Religion proves itself unscientific.

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You say the universe is fine tuned for life to begin and the advocates of ID also extend the argument to find for a creator who maintains and conserves the universe, which in both cases borrows from the classic teleological argument. This is an inferential argument that rests on the analogy that wants to make a connection between human design and what is observed in nature in order to show that the universe is also designed and therefore requires a designer (God). But while we can agree that a designed thing logically implies a designer, it does not follow from that tautology that the universe was in fact designed, and the question of an intelligent, omnipotent and omniscient creator is a highly doubtful premise.

My point is any time you get specified complexity; a designer is always the cause. Rain helps grass grow, and animals feed on the grass. No one would disagree with this. But if you negate the existence of a intelligent designer, there is no way you can say “water is here for the purpose of making grass grow”, or “grass is here specifically to feed the animals”.

But you will be hard pressed to say “our eyes were not made to see”, or “our heart was not made to pump blood throughout our bodies”. You don’t get this kind of specification from blind and mindless processes.

We see much evidence of disorder in nature, such as erupting volcanoes, floods and pestilence. Now volcanoes erupt because of the movement of tectonic plates, which allows the magna in the earth’s core to escape as lava, reducing the pressure in the Earth’s core in the same way as an automobile’s radiator is fitted with a pressure release device.

I am talking about specified complexity.

Defenders of the argument to design would say the existence of this facility in both cases demonstrates the need for a designer. And indeed the need for automobile’s radiator release valve is crucial, for without that particular design feature the performance and reliability of the engine would be seriously compromised. But to draw such a similarity with nature would be to say that a designer of the universe was compelled to work within the constraints of nature.

Um, Jesus turned water in to wine, walked on water, and rose from the dead. This kind of activity is hardly “working within the constraints of nature”. Jesus commanded the storm to cease…so it is nature that works within the constraints of God instead of the other way around.

For if the argument is that a supreme designer caused the universe to exist, and every effect is subject to that sustaining cause, then there cannot on that account be any random, unplanned events or freaks of nature.

Cmon now, cot. What is so hard to believe about a Supreme Being creating nature, and allowing nature and the natural concept of cause and effect to take its course, but intervening within nature as he sees fit? Let’s be serious here.

Defenders of the argument cannot expect to say that God designs particular parts of nature but not some other parts.

Everything in nature that exists exist because God, cot. No one is saying God designed some parts of nature and not other parts.

We understand that volcanoes are a sufficient and condition for the prevention of a dangerous build up of pressure in the earth’s core, which makes perfect sense as a self-regulating aspect of nature, but they are not a necessary feature of the natural world unless we want to say a creator was compelled to incorporate them in his design, which is logically contradictory if God is the omnipotent being. For if there were no pressure in the earth’s core then there would be no need for volcanoes. That there is pressure in the earth’s core, and volcanoes to relieve it, suggests that is the way the earth has evolved, rather than a designer who designed one aspect and then had to incorporate a further aspect to prevent a potential failure inherent in the first. Admittedly, this only speaks of poor design and therefore a less than supreme designer. But I suspect that even without the contradiction that isn’t how most believers would want to think of God.

God created nature, and these that happen in nature are due to natural law. Am I missing something here? God allows natural law to take its place. This is no different than God allowing a boiling pot to spill over once it reaches a certain temperature and begins to spill out the pot. What are you talking about? What is your beef?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You are entitled to stick to your Christianity. However, do not continue to say we don't understand something so therefore god did it. We may not know the origins of the universe yet.

This is not God of the Gaps reasoning here. This is “nature can’t do it, so God did it”.

But it shall be discovered and it sure wasn't created in 7 days. Nor is it only a couple of thousand years old.

Well, I don’t recall being a Young Earth Creationist, so this doesn’t apply to me.

God is a self refuting concept and therefore anything that is self-refuting need not be believed.

Prove it. I will wait.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Right, there was no cause and effect. Nothing was happening. Time did not exist.

You just said God is a cause, if God is a cause then there is an effect, are you saying that effect was time? But if Cause and Effect are a part of time then so is God.

If something is logically absurd, then it can’t happen. So if it defies logic, then the whole idea is rendered foolish and should not be taken seriously, if at all.

And how is it logically absurd? What is the Crane article that shows why this is absurd? And what scientific models does he use to show that that Hawkings theory wouldnt' work based off of logic?

Um, Frankie, by “running out”, I mean it no longer has useful energy. If your car battery stops working, regardless of whether you call it “running out” or “being put into a form that isn’t usable”, your car will not run. Call it what you want, you are a sitting duck.

Is it or is it not still energy? Usable no, but still energy. It changed states. It still exists, it's just not usable. So that is still an infinite product.

Fine, and like I just said, it doesn’t matter what you call it. The fact still remains, if it gets to a “form we cannot use”, then it is useless, and if it will eventually get to a point where we CAN’T use it, but it hasn’t gotten there just yet, that must mean its useful energy is FINITE, and therefore it could not have been running forever. It must have been “wound up” and has been winding down ever since.

Yes we can't use it, but it still exists. The Energy that we use is finite, the energy itself is not.

The sun is burning out, Frankie. We depend on the sun’s energy and once it cease humankind will cease.

Yes in our closed system, but so what? The sun is only a part of the Universe, there are other stares, in our closed system the sun will go out, by exploding, we won't be able to use that energy so we will die? So what? Does that mean that the energy of the sun was destroyed? When you talk of heat death you are talking about the Universe, and given how little we know of the Universe in terms of size and its expansion we can't attribute the entropy to it the same way we can to a our solar system.

You are the one postulating a multiverse as if that would adequately solve the thermodynamics problem, which it won’t.

