tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1183307942888884363..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Still a Believer: James F. Sennett Responds to Questions About His FaithUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36468497312806909792009-04-01T15:35:00.000-04:002009-04-01T15:35:00.000-04:00Ellis's presentation doesn't mean what you think i...Ellis's presentation doesn't mean what you think it means Al, and all the equivocation in the world won't change that.<BR/><BR/>The fact that there are things that are simply unknowable, does not give you carte blanche to make anything up that you want to fill in the blanks.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14354597152539318732009-04-01T15:21:00.000-04:002009-04-01T15:21:00.000-04:00Corn:Naturalism is a belief based on evidence. It ...Corn:<BR/><BR/><I>Naturalism is a belief based on evidence. It doesn't claim to know everything (or even to be able to know everything) and it's subject to revision as we gain more evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>Obviously, neither have you followed the discussion carefully nor studied Ellis's presentation.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16839563028940751362009-04-01T14:32:00.000-04:002009-04-01T14:32:00.000-04:00Al,Are you joking?I don't think you are.So why am ...Al,<BR/><BR/>Are you joking?<BR/><BR/>I don't think you are.<BR/><BR/>So why am I laughing?<BR/><BR/>As I said before, it doesn't matter how intelligent a theist is, they didn't come to their position through reason (though they may protest to the contrary) and it's not likely they will be reasoned out of it.<BR/><BR/>You can go the epistemological route but I'll see your epistemology and raise you a cognitive psychology. You can't even be certain that your memory is accurate, and yet you're asking us to assign weight to divine revelation? Let me guess, next you will claim that science can't answer the question of whether a "revelation" is a supernatural event or a natural delusion.<BR/><BR/>Naturalism is not a "faith." It's dishonest of you to claim otherwise. Faith is a belief without, and in many cases in spite of, evidence. Naturalism is a belief based on evidence. It doesn't claim to know everything (or even to be able to know everything) and it's subject to revision as we gain more evidence. Divine revelation isn't subject to evidence and isn't subject to revision. If your god is unknowable and untestable it is therefore irrelevant, just like all of the other gods before it.Cornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02539120472402293083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51262647316628929752009-04-01T13:50:00.000-04:002009-04-01T13:50:00.000-04:00Steven,If god is untestable by any means, then Ken...Steven,<BR/><BR/><I>If god is untestable by any means, then Ken's faith (and yours) can not be substantiated in anyway.</I><BR/><BR/>God is not testable by the scientific method, and neither is wider nature outside of our own spacetime, which could have created our Big Bang, our universe. By your standards, the atheist's faith can not be substantiated in any way either.<BR/><BR/><I>Faith becomes nothing more than wishful thinking (and the evidence does indeed support that contention).</I><BR/><BR/>Where is the evidence that supports an atheist's contention that the universe was created by wider nature? Theoretical mathematical models like brane or multiverse cosmology that lack, and always will lack (again, we cannot observe beyond our own spacetime) observational, i.e. scientific, evidence? We know from history how well purely theoretical models fare without observational support. Just take the Ptolemaic epicycles that perfectly well explained the movement of the sun and the planets around the Earth, until, low and behold, observational evidence showed that the Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun. <BR/><BR/>The atheist's faith is evidence-less and blind, whereas the theist can claim divine revelation as evidence (which atheists deny, but theists are not the ones that claim that "only scientific evidence counts").<BR/><BR/>In terms of philosophical argument, the evidence from science as the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature is most common-sensically and straightforwardly explained by supposing a designer. It is certainly much more straightforward than the multiverse of trillions of trillions of trillions of universes which brutally violates Occam's razor:<BR/><BR/>principle that Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate; “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” The principle is also expressed “Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.”