic has no material reality. It allows us to predict that if we merge a pair of apples with another pair of apples, we'll have four apples. The law allows us to predict accurately what physical reality will be like, but is itself not physically real. The abstraction is a convenient fiction that unifies before and after states such that one can be used to anticipate the other.

Wittgenstein showed (what should be patently obvious) that all mathematical propositions are tautological - for the predicate is always contained in the subject. The subject: 1+1, contains within its logical structure the predicate: 2. Therefore, to say that 1+1=2 is to reveal no knowledge that isn’t already present before the predicate is allegedly surmised. It is impossible to falsify the statement 1+1=2 because it is an analytical (tautological) proposition whose predicate is contained in its subject. It is impossible to falsify a proposition if the predicate (that which is allegedly in question) is in actuality, already contained in the subject that precedes the predicate. To say that the universe is `natural’ is tautological if the essence of the word natural is a property of the universe being called `natural’. Likewise, to say that the fittest survive is tautological, because in the proposition, fitness is measured by the ability to survive. Therefore the predicate (survival) is already a logical property of the subject (fitness). If `natural-ness’ is an inherent ingredient of some `thing’ (like the universe, or life), then applying the term to that `thing’ creates a tautology!

Tautologies might clarify the meaning already present in the subject, but they add no new meaning. The fact that no new meaning is added is crucial; for it shows that tautological statements can only `clarify’ an a priori version of reality; they cannot explain anything (where explanations are taken as leading to new meaning or new knowledge). If this is the case, then neither meaning, nor new knowledge can ever come about though tautological propositions. As Popper showed, tautologies are not falsifiable. If they are not falsifiable, then they say that things are . . . as they are . . . but never why or how they are.

It’s clear and irrefutable that if the predicate of a statement is that part of the statement which is allegedly a hypothetical deduction derived from the subject (and is therefore able to add new meaning, or information, to the subject of the statement) –- then the predicate cannot be fully contained in the subject, else the predicate is simply a restating of the subject, and thus, the predicate cannot be denied or falsified. If this latter is the case, then such a statement is a proposition that doesn’t lend itself to logical refutation, and thus if the statement is true, it cannot be known to be true by examination of the proposition that presents the truth. Rather than representing a hypothetical premise that might lead to new knowledge, it instead ends up being a synthetic a priori truth whose truthfulness is not contingent on observations or non-tautological logic.

In Alfred Ayer’s, Language Truth and Logic, (Dover Publications Inc. 1946), p. 85, Poincaré is quoted saying:

If all the assertions which mathematics puts forward can be derived from one another by formal logic, mathematics cannot amount to anything more than an immense tautology. Logical inference can teach us nothing essentially new, and if everything is to proceed from the principle of identity, everything must be reducible to it. But can we really allow that these theorems which fill so many books server no other purpose than to say in a round –about fashion “A = A?”
​

Tautological Oxymorons.
​

You say that your God is like that, too? Can you use that idea to predict how reality will unfold? For example, if two or more of us get together and pray or have faith, we can reliably predict that a mountain will move? That's what useful fictions can do that useless ones cannot.

The foregoing arguments should highlight the obviousness of the fact that since belief (in a theory) is the genesis of all observations (every observation) – no empirical science can be ultimately correct - for it must at some point admit that some pure belief undergirds the starting point of its epistemological development? It’s not hard to see that the epistemological presuppositions of empirical science are fatally flawed - since empirical observations begin always . . . absolutely always . . . with beliefs - theories? Popper spent his life trying to show that this is unequivocally the case. But why shouldn’t this be patently obvious?

The empiricist often approaches knowledge from the presupposition that belief isn’t based on evidence . . . that belief is irrational, and only evidence matters. But how could the empiricist test that hypothesis (that belief isn’t based on evidence)?

Since every competent philosopher of science admits that all empirical experimentation begins with belief in a hypothesis (belief that a hypothesis might be correct) . . . you literally have to -"have belief"- that it's possible that belief isn't based on evidence - before you could test the hypothesis that belief isn't based on evidence. Therefore you cannot know that there's no evidence for belief . . . you can only base that hypothesis on belief. What's far worse . . . is that since you must have at least a modicum of belief before you can perform an experiment (to extract "evidence") clearly belief is antecedent to all `evidence’ and should thus logically transcend evidence. Belief is literally needed to produce evidence, yet as logic dictates, that belief doesn't need evidence; it precedes evidence; it is the primary ingredient of evidence.

Since this is a logical truism (that belief is required to hypothesize that belief has no evidence) . . . wouldn’t it be more `logical’ to presume that belief is its own evidence (births its own evidence) . . . or even that all evidence is belief's evidence (belongs to belief) - since all evidence is born of belief in some hypotheses? In other words, since all evidence comes after belief in hypotheses - shouldn't one put more belief in belief than in evidence? There is no `evidence’ for a belief in the supposition that belief isn't based on evidence! But there is evidence that `evidence’ is based on `belief’?

The empiricist is proud to have married his worldview to Evidence . . . when in fact Evidence is Belief's half-witted child! But since the child will eventually end up looking just like the parent – eventually the Evidence which looked so good the empiricist married his worldview to it . . . will start to look just like the parent (Belief), which Belief the empiricist was never very fond of!

Tautological Oxymorons.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Sorry, but I find nothing compelling in this writer's words, plus there are mistakes. There is no such thing as selection theory, and the phrase natural selection is not tautological.

. . . The second part of your statement, the dogmatic statement of truth, makes the first part of your statement too obvious. Which is to say there seems to be a tautological relationship between your believing yourself to be the dogmatic arbiter of truth, and the naturalness of finding nothing compelling outside what you believe. If you have the truth, then anything that isn't in accord with you isn't likely to be very compelling now is it.

In his assault on language (through his perversion of syntax) the materialist acts as a sort of `uroboric' vampire’ – a parasitical bloodsucker firmly latched onto his own jugular.

Tautological Oxymorons.​

John

 

[Magical Wand]

Nevertheless the idea that a God of law made the universe caused the west to want to find the laws that governed the universe.

That's just an assertion. Where's the peer-reviewed paper by a historian showing that's the case? Anyway, that's not relevant to what we're discussing. The question isn't whether the idea of a divine law "caused the west to want to find the laws". Rather, the question is whether we can prove the laws of nature exist. And I argued we can: just look around. Observe nature and you'll find regularities everywhere.

That is not really accessible for science to study but scientists could check out all the miracles if they wanted to see if miracles happened.

Okay, so you just conceded science can determine whether a violation of nature occurred and, therefore, prove the existence of a supernatural world (even though it can't study how the supernatural event occurred). That's what Carrier wrote before. His only point was that, even though science doesn't reject this possibility -- since it is in accordance with its evidentialist axioms --, that's surely not the first explanation they'll look for (given that the supernatural explanation failed repeatedly in the past).

You wrote: "what can I say but that the author is biased..."

Hahah. It is ironic that he wrote, "If supernaturalists want to change this conclusion, they have to do so with evidence. Not disingenuous complaints about persecution and bias."

He anticipated this move.

Anyway, you're attacking his character instead of his arguments, and that's an ad hominem attack. It does nothing to refute his arguments. This is basic philosophy... I mean.. Haven't you studied logical fallacies? I recommend doing so before going into a discussion. I'm starting to become disappointed with this forum.

The author is like other atheists who say, give me the evidence (meaning naturalistic empirical evidence) and I will believe.

He didn't say that. You're putting words in his mouth. You chose to focus on some example he gave, but that's not the only one he discussed in his writings (for example, the resurrection of Jesus isn't a psychological event, and that's the miracle he discusses more frequently).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry, but I find nothing compelling in this writer's words, plus there are mistakes. There is no such thing as selection theory, and the phrase natural selection is not tautological. Also, the materialist does not call consciousness artificial and won't until somebody creates consciousness artificially.

Since your source isn't present to answer any objections, and you failed to address my rebuttal of claims you posted as if you understood them, agreed with them, and could defend them the previous time I addressed his words, so there is nobody to respond to. Maybe this guy will. Perhaps you can invite him to come to RF so that there is somebody to debate his ideas.

Also, maybe you should be reading better philosophers that that one. He doesn't seem to know what tautology means. He doesn't make arguments, just empty claims. His argument against the words natural and naturalism have already been refuted, so no need to do that again given that there is nobody on the thread yet interested in addressing a rebuttal.

Have you ever seen the word philosophaster? Your guy fits that description very well.

It is difficult to tell from the poor efficiency of communication employed and the pseudointellectual Gish Gallop style used, but I think what is being called natural selection is misapplied as the source of the origin of life. Typical creationist strategy to confuse the origin of life with the evolution of life. Of course, I could be wrong. It is difficult to tell from the vowel movements that are being dumped on here.

 

[Brian2]

No, Western religion contributed no ideas that led to the development of science. Christianity is anti-intellectual. Thuis is what scripture teaches:

You misquote scripture and miss out those passages which speak of gaining knowledge.
Eg:
Proverbs 18:15 ESV
An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
The Christian church has been the preservers of knowledge over the years and those who have established schools and places of learning and the Jews have always been for learning.
It is out of Christian researchers and thinkers that the beginning of modern science came.
It is a shame that church fathers seem to have been against learning at time but in the context of the times, what they said is probably understandable.
Thales was wise to do what he did in his quest for knowledge but even he did not reject the gods but believed, as theist scientists have and still do that understanding the principles of nature would help to get to know and understand the gods better. And it is good that the god of the gaps ideas have been replaced by scientific knowledge but scientific knowledge does not do away with the need for God and the truth of God, it just does away with the god of the gaps argument.

What you're describing is not an atheist, but a rational skeptic and critical thinker. Evidence properly understood is the foundation for belief. If one uses any other method, they will incorporate false beliefs. If one considers that undesirable, he avoids insufficiently supported belief. This is frustrating to those whose ideas can only be believed by faith. They seem to consider these criteria too exacting, but the critical thinker considers theirs too undisciplined and indiscriminate in what it will call truth.

Wanting materialistic and empirical evidence is good when it comes to studying the material universe. Not do good when it comes to studying God. Believing in a God is a matter of faith but not without evidence, just not the evidence of science.

 

[Brian2]

That's just an assertion. Where's the peer-reviewed paper by a historian showing that's the case? Anyway, that's not relevant to what we're discussing. The question isn't whether the idea of a divine law "caused the west to want to find the laws". Rather, the question is whether we can prove the laws of nature exist. And I argued we can: just look around. Observe nature and you'll find regularities everywhere.

OK you can find regularity by looking around and Christian culture (apart from the Biblical police of history)
has fostered the search for scientific knowledge and other forms of knowledge more so than other cultures.

Okay, so you just conceded science can determine whether a violation of nature occurred and, therefore, prove the existence of a supernatural world (even though it can't study how the supernatural event occurred). That's what Carrier wrote before. His only point was that, even though science doesn't reject this possibility -- since it is in accordance with its evidentialist axioms --, that's surely not the first explanation they'll look for (given that the supernatural explanation failed repeatedly in the past).

I have heard of miracles in this day and age and tend to believe the reports but I know that those who would be studying them scientifically would consider other possibilities first and so reject them as miracles. Anyway science has found none it seems and so as Carrie says that means that God has been disproved by science.

You wrote: "what can I say but that the author is biased..."

Hahah. It is ironic that he wrote, "If supernaturalists want to change this conclusion, they have to do so with evidence. Not disingenuous complaints about persecution and bias."

He anticipated this move.

Anyway, you're attacking his character instead of his arguments, and that's an ad hominem attack. It does nothing to refute his arguments. This is basic philosophy... I mean.. Haven't you studied logical fallacies? I recommend doing so before going into a discussion. I'm starting to become disappointed with this forum.

Some people need ad hominem attacks. Carrie is an extremist imo when it comes to being skeptical. Anyone who does not believe in the historical Jesus is imo an extremist. He anticipates to complaint of bias because he has had it in the past no doubt. Evidence is evidence but he goes so far that he wants to scrub out the evidence given in the Bible.

He didn't say that. You're putting words in his mouth. You chose to focus on some example he gave, but that's not the only one he discussed in his writings (for example, the resurrection of Jesus isn't a psychological event, and that's the miracle he discusses more frequently).

I didn't say he said that I said he is like those who say that.
I have heard plenty of reasons why the resurrection is not true and it all comes down to not believing it happened.

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . I think what is being called natural selection is misapplied as the source of the origin of life. Typical creationist strategy to confuse the origin of life with the evolution of life.

There seems to be a kink in the logic above? You appear to deride the "creationist strategy" of confusing the origin of life, with, versus, the evolution of life, the latter being related to "natural selection"?

And yet many creationist, myself included, have no problem with "natural selection," or evolution. What we equate with our "creationism" is the idea that there's design inherent in every stage and element of the process of life's beginning and evolution, and thus there's a create-or, and or a design-er.

Your statement looks like it's the perfect example of what it's deriding. You appear to mock creationists for confusing the origin of life with the evolution of life, precisely as you then seem to do the exact opposite: confuse the evolution of life with the origin of life? Most creationists don't confuse the difference between origin and evolution. But you yourself appear to be confusing the issue when you ridicule creationists as though your understanding of evolution and natural selection prevents you from worrying about creation, design, or a creator/designer?

Most, or many, creationists acknowledge evolution and natural selection without confusing them with the "creation" of life. You, on the other hand, seem to be confusing evolution and natural selection with the origin of life when you imply that belief in evolution and natural selection makes a theory of "creation" --- "creationism" if you prefer ----unnecessary?

Do you really think belief in evolution by natural selection makes a theory of the origin, or creation of life, unnecessary? Or was your statement above merely ill thought out, just sloppy thinking perhaps? In other words, do you understand that your belief in evolution by natural selection doesn't, in any way, give you any cause whatsoever to deride creationists for having a theory of creation? Do you have a theory for the creation, or origin of life? Or do you just follow the crowd when they pretend belief in evolution by natural selection allows you not to think about the origin?

Creationists have a theory of origin. You might not like it or believe it's correct. Nevertheless it seems infantile to criticize a theory until you got something to put on the plate yourself. Worse than infantile is to pretend that because you believe in evolution through natural selection you don't have to worry about origin, or creation.

It's like Paley's watchmaker argument. They find a watch on Mars. They take it to the world genius and he takes it apart and shows how it works, how its function derives from simple principles to more complex ones. They ask him, but where did it came from? Who made it? How it could be on Mars? He says, "I just told you precisely how it works"! -----But where did it come from? -----He just gives a queer stare like you're an ignorant fool and remarks, "Are you one of those creationists who thinks profound design ---or products chock-a-block full of design ---require a designer? Get out of here you damn simpleton!"



John

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There seems to be a kink in the logic above? You appear to deride the "creationist strategy" of confusing the origin of life, with, versus, the evolution of life, the latter being related to "natural selection"?

And yet many creationist, myself included, have no problem with "natural selection," or evolution. What we equate with our "creationism" is the idea that there's design inherent in every stage and element of the process of life's beginning and evolution, and thus there's a create-or, and or a design-er.

Your statement looks like it's the perfect example of what it's deriding. You appear to mock creationists for confusing the origin of life with the evolution of life, precisely as you then seem to do the exact opposite: confuse the evolution of life with the origin of life? Most creationists don't confuse the difference between origin and evolution. But you yourself appear to be confusing the issue when you ridicule creationists as though your understanding of evolution and natural selection prevents you from worrying about creation, design, or a creator/designer?

Most, or many, creationists acknowledge evolution and natural selection without confusing them with the "creation" of life. You, on the other hand, seem to be confusing evolution and natural selection with the origin of life when you imply that belief in evolution and natural selection makes a theory of "creation" --- "creationism" if you prefer ----unnecessary?

Do you really think belief in evolution by natural selection makes a theory of the origin, or creation of life, unnecessary? Or was your statement above merely ill thought out, just sloppy thinking perhaps? In other words, do you understand that your belief in evolution by natural selection doesn't, in any way, give you any cause whatsoever to deride creationists for having a theory of creation? Do you have a theory for the creation, or origin of life? Or do you just follow the crowd when they pretend belief in evolution by natural selection allows you not to think about the origin?

Creationists have a theory of origin. You might not like it or believe it's correct. Nevertheless it seems infantile to criticize a theory until you got something to put on the plate yourself. Worse than infantile is to pretend that because you believe in evolution through natural selection you don't have to worry about origin, or creation.

It's like Paley's watchmaker argument. They find a watch on the Mars. They take it to the world genius and he takes it apart and shows how it works, how its function derives from simple principles to more complex ones. They ask him, but where did it came from? Who made it? How it could be on Mars? He says, "I just told you precisely how it works"! -----But where did it come from? -----He just gives a queer stare like you're an ignorant fool and remarks, "Are you one of those creationists who thinks profound design ---or products chock-a-block full of design ---require a designer? Get out of here you damn simpleton!"



John

Nonsense.

 

[John D. Brey]

You don't seem to understand the scientific method, which operates on novel testable predictions and can include indirect evidence to validate these predictions.

Which comes first, the indirect evidence, or the prediction? In other words, the world offers itself up to us as plain and simply the way it appears. No indirect anything need apply.

And yet the scientist questions whether things are really only as they appear. His "prediction" is often intended to prove that behind the mere appearances is a many-layered world only "indirectly" accessible to the natural senses.

The "evidence" he brings presupposes that this indirect world exists, such that the evidence is used to tug at the nose-ring of the aborigine to get him to leave the warm mothering cavern of his stupidity.

The existence of a god has never been supported by this caliber of evidence. Ever. It is not like that.

Every piece of evidence ever gleaned from the natural world supports a maker, creator, designer. That's the problem. There's too much evidence. So much evidence in fact that the supposition of God's existence is what we call an analytical, or tautological, proposition.

A tautology is never false. It's just true in a manner that leaves no crumb for the scientist to gnaw on. God's existence is too true, too obvious, so true and obvious that we can't even test it as a hypothesis since tautological knowledge can't be tested as true since its truth is part and parcel of the hypothesis (a design requires a designer): there's nothing left to test.

Reason is described by induction, namely a method of thought that reliably leads to desired outcomes and accurate information. As many people have pointed out, even animals can do this without making presuppositions or blind faith.

I think there's a slight difference between memorization, Pavlovian programming, versus induction.

If a dog's owner comes home at 5pm every day, the dog might go to the window to see him pull up at 5pm through memorization, and Pavlovian programming.

But if the owner gets in a wreck one day and doesn't pull up as expected, the dog probably doesn't start theorizing, or predicting, things that caused the break in his expected routine.

Popper shows that the "prediction" of the scientific method requires something other than noticing regularities and irregularities. It requires a miraculous hypothesis, almost out of nowhere, for why what is expected, what was thought obvious and true (and was most of the time), turned out otherwise. That kind of hypothesization isn't natural. It's supernatural. And when it puts a man on the moon, and soon enough, Mars, it's positively divine.

Belief in induction supposes that noticing irregularities, or regularities, leads to hypotheses, i.e., is part of the process of scientific guessing, when that's simply not the case. The belief that noticing regularities, or irregularities, leads to hypotheses, seems mostly true. Unfortunately it's not true in the least.



John

 

[AlexanderG]

Which comes first, the indirect evidence, or the prediction? In other words, the world offers itself up to us as plain and simply the way it appears. No indirect anything need apply.

And yet the scientist questions whether things are really only as they appear. His "prediction" is often intended to prove that behind the mere appearances is a many-layered world only "indirectly" accessible to the natural senses.

The "evidence" he brings presupposes that this indirect world exists, such that the evidence is used to tug at the nose-ring of the aborigine to get him to leave the warm mothering cavern of his stupidity.



Every piece of evidence ever gleaned from the natural world supports a maker, creator, designer. That's the problem. There's too much evidence. So much evidence in fact that the supposition of God's existence is what we call an analytical, or tautological, proposition.

A tautology is never false. It's just true in a manner that leaves no crumb for the scientist to gnaw on. God's existence is too true, too obvious, so true and obvious that we can't even test it as a hypothesis since tautological knowledge can't be tested as true since its truth is part and parcel of the hypothesis (a design requires a designer): there's nothing left to test.



I think there's a slight difference between memorization, Pavlovian programming, versus induction.

If a dog's owner comes home at 5pm every day, the dog might go to the window to see him pull up at 5pm through memorization, and Pavlovian programming.

But if the owner gets in a wreck one day and doesn't pull up as expected, the dog probably doesn't start theorizing, or predicting, things that caused the break in his expected routine.

Popper shows that the "prediction" of the scientific method requires something other than noticing regularities and irregularities. It requires a miraculous hypothesis, almost out of nowhere, for why what is expected, what was thought obvious and true (and was most of the time), turned out otherwise. That kind of hypothesization isn't natural. It's supernatural. And when it puts a man on the moon, and soon enough, Mars, it's positively divine.

Belief in induction supposes that noticing irregularities, or regularities, leads to hypotheses, i.e., is part of the process of scientific guessing, when that's simply not the case. The belief that noticing regularities, or irregularities, leads to hypotheses, seems mostly true. Unfortunately it's not true in the least.



John

Again, you misunderstood all my points.

A novel testable prediction is where you say: "I see that reality has certain properties, and I hypothesize a working conceptual model for why it has these properties. If my model is accurate, then I predict that if we do this new experiment, that no one has ever done before, we will see these specific results for the first time." If the results bear out, this is good evidence that the model is an accurate understanding of reality.

This has never been done for a god. Ever. That was my point, along with my point that you don't understand the scientific method at all, and you reaffirmed both. Pointing at the word and attributing it to a creator is in fact only the hypothesis, not the evidence. The next step, which takes this idea out of the realm of philosophy, speculation, and imagination, is to make and confirm a novel testable prediction: "If god is the creator of the universe, then we should look at or test this heretofore unexamined aspect of reality that no one has ever done before, and see this specific result." If you could do this, then you would have evidence. Then it would be scientific.

But you can't, and so god remains in the realm of imagination, mythology, speculative nonsense, and superstition. Please try to understand science. Try really hard. Just try it out. You'll be amazed how much more people take you seriously.

Animals can absolutely make predictions, then see which predictions bear out, then adjust their model of reality accordingly to have a more accurate operating model to give them more success in their desires and endeavors. You are ignorant of this field of behavioral science, and seem determined to remain ignorant.

You are free to continue to misquote Popper in an attempt to shield your bad ideas behind a false authority, even after we've explained why we don't care and you're engaging in a fallacy.

You are free to describe the scientific method as "supernatural," which would be the true oxymoron of our conversation thus far, since science is literally making tentative predictive models about the properties of apparent reality without assuming unnecessary entities, which is methodological naturalism. You are also free to describe the successes of science as "divine" even though its findings contain no assumptions or conclusions that a god exists. You are free to call up down, call love hatred, or call gravel a delicious dessert. But in all these cases, you just sound irrational and foolish.