So you are going to try to tell me that you don't understand the distinction between deductive evidence that "proves" that someone murdered someone, and a "circumstantial" case where the INFERENCE to guilt from indirect evidence is strong enough for a conviction?
The applied sciences must use methodological atheism to perform experiments.
The historical sciences,(evolutionary biology when it looks at origins of life, cosmology when it looks at origins of the Universe), when they try to limit inquiry to the same methodology,
Crick, Dawkins, Harris, in all of their writings frame their outlook, from what they consider the ONLY scientific way to see things, as an exclusive basis for rationality defined by materialistic naturalism.
Then the highly rational interpretation of the evidence that Intelligent Design offers should be something
The anthropic coincidences that set fine limits for the laws of physics to make the universe able to sustain life;
Which is the result of the unguided process of random mutation, inheritance, and natural selection.the miraculous levels of intelligent information encoded within living systems;
Are we having a conversation about deism or Christianity? I do not want to have a conversation about deism. I am agnostic on the question of deistic god. I am an atheist - all that means is that I am not convinced that there is a god. I do not know if there is a deistic god. The question of whether there is a deistic god does not interest me in the slighest.these evidences SHOULD be able to infer for you the possibility (likelihood) of a designer.
either means that your statements above are simply untrue about your stance as a materialist, or (more likely) that you really are lost in dogmatism and really can't see the hard clash within your own thinking.
“Let's see if I can use the term Bayesian reasoning without communication difficulty.
Let me explain again. When I look at the world, I see things. I have sensory experience. I see, hear, taste, touch, and smell things. This would include telepathy if it existed. It would include the sense experience of the magnetic field if I had such a sense like sharks, but I do not. This would also include god directly talking to me in my head. When I say observable things, I mean to include any sort of influence on my experience that does not come from within my own head.”
“On Bayesian reasoning, we can look at intelligent design. On the hypothesis that unguided biological evolution is true, we should expect to see several things, such as the correspondence of the morphological tree of life and the genetic tree of life.”
“ On the hypothesis that there is some irreducible complexity in some organisms, we should expect to find such irreducibly complex structures. Yet, despite lots of attempts to find such things, none have stood up, and all have been shown to have evolutionary ancestors. Thus, on Bayesian reasoning, the sensible conclusion is that the hypothesis of irreducible complexity is false, and unguided biological evolution is true.”
“We can use our knowledge of the state of the texts for the first few centuries, and use well established facts like about 5% of the modern Biblical text was added after the third century. (We know this because we have lots of surviving manuscripts, and the texts are different.) That's just modifications after the third century. Imagine how much worse it would have been in the first and second century while the text was still being standardized.”
“... what about the prophesy that Jesus said he was coming back in the lifetime of some people present (Matthew 16:28). Do you really believe there's a two thousand year old Jew from Jesus's day still wandering around?
That's a failed prophesy.”
if your standard is materialistic naturalism you will either find what you feel is a reasonable MATERIALIST explanation
or you will end up shelving your decision as an, “as yet unanswered question for future materialist discovery”.
You’ll ALWAYS end up with an atheist, materialist, conclusion, if you come up with one at all.
But when we look at historic events like the Cambrian explosion, the alleged “cone of diversity” required by Darwinian macro evolution, is turned upside down.
And after over a hundred years of desperate dogmatic fossil digging the universe of transitionals that should be there are still missing.
Well, you’ll have to submit some evidence that all of Dr. Behe’s examples have been “proven” invalid. Obviously the controversy exists.
Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).
Obviously you stand solidly on one side of it. Your assertion begs the question unless you can demonstrate that there are no examples of irreducible complexity as he argues.
Trying to steer the discussion back on topic, my observation is that you find it easy to dismiss BOTH the Bible AND Intelligent design by way of “Bayesian Reasoning”, but don’t dismiss Darwinian evolution by the same standard, considering the mass of disconfirming evidence (missing transitionals in the fossil record, inverted cone of diversity demonstrated in the Cambrian explosion.) Your double standard reveals a bias, a faith system at work which you think is grounded in unshakable logic, but that is filled with holes. You exercise a double standard in your APPLICATION of "Bayesian reasoning".
Trying to steer the discussion back on topic,
“Yep. You think atheists and scientists discount "supernatural" explanations. You think atheists and scientists do not consider "supernatural" explanations. You are wrong. I've explained how you are wrong in a dozen different ways. I'm largely done repeating myself. If you want to continue claiming that I have certain beliefs despite my continued protestations otherwise, be my guest.”
"Critics of intelligent design who hold to methodological materialism say that nature operates
only by natural causes and is explained scientifically only through natural explanations. But what
do they mean by “nature”? Eugenie Scott (1998), director of the evolution watchdog group the
National Center for Science Education (NCSE), explains how methodological materialism
“Most scientists today require that science be carried out according to the rule of
methodological materialism: to explain the natural world scientifically, scientists must
restrict themselves only to material causes (to matter, energy, and their interaction).
There is a practical reason for this restriction: it works. By continuing to seek natural
explanations for how the world works, we have been able to find them. If supernatural
explanations are allowed, they will discourage—or at least delay—the discovery of
natural explanations, and we will understand less about the universe. “
Thus, for Scott, nature is “matter, energy, and their interaction.” Accordingly, by natural
explanations, Scott means explanations that resort only to such material causes. Yet, that is
precisely the point at issue, namely, whether nature operates exclusively by such causes.