Yeah because the 1st law works in a closed system. If a multiverse exists then there would be the possiblity of the systems being connected (Quantum Mechanics delves into this, though I'm no spring chicken with it)

Um, Frankie, to say things were NOT blind and mindless would be to imply intelligent design. It is my belief that there was a mind behind the creation. If you negate that intelligence, then you are left with a blind and mindless process. So what are you talking about “you can say things were blind and mindless as long as you acknowledge that it is just belief”. No it isn’t a belief…it is a fact, and if there is no intelligent design, there is only nature, and nature doesn’t have eyes and nature can’t think. Nature doesn’t have specified functions. When your grass is brown, nature doesn’t think “his grass is brown, I must rain”.

You're using it in a derisive way, and when you say I.D. you mean a very specific I.D. Would you be okay with the creation stories of Hinduism, or Taoism or Shintoism, or any of the past world religions to be taught?

Nature doesn't need to think, nor have specified functions. It still does what it does. If you want to say I.D. that's cool, but when you say that you are talking about a very specific I.Designer.

My logic is specified complexity implies design. Your logic is a process that can’t see or think created specified complexity..things with functions, jobs, and duties. If you call that rational, I will leave you to it.

Specified for what? What is it that is so specific? Are you talking life? IT only seems complex because we have it here as far as our mind though. If we discover more life in the Universe, will we still say that it is complex and impossible? Your Odds rest on there being life here. What if we go to new planets and discover remnants of life?

If the Gospel authors wrote according to what they saw, then the event occurred in history, which makes it historical, just like anything else in history.

Luke never met Jesus, he wrote based on what he was told. Mark as well never met Jesus wrote based on what he was told. The writer or writers of Matthew (it's up to scholarly debate if Matthew was written by one person) was written after the accounts of Mark in 70 A.D. despite that Matthew being a disciple of Jesus, but given that it may have been multiple writers and not actually Matthew, still not historical. John as well is up for debate about the writer. So, no...it's not really "historical."

I find this hilarious lol. You are saying our eye is a poor design because of a “blind spot”, but ignoring the fact that if our eyes weren’t designed, that would imply we get our vision from a “blind” process. This process is mindless and “blind”, yet it gave us brains and vision.


I will stick to my Intelligent Design.

A "blind mindless process" can make mistakes an intelligent all powerful designer cannot. SO creating a blind spot, creating a broken vitamin C gene, well that doesn't seem intelligent...and if it is...it's just mean.

If the Ontological Argument is true, the it is true based on the merit of its own logical coherency, not with how I think or feel.

If, i'm sure others here have discussed it ad nauseum.

Then why isn’t everyone choking then? We all made the same. Why only 2,800, which is only a small percentage compared to how many are NOT dying from choking. If that is the best you have, by all means, I will leave you to it.

But people do choke because of it, when another "design" found in dolphins allows them to be able to eat and breathe at the same time.

Intelligent Design from an All powerful creator, yet there exists better alternatives.

Poor design still implies design. Why aren’t our arms longer? Why aren’t we stronger? Why can’t we run faster? I mean, the questions can go on and on. Why weren’t we made to stretch out our arms and legs like Dhalsim from Street Fighter? You can make any subjective case for how things can be better, but the fact of the matter is, God doesn’t agree with you, because that’s not the way we were made.[/quote]



Yet still flawed, Not saying God has to agree with me, still doesn't make it any less of a "poor" design. So God can make ****

That was my point about sin being brought in this world. According to the bible Adam lived to be over 900 years old, and you don’t get that old from auto-immune diseases.

Then Adam was created with a blind spot, Eve was created with hips that would make it difficult to bear children. Both Adam and Eve were created with broken Vitamin C genes and they both were born with Mitochondria...that has its own DNA. All of these flaws existed in their creation and were only manfested when they sined.

I am talking about the origins of DNA, and how it carries so much information from an alleged mindless and blind process.

It also messes up the information a lot.

God wanted to create creatures with free will. With free will comes free choices, and with free choices comes right and wrong. If you call the ability to choice between right and wrong flawed, then I can’t help you.

There are so many free will actions we take each day that have nothing to do with Right and Wrong. I would say that the average person deals with neutral reasons far more than they do with right or wrong.

Free will cannot exist without the need to sin, because it isn’t guaranteed that everyone will make the right choices every single time.

Did you brush your teeth first when you woke up this morning or did you grab somethign to eat? You have free will, was that a right or wrong? Free will cannot exist without the need to sin?

It's God, God can easily and logically create a world that has free will and no sin. In fact that is what Heaven is. So in Heaven there must be no free will.

Sounds like to me as if I am being suckered in to the Ontological Argument. Lets not, because Lord knows I’ve already spanked quite a few people on that issue.

Like I said discussed ad nauseum. You will believe what you want to believe and that is fine with me

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

When I say “According to Christianity”, I mean according to MY BELIEF, since I can’t speak for everyone else. Even when I speak of Intelligent Design, I am speaking about the Christian God.

Well, I disagree with the issues that you raised being called “flaws”. In fact, everything that you said regarding these “flaws” is very much subjective, because different people have different opinions on what makes the perfect eye.

Lol who agrees that a blind spot is a good thing? Is it better to have a blind spot, or is it better not too?

And I am sure every “why” question you have, God will have an answer for. It isn’t as if your questions will be too tough for God to handle. He has his reasons, and his reasons are just.

You assume that Gods reasons are Just...and even if in your mind you know they are not, you'll still say yes. Why? Cause Might makes Right.

I wouldn’t do anything on my own behalf, but If I sincerely believe God spoke to me and gave me the order, I would do it in a heart beat.

Lol I'm not at all surprised you would...ol' chum.

/Oh but it does. It does. Without God, all things are permissible.

OF course, doesn't mean all things will be done. I'm 25 smoking is permissible to me, I'm not smoking.

There hasn’t been any historical evidence that Chinese people lived in Michigan in the year 2,000B.C. Does that mean that therefore, no Chinese people lived in Michigan in the year 2,000 B.C.? Obviously not.

My Goodness your analogies are terrible.

How is it objectionally wrong if God gave it the green light?

Lol oh boy...



Gotcha. [/QUOTE]


Alright I'm done. Lol thanks for the discussion.

 

[yoda89]

This is not God of the Gaps reasoning here. This is “nature can’t do it, so God did it”.

Don't side step points. If God didn't do it then he is not all powerful. Therefore if things that were once unknown become know are they still actions of God? We know what causes them and as such do they now not become part of God?

This is exactly gaps of god reasoning. Because there is no scientific explanation of God. There can be found evidence of free will. But not that god created such will. Thus you move on from science to belief. Showing Religion is unscientific.

Well, I don’t recall being a Young Earth Creationist, so this doesn’t apply to me.

If you believe the bible is the word of God it sure does. If not, then things in the bible are false. Thus if the word of god is false. Meaning he is a liar. God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further.

Prove it. I will wait.

If everything must have been created, then god must have been created as well. If god is not created, then everything mustn't have a creator, so why should life or cosmos have one If everything has a source and god is that source, then god must have existed without it before he created it. So if god created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent. If all life must come from something and that is god, god is not alive and hence non-existent. If moral must come from god, god lacks moral. If logic comes from god, god is illogic. If nature comes from god, god is unnatural. If existence comes from god, god is non-existent. If god is the cause of everything, god is void

 

[cottage]

Au contraire- I would say that (and I imagine many people would agree), if you are claiming that we do not know that, for instance, the sun will rise tomorrow, then YOU are the one misusing the term "know".

You are using the term in the vernacular, where a thing becomes familiar and is learned through experience or by association, but in the case of matters of fact no argument from the past can ever be an argument to the future. We believe and hope that with the rising of the sun another day will unfold before us but there is no logical imperative or scientific explanation to say that it must. And actually you are even misapplying common usage here, for while people might say in conversation “…when the sun comes up tomorrow” they are simply taking it for granted or assuming that it will. Nobody can know that the world will not end tomorrow simply from the fact that it exists today.

Since there really is no other basis on which one can claim to know something, I would say that the opposite of this is the case.

What is believed reasonably is always subject to change, and therefore to say “I know the supernatural does not exist” is a peremptory statement dogmatically asserted.

Thus, either one may NEVER have knowledge with respect to induction (an apparently absurd result), or certainty is not the standard for knowledge. Giving up on the latter, this chimera of a standard of knowledge (certainty) is surely a better solution than declaring categorically that our most productive (our only one, actually) form of reasoning or learning about the world cannot produce knowledge. Even if we accepted your argument here, and restricted the term "knowledge" to instances where certainty is possible- in other words, with respect to the tautologies of logic and math- we'd have to come up for a new term, maybe "shnawledge", to distinguish between, for instance, conclusions arrived at on the basis of a large body of prior instances (i.e. inductive knowledge) and other forms of non-knowledge. Of course, this is a lot of work, and we could simply maintain our current usage of the term, on which it is perfectly correct to say I know that the sun will rise tomorrow.

If I were to ask you on what basis you know the sun will rise in the morning, the only answer you can give is that it has always done so in the past. And that is belief, not knowledge. But is that to say experience has nothing to teach us? No, of course not, for experimental reasoning enables us to survive and broaden our understanding of the world and our place in it, but no experience of the past can take us beyond the present. And so here we must return to your adamant assertion that the supernatural does not exist. You argued that the “absence of necessary evidence is necessarily absence of evidence.” So it would appear that if evidence must be necessary then certitude is your criterion for knowledge, and yet how can it be if at the same time you maintain that induction provides all our knowledge?

What does the phrase "outside the empirical world" mean? Where and what is that, exactly?

It means exactly what I said to you: if the contingentt world cannot be explained in empirical terms then a metaphysical explanation is required. And as a religious sceptic I do not find that conclusion at all problematic since no causal agent is logically necessary, and nor is the appellation "supernatural" to be understood only in terms of a supreme being, but is simply the meta-condition as in what comes after or beyond our knowledge of the material world, but which neither the metaphysician (theist in this case) or the sceptic can ever presume know for certain.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

... in the case of matters of fact no argument from the past can ever be an argument to the future.

This is precisely what inductive arguments do.

We believe and hope that with the rising of the sun another day will unfold before us but there is no logical imperative or scientific explanation to say that it must.

There is no "logical imperative", because it is a matter of inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning, so you're right- it does not follow necessarily. But of course there is a "scientific explanation" that says the sun will rise tomorrow, and the mind-boggling sample size of homogeneous prior instances makes inferring that it will occur yet again tomorrow a nearly inescapalbe (if not strictly logically necessary) conclusion.

Nobody can know that the world will not end tomorrow simply from the fact that it exists today.

You keep repeating this, but you haven't really given any sort of an argument for this usage.

If I were to ask you on what basis you know the sun will rise in the morning, the only answer you can give is that it has always done so in the past. And that is belief, not knowledge.

Why not? And don't say "because it isn't certain"; give a non-question-begging reason.

But is that to say experience has nothing to teach us? No, of course not, for experimental reasoning enables us to survive and broaden our understanding of the world and our place in it, but no experience of the past can take us beyond the present.

And I'm saying that denying that vast body of knowledge obtained via induction the label "knowledge" due to a false criteria for knowledge leads to unnecessary and ridiculous linguistic acrobatics; if knowledge requires certainty and infallibility, then inductive knowledge is not knowledge, and it turns out that most of what we think of as knowledge "doesn't count", as it were. But then, as I said before, we have to come up with a new term since correct and reliable inductive reasoning must be distinguished from less justified and disciplined types of belief; for instance, there is a very large difference between supposing the sun will rise tomorrow, and supposing I will win the lottery, so much so that we need to distinguish the two. Typically, we do so by referring to cases like the former as knowledge- but you're not willing to do that. Essentially, you're saying that the standard for proper deductive reasoning should be the standard for ALL reasoning- this just looks like a confused mistake; inductive reasoning has its own standards for proper inductive reasoning, and distinguishing knowledge from mere belief- so far I've seen no compelling reason to priviledge either form of reasoning over the other; they are just different.