<BR/><BR/>See:<BR/><BR/>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424706/Ockhams-razor<BR/><BR/>Certainly, the naturalist will claim that a wider nature is the best extrapolation from nature. This is debatable; in any case it is not a scientific extrapolation, but a <I>philosophical</I> extrapolation <I>from</I> science. As such it carries no inherent advantage over the God hypothesis, which, in the case of the fine-tuning argument, is also a philosophical extrapolation from science (and, being the same kind of extrapolation, not more or less "wishy washy" (your words) than the naturalist argument).Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66660149390874573272009-03-31T19:48:00.000-04:002009-03-31T19:48:00.000-04:00Ken Miller has an amazing ability to compartmental...Ken Miller has an amazing ability to compartmentalize. Consider this simple substitution:<BR/><BR/>"The categorical mistake of the skeptic is to assume that Fairies are natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. By making Fairies an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing to find them there, they conclude that they do not exist. But Fairies are not and cannot be part of nature."<BR/><BR/>Now, would Ken Miller take seriously such a claim?GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-121976233189309662009-03-31T19:33:00.000-04:002009-03-31T19:33:00.000-04:00Al,I am quite familiar with Ken Miller's work, and...Al,<BR/><BR/>I am quite familiar with Ken Miller's work, and I completely disagree with him on this point, as should be obvious from my previous post. Ken is making a category error by assuming that the god hypothesis is completely untestable. Worse, this error actually works against Ken's desired conclusion. If god <I>is</I> untestable by any means, then Ken's faith (and yours) can not be substantiated in anyway. You are totally unable to tell the difference between an honest to goodness "spiritual" experience and self delusion. All that is left is useless mysticism.<BR/><BR/>Faith becomes nothing more than wishful thinking (and the evidence does indeed support that contention). So in that sense, I suppose, Ellis is relevant, but he doesn't really work in your favor. All Ellis does is provide you with a wishy washy means of choosing to believe in something that you are totally unable to make a positive existence claim for. This, coupled with the additional unsupportable baggage that religions tack on, make such beliefs untenable.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34038629216158369922009-03-31T18:51:00.000-04:002009-03-31T18:51:00.000-04:00Steven:However, this is all a red herring as far a...Steven:<BR/><BR/><I>However, this is all a red herring as far as I'm concerned, because you keep hammering this business that naturalism requires faith, and you're just flat out wrong.<BR/><BR/>The scientific method does <B>not</B> exclude the supernatural. Think about it. The method says:<BR/><BR/>1) observe a phenomena<BR/>2) hypothesize and explanation<BR/>3) test the hypothesis<BR/>4) revise the hypothesis based on 3)<BR/>5) repeat<BR/><BR/>Supernatural explanations can't get past step 2. This is not statement of faith, this is an empirical fact (and, I might add, a fact that is subject to change, unlikely though it may be). Therefore, supernatural explanations do not provide any useful information about the world around us, unless they can complete the cycle. This has never happened in the history of science. Now, I do not automatically assume that the supernatural cannot exist, however, I can not in good conscience entertain any such ideas because they have yet to yield anything reliably useful. Once again, explain to me how that is a statement of faith.</I><BR/><BR/>As Ken Miller, one of the most prominent defenders of evolution today (he was also one of the star witnesses in the Dover trial against Intelligent Design), writes:<BR/>( http://www.templeton.org/belief/essays/miller.pdf )<BR/><BR/>“The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural, and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. By making God an ordinary part of the natural world, and failing to find Him there, they conclude that He does not exist. But God is not and cannot be part of nature. God is the reason for nature, the explanation of why things are. He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself.”<BR/><BR/>(This should be self-evident if God created nature -- then He stands outside nature.)<BR/><BR/>You may believe that a wider nature created nature (our Big Bang, our universe with its own spacetime), I believe that God created *) nature. Both are a faith. The scientific method cannot distinguish between the two. Both options theoretically give the same universe, a few miracles aside when it comes to the theistic option. <BR/><BR/><I>And Ellis' presentation is irrelevant to this.</I><BR/><BR/>And yes, Ellis's presentation is highly relevant to what I just said. The scientific method cannot distinguish between the two options, since we cannot observe beyond our own spacetime.<BR/><BR/><BR/>*) which He could have done through a wider realm of nature as wellAl Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81814546196618601602009-03-31T15:34:00.000-04:002009-03-31T15:34:00.000-04:00Al, you really seem to be a bit full of yourself w...Al, you really seem to be a bit full of yourself with your publishing of an article on t.o. BFD. That doesn't make you beyond criticism. You're really not as unique a person on this forum as you think. Now, I'll grant you that you are not applying the god of the gaps argument with respect to biological evolution, but you clearly are messing around with it cosmologically.<BR/><BR/>However, this is all a red herring as far as I'm concerned, because you keep hammering this business that naturalism requires faith, and you're just flat out wrong.<BR/><BR/>The scientific method does <B>not</B> exclude the supernatural. Think about it. The method says:<BR/><BR/>1) observe a phenomena<BR/>2) hypothesize and explanation<BR/>3) test the hypothesis<BR/>4) revise the hypothesis based on 3)<BR/>5) repeat<BR/><BR/>Supernatural explanations can't get past step 2. This is not statement of faith, this is an empirical fact (and, I might add, a fact that is subject to change, unlikely though it may be). Therefore, supernatural explanations do not provide any useful information about the world around us, unless they can complete the cycle. This has never happened in the history of science. Now, I do not automatically assume that the supernatural cannot exist, however, I can not in good conscience entertain any such ideas because they have yet to yield anything reliably useful. Once again, explain to me how that is a statement of faith.<BR/><BR/>And Ellis' presentation is irrelevant to this.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54069851629306760412009-03-31T11:09:00.000-04:002009-03-31T11:09:00.000-04:00Lee:Where is the distinction?Who is anyone to say ...Lee:<BR/><BR/><I>Where is the distinction?<BR/><BR/>Who is anyone to say what science, man will or will not be able to know 100, 1000, 1million years from now?</I><BR/><BR/>As I said, please study Ellis's presentation and then we can discuss.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4235007842642456012009-03-31T10:43:00.000-04:002009-03-31T10:43:00.000-04:00"The God-of-the-Gaps argument traditionally applie..."The God-of-the-Gaps argument traditionally applies to things that science does not know yet, not to things that science cannot know."<BR/><BR/>Where is the distinction?<BR/><BR/>Who is anyone to say what science, man will or will not be able to know 100, 1000, 1million years from now?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16316242988335557519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7995848110263523052009-03-31T10:40:00.000-04:002009-03-31T10:40:00.000-04:00This song is not about you, Al.This song is not about you, Al.Cornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02539120472402293083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44570256446327344752009-03-31T10:29:00.000-04:002009-03-31T10:29:00.000-04:00And please, do me a favor, and stop lecturing me a...And please, do me a favor, and stop lecturing me about the “God of the Gaps”. I have thoroughly trashed the God of the Gaps with and in my review of the research on the origin of life, published at Talkorigins.org, a leading website on evolution:<BR/><BR/>www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html<BR/><BR/>With this article, by the way, I have done more for the public education on science than most atheists, including probably most here.<BR/><BR/>The God-of-the-Gaps argument traditionally applies to things that science does not know yet, not to things that science cannot know. For things that science cannot know, see for example Ellis’s presentation.<BR/><BR/>And no, don’t lecture me on what science does not know yet vs. what science cannot know, before you have studied this presentation.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28752147945189482492009-03-31T10:27:00.000-04:002009-03-31T10:27:00.000-04:00O.k. guys, before I continue discussing here, I ki...O.k. guys, before I continue discussing here, I kindly ask you all (and also all other readers of this thread), to study the presentation by the prominent cosmologist George Ellis, which can be downloaded here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/Ellis/Ellis_Lecture.ppt<BR/><BR/>(Explanatory supplement:<BR/>Particle horizon –- the maximum distance from which particles (i.e. also particles carrying information) could have traveled to the observer in the age of the universe. It represents the portion of the universe which we could have conceivably observed at the present day.)