…in defining science as the search for natural explanations, Scott presupposes precisely what
must be demonstrated. If, by natural explanations, Scott simply means explanations that explain
what is happening in nature, there would be no problem, and intelligent design would constitute a
perfectly good natural explanation of biological complexity. But, clearly, that is not what she means. “
“PS: You say: "But you don't use deduction or induction directly or exclusively to get God." Then what else do you use "to get to [a] god"? Keep in mind that reasoning on circumstantial evidence is inductive reasoning, is Bayesian reasoning.”
“Im still waiting on you to answer what methods, processes, and standards of belief and justification you use to learn about your god if not solely deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, Bayesian reasoning, and science. What is it?”
“There is no such thing in a court case as "proved guilty (beyond all doubt)". With evidence - direct or circumstantial - all you can ever show is a likelihood or high probability, never 100% certainty. “
“No, they don't. I don't know what you're talking about. “
“So, I can easily show that telepathy is real, works, etc. I might not be able to explain how it works, but if the evidence is there, then it obviously works. Like a good scientist, I would try a methodological reductionist approach to see if I can unify models and explain one thing in terms of another thing. Explaining one thing in terms of another is one way - an important way - how scientific knowledge advances.”
“Watch the talk by the serious Catholic Ken Miller who was an expert witness in the [Dover] case.
rotor. In fact, the function Miller observes is obviously UTTERLY different than the original rotor function and utterly irrelevant as to the consideration of the irreducible complexity of the original system! Behe observes that in Darwin’s Black Box he formally concedes that various parts of an irreducibly complex system might be able to serve some other function. That is irrelevant as to whether the system up for consideration, IN ITS DEMONSTRATED FUNCTION, is irreducibly complex or not. (Behe also speaks of "redundancy" of some parts in his book, which Miller ignores, and that bears on Miller's weak case against Behe's example in the blood clotting cascade as being irreducibly complex). Also, Behe observes in an earlier "The Great Debate: part 2" video wherein he makes his opening speech, that one has to imaginatively extrapolate from a Darwinian bias as to how one might even get from an utterly alien function in some disparate part, to the ultimate macro function of a larger more complex system at large that is the true consideration, (In the case of a flagellum, that is, in the function of an outboard motor functionality as being irreducibly complex). Again, the complex function being considered is BROKEN when Miller’s 40 parts are removed. Miller harps continually on this straw man right up to the end when he jokingly uses part of a mouse trap as a tie clasp for the audience. But his joke is his undoing. Why? Because the main point Behe is making lies in the fact that Miller may co-op (by intelligent manipulation no less) some part of the mouse trap for a different function, but he will never catch any mice in doing so!BROKEN
that causes him to grossly misrepresent Behe’s argument for irreducible complexity, and conveniently ignore the implications of hard distinctions to draw a falsely simple case of comparison. Why? Because he already knows where he wants the case to go. He IS NOT being objective in any sense of “Bayesian reasoning”.BIAS
“…consider that one of the most prominent critics of intelligent design has himself been called a creationist. That critic is Kenneth Miller. In his book Finding Darwin’s God, Miller is critical of intelligent design in biology. Nonetheless, in that book he argues for an intelligence or purposiveness that underlies the laws of physics (laws that are necessary for the universe to be life-permitting—see Miller 1999, 226–232). Miller’s reward for proposing intelligent design at the level of physics and cosmology is to be called a creationist by University of California professor Frederick Crews. In reviewing Miller’s book, Crews (2001) writes:“When Miller then tries to drag God and Darwin to the bargaining table [by finding design or purpose underlying the laws of physics], his sense of proportion and probability abandons him, and he himself proves to be just another “God of the gaps” creationist. That is, he joins Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, and company in seizing upon the not-yet-explained as if it must be a locus of intentional action by the Christian deity.”
The Atheist position is not only amoral, that position, rationally, must ultimately be seen as “immoral”
A transcendent possibility will never emerge as a viable consideration.
As you limit science in that way, the observation of “specified complexity” or “irreducibly complex systems” will be subject to the same limitations and will never open for you even the POSSIBILITY that a Creative Intelligent Mind, EXTERNAL to the natural world, could be a Cause on table up for consideration.
He is making mistakes because of it but that is not the point. The point is that materialism, Naturalism, modern scientists in drawing their conclusions, are doing the same thing Theists are doing.
The Atheist position is not only amoral, that position, rationally, must ultimately be seen as “immoral”
That's an easy one. I subscribe to the is-ought distinction. The mere existence or non-existence of your god is a mere description of our shared reality, and thus on its own has absolutely no bearing on morality because of the is-ought distinction. Only by starting with a moral presupposition can you arrive as any moral claim. For example, I've heard many Christians make the moral claim that "might makes right" and thus god's rules are moral. I've also heard many Christians argue that "[the Christian] god made us, and thus he owns us, and thus thus [our] god's rules are moral". All of those are completely unsubstantiated assertions, and what can be asserted without justification can be dismissed without justification.
I have the presupposition that humans and other intelligent creatures have inherent worth, and that we should strive to improve our condition. We should act together in some degree to improve our happiness, safety, freedom, self-determination, and other values of humanism. In other words, we should act to improve our general well-being. If you god exists and stands in the way of that goal, then we need to imprison or destroy your god. Judging your god based on the contents of your Christian bible, the conclusion is obvious that your god, if it exists, is a huge impediment to my goals. Thus, nuke god!
If your god comes down to New York Times Square and agrees to undergo any scientific test we want, that's a great first step to showing that your god is real.
""'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'""
In other words, if God condescends to make himself available for worldly scrutiny, (allows naturalism to perceive His formal material presence), then, that materialist naturalistic standard would accept Him.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest