Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[Gambit]

That is your problem. You only want to preach to the choir and hear your own echo chamber. Your confirmation bias and group think has blinded you.

You want the luxury of always playing offense without ever having to play defense. I'm not participating in that kind game.

 

[Gambit]

How do you know that you are observing what I observe? Through inter-subjective verification.

Agreed. But the point is that I can only infer that you are experiencing consciousness because I cannot directly observe your subjective awareness.

It is meaningless to say that "consciousness is not objective" (i.e. incapable of being objectively observed) because there is no such thing as "objective observation": All observation is ultimately and finally subjective.

I disagree. My definition of objective is very meaningful. Do you not understand that I cannot observe your subjective awareness even as you cannot observe mine?

Again, I observe my consciousness. You observe your consciousness. We then swap notes, find significant correspondence between each of our observations, and declare that consciousness is -- not inter-subjectively observed -- but inter-subjectively verified.

We can both observe the same object. We cannot both observe the same subject. That's the difference.

 

[Sunstone]

Agreed. But the point is that I can only infer that you are experiencing consciousness because I cannot directly observe your subjective awareness.



I disagree. My definition of objective is very meaningful. Do you not understand that I cannot observe your subjective awareness even as you cannot observe mine?



We can both observe the same object. We cannot both observe the same subject. That's the difference.

Based on your answers, it is now my firm impression that you have not fully understood what I was saying. That being the case, the only response I could offer you would be to repeat myself until you did understand. I don't think repeating myself is the best use of my time, though, so I will no longer raise this issue with you unless you manage to say something that indicates to me you have at last grasped my meanings.

 

[Gambit]

Yes, and we can do so using scientific method. The point is that you can’t define a creator god but declare it completely immune to scientific study.

What you're making here (albeit, unwittingly) is an argument for the intelligent design movement. The existence or non-existence of God is beyond the purview of science.

"Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.... While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science." Methodological naturalism is thus "a paradigm of science." It is a "ground rule" that "requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify."

(source: Judge John E. Jones, III Decision of the Court Expert witnesses were John F. Haught, Robert T. Pennock, and Kenneth R. Miller. )

 

[Gambit]

I think that it is entirely possible that there is something beyond physics which is still within the realm of science.

That which is beyond physics is metaphysics (which, literally means "beyond physics"). Science and metaphysics are different fields of endeavor.

 

[Gambit]

This seems counter-intuitive, as many theists don't see God as metaphysically necessary, but still believe in God nonetheless. Obviously, there are many things that people believe in that aren't "metaphysically necessary". So, can you support this claim?

The belief that God is the creator and the belief that God is metaphysically unnecessary for the creation are two contradictory beliefs. If you do not agree, then we will have to agree to disagree. Because if we cannot agree on what constitutes a contradiction, then we have reached an impasse in this debate upon which any kind of progress will not be possible.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If it's a reasonable belief then it's not faith. /

Reasonable to who??? To you? To me??? What a sliding scale that is. Most reasonable beliefs are based on faith. Go to dictionary.com and look up faith. What's the very, very first (most common) defintion? Trust. It says nothing about proof, evidence or anything else. This is what I refer to as evidenced faith. Just because you disagree with my interpretation of the evidence, doesn't make it unevidenced.

I have yet to meet an atheist or agnostic who doesn't reasonably believe what is reasonable to believe and who doesn't believe what is unreasonable to believe.

Now you're sounding like Rush Limbaugh. I guess I'll just check with you to find out if my belief conforms to your level of reason. Hogwash. Reasonable people disagree all the time. That's OK and to be expected. You'll never by my arbiter of what's reasonable or not. Get used to it.

Are you one of those who insist that it takes the "wonder working power" of faith to attempt to crank the car in the morning since there's the small possibility it won't crank?

Not really. I'm the one who insists that slamming on the brakes takes more than a bit of faith and that faith is often crushed as is the front of a vehicle. It's takes faith to believe or disbelieve in any esoteric concept. It takes faith to believe in evolution. I most certainly do though I've never seen something evolve in front of me. My inspection and study of the fossil record indicates that the hypothesis of evolution is true.

The only person to be able to claim to be mostly free of faith is the true agnostic. As I posted before: I have yet to meet one. Most people are biased one way or the other. Their belief or disbelief is based on emotion, not verifiable fact.

 

[ak.yonathan]

That which is beyond physics is metaphysics (which, literally means "beyond physics"). Science and metaphysics are different fields of endeavor.

I said still within the realm of science. If you say metaphysics is outside of science, well then that is in direct conflict with what I said. What I meant is that it is entirely conceivable for there to be a branch of science that does not involve natural causality.

 

[leibowde84]

The belief that God is the creator and the belief that God is metaphysically unnecessary for the creation are two contradictory beliefs. If you do not agree, then we will have to agree to disagree. Because if we cannot agree on what constitutes a contradiction, then we have reached an impasse in this debate upon which any kind of progress will not be possible.

I believe in God, and I believe that God is (at least to some extent) the creator. Because this is a belief supported by faith rather than verifiable evidence, I understand the fact that I could be wrong. Thus, I don't see God as metaphysically necessary. There are many reasons why I believe in the existence of God, but, often, I find myself doubting that belief. So, obviously I don't find God to be metaphysically necessary. Thus, your assumption is incorrect that they are contradictory positions. You are merely forgetting that "belief" is the acceptance that something is the case even though it might not be.

 

[prometheus11]

I guess I struck a nerve.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I guess I struck a nerve.

Don't flatter yourself. You said stupid stuff that's not supportable. What? You expect us to blindly follow your concept of what's reasonable? In your dreams. Like I said, you're acting like Rush Limbaugh here. That should make you proud.

 

[prometheus11]

Don't flatter yourself. You said stupid stuff that's not supportable. What? You expect us to blindly follow your concept of what's reasonable? In your dreams. Like I said, you're acting like Rush Limbaugh here. That should make you proud.

What I said was wise. And correct. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

Slamming on brakes takes ZERO faith and is a reasonable, intelligent, informed response. In fact, in the situation there is no response more logical more reasonable more correct and less faith based. How ridiculous to claim otherwise! Lol!!!

If you understand evolution, it takes no more faith than gravity does. We understand the theory of evolution better than the theory of gravity, anyway.

You must not like it. Oh well.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What I said was wise. And correct. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

You must not like it. Oh well.

It's not that I don't like it... it's just that you're delusional: just like Rush. Good job!

 

[prometheus11]

It's not that I don't like it... it's just that you're delusional: just like Rush. Good job!

Thanks. Now go face facts.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Thanks. Now go face facts.

Should I pass them all by you first? You seem to believe that you're in charge of truth today, Rush.

 

[prometheus11]

Should I pass them all by you first? You seem to believe that you're in charge of truth today, Rush.

I believe your claims are silly and not worthy while mine are correct and unbeatable. Can you prove me wrong? No. Lol.

 

[prometheus11]

What I said was wise. And correct. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

Slamming on brakes takes ZERO faith and is a reasonable, intelligent, informed response. In fact, in the situation there is no response more logical more reasonable more correct and less faith based. How ridiculous to claim otherwise! Lol!!!

If you understand evolution, it takes no more faith than gravity does. We understand the theory of evolution better than the theory of gravity, anyway.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What I said was wise. And correct.

Another FIGJAM poster. 2 phunni!

Wisdom is for others to decide. Like the rest it's just bluster.

 

[prometheus11]

Another FIGJAM poster. 2 phunni!

Wisdom is for others to decide. Like the rest it's just bluster.

No sense debating my obviously correct claims, then. Run along, son, run along.

 

[Gambit]

True. However, the success of methodological naturalism (as deployed in science) gives us a certan confidence level. The conditional probability of metahysical naturalism, given the effectivity of the methodological one, is surely positively affected.

What relevance does this have to explaining the mystery of existence? Answer: None.