And so here we must return to your adamant assertion that the supernatural does not exist.

Adamant? I don't know about that, but I did assert it. Assertion does not entail being stubborn or dogmatic, or not open to possible disconfirmation.

You argued that the “absence of necessary evidence is necessarily absence of evidence.” So it would appear that if evidence must be necessary then certitude is your criterion for knowledge

That's non-sequitur... I didn't say "evidence must be necessary", and that wouldn't entail certitude as my criteria for knowledge anyways.

and yet how can it be if at the same time you maintain that induction provides all our knowledge?

Just to be clear- induction provides all our knowledge about the world, about facts; logic and mathematics are formalisms, whose truths don't tell us about how the world is (for instance, arithmetic can never tell you how many Peanut M&M's are left in the bag- you have to actually look and see).

It means exactly what I said to you: if the contingentt world cannot be explained in empirical terms then a metaphysical explanation is required.

And this doesn't help, it is equally unclear- how is "contingent" modifying "world" here? (are you opposing it to some other sort of world? the necessary world?) What counts as an "empirical" explanation? How does such an explanation differ from a metaphysical one? (this strikes me as a bizarre statement- empirical explanations are metaphysical explanations, in the strictest sense of the term "metaphysics")

 

[cottage]

My point is any time you get specified complexity; a designer is always the cause. Rain helps grass grow, and animals feed on the grass. No one would disagree with this. But if you negate the existence of a intelligent designer, there is no way you can say “water is here for the purpose of making grass grow”, or “grass is here specifically to feed the animals”.

But you will be hard pressed to say “our eyes were not made to see”, or “our heart was not made to pump blood throughout our bodies”. You don’t get this kind of specification from blind and mindless processes.

It isn’t far-fetched to say our eyes developed along with the rest of our bodies. But it’s question-begging to say “our eyes were made to see” and “our heart was made to pump blood.” The only non-contradictory statement is that bodies that can see predators and hazards survive to breed, but we can only survive and breed if the heart pumps oxygen enriched blood around the body. And I am most certainly not declaring “water is here for the purpose of making grass grow” or “grass is here specifically to feed animals.” Such presumptuous all-knowing statements would be on a par with your own faith based dogma. That X serves the purpose of Y isn’t to imply that X=Y is itself the purpose.

I am talking about specified complexity.

In given instances, proponents of Specified Complexity suppose it to be indicative of intelligence. But I’m saying that there are events serving no useful or necessary purpose other than where one fault is required to rectify or remedy another existing fault and where if the first fault didn’t exist the second never would have been. So we have two conjoined but completely unnecessary events, and that is either a random development or an imperfectly or incompetently designed world. If it is a random event then there is no Creator, and if the world is designed by an incompetent then that entity will not be the Supreme Being. In both cases we find for the only possible conclusion, which is that the term “intelligence” is an evident misnomer, and even if Specified Complexity was not already a highly dubious concept an explanation is still required for those examples to which it cannot be applied.

Um, Jesus turned water in to wine, walked on water, and rose from the dead. This kind of activity is hardly “working within the constraints of nature”. Jesus commanded the storm to cease…so it is nature that works within the constraints of God instead of the other way around.

A doctrinal belief as faith, ie the Bible, is not argument. And in any case if nature is working within the constraints of God then explain the purpose of volcanoes, other than being a threat to his creation, which they are whether intended or accidental, since you wish to assign teleology to everything else?

Cmon now, cot. What is so hard to believe about a Supreme Being creating nature, and allowing nature and the natural concept of cause and effect to take its course, but intervening within nature as he sees fit? Let’s be serious here.

Yes, let’s be serious. If God is the omnipotent creator then nothing happens but what God wills and sustains. And he doesn’t intervene “as he sees fit”, that’s nonsense. As a famous theologian explains: “God not only gave being to things when they first began but is the cause of their being as long as they last…so he not only gave things their operative powers when they were first created but is always the cause of these in things. Hence if this Divine influence stopped every operation would stop. Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to him as its cause.” Aquinas. Summa contra Gentiles, III, 67

Everything in nature that exists exist because God, cot. No one is saying God designed some parts of nature and not other parts.

…which is the point I’ve already made! And it was just part of the preamble for what followed! You could respond to the thrust of my overall argument instead of plucking parts out of the piece that become irrelevant when taken out of their context.

God created nature, and these that happen in nature are due to natural law. Am I missing something here? God allows natural law to take its place. This is no different than God allowing a boiling pot to spill over once it reaches a certain temperature and begins to spill out the pot. What are you talking about? What is your beef?

If there is a God then there is no “natural law”, a term that contradicts your own argument. As a theist you can’t have it both ways, one minute claiming everything in the world is subject to God’s design and the next minute saying, deist-like, that it occurs naturally thereafter. Whatever your God put in motion is still subject to his every intention (as per St Thomas). And if everything has a designed purpose, then there can be no unnecessary or randomly occurring events or actions. And yet there are!

 

[cottage]

This is precisely what inductive arguments do.

That is precisely what they presume to do!

The argument is that future instances will always be as past instances.
Q: How is that conclusion arrived at?
A: It has been the case previously.
Q: Why must the future be as the past?
A: Because the past informs of the future
Q: How can you know it to be true?
A: Because it has been the case previously.

Now in case it isn't obvious please look at my second, third, fourth and sixth responses to see why it is called the Problem of Induction!

There is no "logical imperative", because it is a matter of inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning, so you're right- it does not follow necessarily. But of course there is a "scientific explanation" that says the sun will rise tomorrow, and the mind-boggling sample size of homogeneous prior instances makes inferring that it will occur yet again tomorrow a nearly inescapalbe (if not strictly logically necessary) conclusion.

And what may I ask is it that you are inductively expecting of science: that the laws of motion will hold true tomorrow perhaps? And indeed have you any reason to assert that the laws you believe will hold true in the future have always held true in the past?

You keep repeating this, but you haven't really given any sort of an argument for this usage.

Then let me put it this way for you: by what argument can it be known that from the world existing today it follows that it must continue to exist tomorrow, other than by circuitously reasoning from the past?

Why not? And don't say "because it isn't certain"; give a non-question-begging reason.

Because the notion that the sun will not rise in the morning is a perfectly intelligible proposition that implies no more of a contradiction than the belief that it will rise.

And I'm saying that denying that vast body of knowledge obtained via induction the label "knowledge" due to a false criteria for knowledge leads to unnecessary and ridiculous linguistic acrobatics; if knowledge requires certainty and infallibility, then inductive knowledge is not knowledge, and it turns out that most of what we think of as knowledge "doesn't count", as it were. But then, as I said before, we have to come up with a new term since correct and reliable inductive reasoning must be distinguished from less justified and disciplined types of belief; for instance, there is a very large difference between supposing the sun will rise tomorrow, and supposing I will win the lottery, so much so that we need to distinguish the two. Typically, we do so by referring to cases like the former as knowledge- but you're not willing to do that. Essentially, you're saying that the standard for proper deductive reasoning should be the standard for ALL reasoning- this just looks like a confused mistake; inductive reasoning has its own standards for proper inductive reasoning, and distinguishing knowledge from mere belief- so far I've seen no compelling reason to priviledge either form of reasoning over the other; they are just different.

Now you’ve gone from one extreme to another. Do we really deny that vast body of what we call ‘knowledge’ on the basis that it fails the test of certitude? No, of course not! That would be absurd. Experience serves us well and without it we wouldn’t get through a single day, but nevertheless we acknowledge that it has its limitations. Hume said: Whatever is may not be.
Of course there is a massive difference between learned experience and speculative or unjustified beliefs, but it remains the case that the sole criterion for the former is the belief that the future will resemble the past. Induction isn’t deduction and it cannot therefore be used to explain itself. However I’m not prescribing what must be, or declaring for a Certain Truth Nirvana, but identifying the inconvenient matter that our reasoning from past instances and arguing from the particular to the general does not give us indubitable knowledge, for as Russell said: you might have experience of past futures, but you’ve yet to sample those future futures. That the sun will rise tomorrow is taken upon trust and not upon the knowledge that it will rise.

Adamant? I don't know about that, but I did assert it. Assertion does not entail being stubborn or dogmatic, or not open to possible disconfirmation.

So you now allow for the possibility that the supernatural may exist, which counters your assertion that it doesn’t!

That's non-sequitur... I didn't say "evidence must be necessary", and that wouldn't entail certitude as my criteria for knowledge anyways.

The ‘must’ is inconsequential, but it would be helpful if you were to explain what you would accept “necessary evidence”?

Just to be clear- induction provides all our knowledge about the world, about facts; logic and mathematics are formalisms, whose truths don't tell us about how the world is (for instance, arithmetic can never tell you how many Peanut M&M's are left in the bag- you have to actually look and see).

Yes, and facts themselves are only probable, even the ones taken for granted such as night following day, and that is not to mention others observed to be changeable or otherwise inconsistent.

And this doesn't help, it is equally unclear- how is "contingent" modifying "world" here? (are you opposing it to some other sort of world? the necessary world?) What counts as an "empirical" explanation? How does such an explanation differ from a metaphysical one? (this strikes me as a bizarre statement- empirical explanations are metaphysical explanations, in the strictest sense of the term "metaphysics")

Empirical explanations may indeed be metaphysical but not all metaphysical explanations need be, nor are, empirical. The nature of being (ontology) for example may seek for explanations not found in the empirical world, which is to say independent of experience. So once again if the origin of the material world cannot be explained through observation and reasoning from experience then we cannot exclude explanations or hypotheses that lie outside the experiential world of contingent beliefs. And one doesn’t have to be a mystic or a religious dogmatist in order to understand that.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This is not God of the Gaps reasoning here. This is “nature can’t do it, so God did it”.

LOL... That's pretty much what "God of the gaps reasoning" is...

Prove it. I will wait.

I imagine this, taken from here would suffice-

Because, on the one hand, you have many specific conceptions of God which are self-contradictory, and thus could not exist; any conception of God as omnipotent and necessary, atemporal and intervening, transcendent and existing, or as containing the maximum of all predicates or all perfections (ala the Fourth Way of Thomas or the ontological argument) are incoherent.

Also, generally speaking, any conception of God that does not intervene or cause any effects in the world is indistinguishable from a fiction, and is thus a distinction which makes no difference. On the other hand, the conception of God as an intervening agency external to the universe is nonsensical in the same respect that "north of the north pole" or "before the beginning of time" are.

But most tellingly, there are no changes or effects in the world uniquely accounted for by God- God is superfluous, as all that is rigorously known about the universe is consistent with one in which no deities exist.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is precisely what they presume to do!

The argument is that future instances will always be as past instances.
Q: How is that conclusion arrived at?
A: It has been the case previously.
Q: Why must the future be as the past?
A: Because the past informs of the future
Q: How can you know it to be true?
A: Because it has been the case previously.

Now in case it isn't obvious please look at my second, third, fourth and sixth responses to see why it is called the Problem of Induction!

I'm well aware of the problem of induction. In my estimation, the real "problem" is saying how, given that the conclusion of a line of inductive reasoning is never logically necessary, but also given that inductive reasoning undeniably works, how is it that it works if the conclusions are never assured?

And what may I ask is it that you are inductively expecting of science: that the laws of motion will hold true tomorrow perhaps? And indeed have you any reason to assert that the laws you believe will hold true in the future have always held true in the past?

Sure- as above, it works. As per your Russell quote, even though we cannot examine future futures, we can remember past futures, and while we can't have positive confirmation of an inductive inference, we can certainly imagine negative evidence- for instance, if it had happened that one day the sun failed to rise, we would have lost alot of confidence in our inductive inference that it would continue to rise in the future.

Then let me put it this way for you: by what argument can it be known that from the world existing today it follows that it must continue to exist tomorrow, other than by circuitously reasoning from the past?

But once again, you're exposing the operative presupposition; you ask from what argument does it follow- you're using the language of deductive reasoning. You're simply arguing that only logical consequence can attain the epistemic status of knowledge or reasonable belief- in other words, that deductive reasoning provides the gold standard which all other forms of reasoning must satisfy.

Now you’ve gone from one extreme to another. Do we really deny that vast body of what we call ‘knowledge’ on the basis that it fails the test of certitude? No, of course not! That would be absurd. Experience serves us well and without it we wouldn’t get through a single day

Who went from one extreme to the other? Up til this point, you appear to be arguing that there cannot be any knowledge based on induction, because induction is always fallible- which would entail that the vast majority of what we colloquially refer to as "knowledge" (virtually the entirety of the results of empirical science) would fail your test and thus not count as knowledge any longer. Now you appear to forswear any such argument- which is it? Indeed, the fact that "experience serves us well"- or, as I've said, that induction works, is the reason for supposing that somehow, induction is able to be a reliable form of reasoning about or knowing the world we find ourselves in.

Of course there is a massive difference between learned experience and speculative or unjustified beliefs, but it remains the case that the sole criterion for the former is the belief that the future will resemble the past.

Well, not the sole criteria; induction operates on a number of principles such as falsifiability, sample size, uncontrolled variables, etc. which are used to separate legitimate inductive inferences from illegitimate ones. The point is that the criteria are different from those used in deductive reasoning.

[quote=cottage] Induction isn’t deduction and it cannot therefore be used to explain itself. However I’m not prescribing what must be, or declaring for a Certain Truth Nirvana, but identifying the inconvenient matter that our reasoning from past instances and arguing from the particular to the general does not give us indubitable knowledge, for as Russell said: you might have experience of past futures, but you’ve yet to sample those future futures.[/quote]

And I'm not saying it gives us indubitable knowledge; I'm saying that "indubitable knowledge" is not redundant since some types of knowledge are fallible and open to doubt.

That the sun will rise tomorrow is taken upon trust and not upon the knowledge that it will rise.

"Trust"? Again, it is a matter of probability, rather than logical consequence- and once again you're presupposing what counts as knowledge; perhaps you should lay out exactly what your criteria for knowledge is?

So you now allow for the possibility that the supernatural may exist, which counters your assertion that it doesn’t!

But I'm arguing that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive- that one asserts or even knows some X doesn't exclude that ~X is nevertheless possible.

The ‘must’ is inconsequential, but it would be helpful if you were to explain what you would accept “necessary evidence”?

Evidence which could not fail to exist if the claim in question were true; we're basically inquiring into the truth-conditions for a given belief, and what the necessary conditions are. But To use an example I used in a similar context elsewhere, take the claim that my house has been burglarized; necessary evidence of a burglary would be some missing property- if I have been burglarized, it is necessary that something has been taken (otherwise it would be trespassing, not burglary), and so the necessary evidence of a burglary would be some missing property.

Yes, and facts themselves are only probable, even the ones taken for granted such as night following day, and that is not to mention others observed to be changeable or otherwise inconsistent.

So can we never have knowledge of facts, since they are "only probable" and never certain?

So once again if the origin of the material world cannot be explained through observation and reasoning from experience then we cannot exclude explanations or hypotheses that lie outside the experiential world of contingent beliefs.

Well, but what good are such explanations or hypotheses, if they "lie outside the experiential world"? Would this make them distinctions which make no difference? For instance, how would one distinguish between a good hypothesis that "lies outside the experiential world" from a bad hypothesis that "lies outside the experiential world", seeing as our only tribunal for evaluating competing explanations just is the experiential world?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It isn’t far-fetched to say our eyes developed along with the rest of our bodies.

It isn’t? So what came first, the eye, or the eye socket?

But it’s question-begging to say “our eyes were made to see” and “our heart was made to pump blood.”

So if you take out the Intelligent Design theory, and all you are left with is blind and mindless nature, at what point would the development of eyes occur, and at what point would the development of not only the heart, but the circulatory system develop? So what came first, the blood or the veins? The heart or the blood? The bones or the muscles? The stomach or the intestines? The testicles or the penis? The vagina or the ovaries? The hair or the scalp?

The only non-contradictory statement is that bodies that can see predators and hazards survive to breed, but we can only survive and breed if the heart pumps oxygen enriched blood around the body.

Right, that is my point. You just said it; “but we can only survive and breed if the heart pumps oxygen enriched blood around the body”. But NATURE doesn’t know that. In fact, nature doesn’t know anything. So how is it that our body has EXACTLY what is needed in order to survive, despite not KNOWING what is needed to survive?

And I am most certainly not declaring “water is here for the purpose of making grass grow” or “grass is here specifically to feed animals.”

So what exactly are you saying then? Are you saying that our eyes don’t perform the SPECIFIC function of providing us with vision? So what are our eyes for? What is the purpose? What is the reason for eyes existing? Without our brain, we wouldn’t be able to see, so what came first, the eyes or the brain?

Such presumptuous all-knowing statements would be on a par with your own faith based dogma. That X serves the purpose of Y isn’t to imply that X=Y is itself the purpose.

You call it presumptuous, I call it drawing a logical conclusion. From my experiences, and I’m sure your experiences as well, you don’t get that kind of complexity from mindless and blind processes. If you negate the existence of Intelligent Design, you have to believe that a mindless and blind process gave you eyes that HAPPEN to provide vision, ears that HAPPEN to provide audio, a digestive system that HAPPENS to give the body energy, a circulatory system that HAPPENS to provide blood throughout the body, a immune system that HAPPENS to fight bacteria and diseases, not to mention a brain that performs countless of other functions.

And not only that, but you also believe that this same mindless and blind process gave us life, so you believe that life came from non-life. Now, in my opinion, to believe that these things could occur without Intelligent Design is completely irrational.

So I can either believe that a mindless and blind process gave me these things specified things, or I can believe that an Intelligent Design gave me these specified things. I will stick with my Intelligent Design.

In given instances, proponents of Specified Complexity suppose it to be indicative of intelligence. But I’m saying that there are events serving no useful or necessary purpose other than where one fault is required to rectify or remedy another existing fault and where if the first fault didn’t exist the second never would have been. So we have two conjoined but completely unnecessary events, and that is either a random development or an imperfectly or incompetently designed world. If it is a random event then there is no Creator, and if the world is designed by an incompetent then that entity will not be the Supreme Being. In both cases we find for the only possible conclusion, which is that the term “intelligence” is an evident misnomer, and even if Specified Complexity was not already a highly dubious concept an explanation is still required for those examples to which it cannot be applied.

What we have is a universe that is fine tuned for human life, and we also have human life. Both of these are two separate issues, and right now science is incapable of explaining either one.

A doctrinal belief as faith, ie the Bible, is not argument. And in any case if nature is working within the constraints of God then explain the purpose of volcanoes, other than being a threat to his creation, which they are whether intended or accidental, since you wish to assign teleology to everything else?

Things happen, cot.

Yes, let’s be serious. If God is the omnipotent creator then nothing happens but what God wills and sustains. And he doesn’t intervene “as he sees fit”, that’s nonsense. As a famous theologian explains: “God not only gave being to things when they first began but is the cause of their being as long as they last…so he not only gave things their operative powers when they were first created but is always the cause of these in things. Hence if this Divine influence stopped every operation would stop. Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to him as its cause.” Aquinas. Summa contra Gentiles, III, 67

And on that note, since God is also omniscient and omnibenevolent, then everything that happens must happen for the best, since he cannot make a mistake. So therefore, everything that God allows to happen, he must have a morally sufficient reason for allowing it to happen even if you in your finite knowledge can’t see or understand why.

…which is the point I’ve already made! And it was just part of the preamble for what followed! You could respond to the thrust of my overall argument instead of plucking parts out of the piece that become irrelevant when taken out of their context.

Well then I could just sum up your entire post with that one post? You should of told me that earlier.

If there is a God then there is no “natural law”, a term that contradicts your own argument. As a theist you can’t have it both ways, one minute claiming everything in the world is subject to God’s design and the next minute saying, deist-like, that it occurs naturally thereafter.

I said that God, a supernatural being, created a natural realm that is governed by natural law and since he transcends these laws, he can use his power to intervene within these laws. I don’t see how that is such a difficult concept to grasp or why do you have this “either one or the other” approach.

[Whatever your God put in motion is still subject to his every intention (as per St Thomas). And if everything has a designed purpose, then there can be no unnecessary or randomly occurring events or actions. And yet there are!

Like what?

 

[quizas]

It has always been bizarre as to why a religious organization must tie itself into science so badly there must be an entire sect to mesh it in successfully by the mere usage of the name.
It has always occurred to me that because such schools of thought exists that it is essentially proof religion is not compatible with science.

Theological thoughts such as Christian Science and Mu'tazilah are movements within religions that try to promote the coexistence of science and religion yet they seem to only prove the incompatibility of the two.

Is the fact that religion has to make a continuous effort to prove itself being scientific proof that it is unscientific to begin with?

You are suffering from lack of education

All scientific discoveries that support religious
History are available

Prophet Noah arks was found by scientist



Another scientific proof for islam

Allah says in Quran : " 33) The people of Lut rejected (his) warning.

إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ حَاصِبًا إِلَّا آلَ لُوطٍ ۖ نَّجَّيْنَاهُم بِسَحَرٍ (34) We sent against them a violent Tornado with showers of stones, (which destroyed them), except Lut´s household: them We delivered by early Dawn,-



Allah punished
people of lut Who rejected their prophet


Scientists discovered people of lut bodies and cities which
Were destroyed In sodom and ghamorah as mentioned by Allah
In Quran


This discoveries was found by Werner Keller
Non Muslim from Germany


My system doesn't support adding pictures

For their pic ..
Copy the following sentence. And paste it In YouTube

" هلاك قوم لوط "

Watch and see how Allah punished people of lut

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You are suffering from lack of education

All scientific discoveries that support religious
History are available

Prophet Noah arks was found by scientist



Another scientific proof for islam

Prophet to people of lut But they rejected his massages
So Allah send big storm that destroyed whole thing
What happened is that scientist discover that
There whole city has been destroyed with big storm

In same location of lut attribute were living

Story of lut in Quran


كَذَّبَتْ قَوْمُ لُوطٍ بِالنُّذُرِ (33) The people of Lut rejected (his) warning.

إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ حَاصِبًا إِلَّا آلَ لُوطٍ ۖ نَّجَّيْنَاهُم بِسَحَرٍ (34) We sent against them a violent Tornado with showers of stones, (which destroyed them), except Lut´s household: them We delivered by early Dawn,-

My system doesn't support adding pictures

For their pic ..
Copy the following sentence.
And paste it In YouTube
هلاك قوم لوط

Watch and see how Allah punished people of lut

More than likely if this pans out it doesn't support the idea of the religion itself but that there was a part of the Koran that was based in legend from a real historical event. That again is not support or evidence for Allah.

 

[quizas]

More than likely if this pans out it doesn't support the idea of the religion itself but that there was a part of the Koran that was based in legend from a real historical event. That again is not support or evidence for Allah.

It is not opinion that you write
These are proof evidence


So if Allah said something and it happened
It means that there is Allah


Allah said , Allah did , that was prove
For he did

Allah said that he send prophet to people and they
Refused the massage

Then he did punish them



Germany archeologist did found their bodies
In same location that lut people were living


Allah said :

They desire to extinguish the light of allah with their mouths; but allah seeks only to perfect his light, though the unbelievers hate it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It is not opinion that you write
These are proof evidence

Waiting on proof

So if Allah said something and it happened
It means that there is Allah

If a hearalding voice from the sky said that the sky would turn purple and then it turned purple then I would believe you. But instead we have an ancient text that talks of city destoryed by a flood and then later we find historical evidence that a city was destroyed by a flood it doesn't mean that Allah is real. It means that whoever wrote the book had real life events to go off of that was probably interpreted at the time as "an act of god".

Allah said , Allah did , that was prove
For he did

Well he hasn't done anything within any timeframe that we could difinitivly say it was in fact Allah. It was an event long long long time ago and it was written of after the fact.

Allah said that he send prophet to people and they
Refused the massage

Then he did punish them

How do we know it wasn't Posideon and he destroyed them because they did start worshiping another god?

Germany archeologist did found their bodies
In same location that lut people were living

I don't think you are really looking at this from a rational point of view. The book was written AFTER this event happened. Not before. If there said in the Koran that the sinful city of New Orelands was going to be destroyed with all his fury in the likes we have never seen in the year 2004 then it would be more compelling evidence for Allah.

Allah said :

What the Koran says Allah says*

They desire to extinguish the light of allah with their mouths; but allah seeks only to perfect his light, though the unbelievers hate it.

This still doesn't provide evidence or poof of Allah.

 

[quizas]

Waiting on proof


If a hearalding voice from the sky said that the sky would turn purple and then it turned purple then I would believe you. But instead we have an ancient text that talks of city destoryed by a flood and then later we find historical evidence that a city was destroyed by a flood it doesn't mean that Allah is real. It means that whoever wrote the book had real life events to go off of that was probably interpreted at the time as "an act of god".



Well he hasn't done anything within any timeframe that we could difinitivly say it was in fact Allah. It was an event long long long time ago and it was written of after the fact.

How do we know it wasn't Posideon and he destroyed them because they did start worshiping another god?



I don't think you are really looking at this from a rational point of view. The book was written AFTER this event happened. Not before. If there said in the Koran that the sinful city of New Orelands was going to be destroyed with all his fury in the likes we have never seen in the year 2004 then it would be more compelling evidence for Allah.


What the Koran says Allah says*

This still doesn't provide evidence or poof of Allah.

Hearlading voice from sky ??

Who told you that I meant such thing
Allah says are in Quran

About the flood that you mentioned

Obviously tusunami was happened to whom
Acting against Allah and not one who was praying

They sleep with whatever without getting married
The whole country encourage people to do bad things

Every one knows how they were living

You still not believe me

The one who insulted prophet Mohammad
In America
All American encouraged painters to insult prophet
Painters was Egyptian who moved to America
what happened to them ?
Allah send them storm
They called it sandy storm
Notice news headline says
Unexpected sandy storm

They never ever expect something happened
Even their high technology which call weather
Metrological failed to predict weather

Weather commanded by Allah



---
God acts ..

People don't have such ability to talk about
Something take place many century before


----



You r saying it is not Allah

Long long time fact


Why storm don't destroy country that is praying
And believing in him as it should ?


Ya it is long long time fact and Quran does mention
Facts about Prophets and their people
And how they kept disbeliving in his massages



------

How do you know reason of why they punished?

Doesn't matter why they have been punished
The most important thing that we don't do
Same mistake

If you are curious you have to make more search

If Allah punished them because they were worshipping
Someone other than Allah there must be some signs
Like doll as Indian do

But there was no such thing
You have to watch video and keep meditation
If you notice they were covered no like dead people
That we see when there bones left

This like a massage Saying they were punished
Because of what they did with their bodies

----
What the Koran says Allah says*

Yes it does

Quran are wards from Allah to humanity

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Hearlading voice from sky ??

Who told you that I meant such thing
Allah says are in Quran

About the flood that you mentioned

Obviously tusunami was happened to whom
Acting against Allah and not one who was praying

They sleep with whatever without getting married
The whole country encourage people to do bad things

Every one knows how they were living

You still not believe me

The one who insulted prophet Mohammad
In America
All American encouraged painters to insult prophet
Painters was Egyptian who moved to America
what happened to them ?
Allah send them storm
They called it sandy storm
Notice news headline says
Unexpected sandy storm

They never ever expect something happened
Even their high technology which call weather
Metrological failed to predict weather

Weather commanded by Allah



---
God acts ..

People don't have such ability to talk about
Something take place many century before


----



You r saying it is not Allah

Long long time fact


Why storm don't destroy country that is praying
And believing in him as it should ?


Ya it is long long time fact and Quran does mention
Facts about Prophets and their people
And how they kept disbeliving in his massages



------

How do you know reason of why they punished?

Doesn't matter why they have been punished
The most important thing that we don't do
Same mistake

If you are curious you have to make more search

If Allah punished them because they were worshipping
Someone other than Allah there must be some signs
Like doll as Indian do

But there was no such thing
You have to watch video and keep meditation
If you notice they were covered no like dead people
That we see when there bones left

This like a massage Saying they were punished
Because of what they did with their bodies

----
What the Koran says Allah says*

Yes it does

Quran are wards from Allah to humanity

Allah has said nothing other than what a physical person wrote down a few thousand years ago. You take it as the word of Allah. So thats number one.

Secondly you have no idea of how the ancient city that was destroyed behaved OTHER than the Koran. There is no historical evidence of morall atrocities but simply a naturally occuring phenonemon taking place.

America gets tons of hurricains a year. What is your point with the whole rant?

 

[Thoughts]

double post

 

[Thoughts]

People write down Quran because people who memorized
Quran were dying

A lot of them were dead

So they write it down to preserve it

For example

When you memorize a song and write down
It doesn't mean you are the one who put the words
Togather


You said Americans got ton of hurrican and that is it

So there was no prophet to disbelieve


in fact, they will be punished afterlife not know
According to what they will commit