<BR/><BR/>This presentation touches on issues like absolute observational limits in science and the borders between science and philosophy. Once you study what Ellis says, it will be clear that these issues have little to do with what unBeguiled said:<BR/><BR/><I>So far, science relentlessly discovers natural causes for what was once explained as supernatural. Disease is caused by germs, not demon possession. The moon orbits the earth because of gravity and inertia, it is not being pulled by a god in a chariot. This story has been repeated a thousand times. Therefore, by induction, I conclude that there is probably nothing supernatural.</I>Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58883562605915128702009-03-31T10:24:00.000-04:002009-03-31T10:24:00.000-04:00Steven:I'm not taking any of this on faith, I'm lo...Steven:<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not taking any of this on faith, I'm looking at the evidence and taking it as far as it goes, beyond that point, I really don't have anything to say.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, you do. You hold on blind faith that everything has a natural explanation –- including nature itself.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11480911941540678682009-03-31T07:50:00.000-04:002009-03-31T07:50:00.000-04:00This seems to be a rehashing of a tired argument b...This seems to be a rehashing of a tired argument based on a false premise and therefore useless. It usually goes along the lines "If there is no natural explanation for everything then the Christian God must exist. We can't explain the origin of the universe. Therefore, the Christian God exists." Put another way:<BR/><BR/>Atheist: The Judeo-Christian god is a myth.<BR/>Theist: Well how do you explain {insert currently unexplained phenomena}?<BR/>Atheist: We don't have a natural explanation for that, yet.<BR/>Theist: Exactly. God did it, so He can't be a myth.<BR/><BR/>I am contesting that this is a god of the gaps argument, and nothing more. As others have illustrated, over the millennia we have discovered naturalistic explanations for what were previously considered supernatural phenomena. The primary reason they were considered supernatural was precisely because we had yet to find a naturalistic explanation.<BR/><BR/>This is, in effect, the result of a cognitive bias of assumption. Lacking a naturalistic explanation, the theist's bias is towards a supernatural explanation. Theists believe they have valid knowledge that provides explanatory power. As science expands in providing explanations for observed phenomena, the theist must retreat to the currently unknown.Cornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02539120472402293083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20150554656906159382009-03-31T07:02:00.000-04:002009-03-31T07:02:00.000-04:00VICTORVR: Dawkins is one of those people who needs...VICTOR<BR/>VR: Dawkins is one of those people who needs to be absolutely sure that he is right and that everyone on the other side is ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Dawkins regards many creationists as ignorant.<BR/><BR/>As indeed they are.<BR/><BR/>It is only polymaths like Victor who are ignorant of nothing.<BR/><BR/>Everybody else in the world is an ignoramus about many, many things.<BR/><BR/>And many Christians are ignorant about the evidence for common descent of species. <BR/><BR/>Dawkins regards the cure for ignorance as education.<BR/><BR/>But then Dawkins has blind faith. It is a failing of many humanists that they think that education is a cure for society's faults.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87496811238193440602009-03-31T06:55:00.000-04:002009-03-31T06:55:00.000-04:00Why is Sennett really struggling with his faith wh...Why is Sennett really struggling with his faith when believers have all these religious experiences?<BR/><BR/>Can he not hear any voices in his head telling him there is a God, or can only certain people hear them?<BR/><BR/>Why do genuine searchers for God like Sennett not get these convincing religious experiences that we are constantly told genuine searchers for God will get if they genuinely search for God?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77026406462635372692009-03-30T22:24:00.000-04:002009-03-30T22:24:00.000-04:00Naturalism is not a lack of faith. It is an active...<I>Naturalism is not a lack of faith. It is an active faith that nature somehow brought about our universe.</I><BR/><BR/>Al, you're putting words into people's mouths. "Naturalists" don't claim this. As a scientist, I can look at the evidence, and I can see that something like the big bang theory is a reasonably probable explanation for the origin of the universe for as far as it goes (and it's more probable and a more powerful explanation than the goddidit faith based explanation), but even the big bang theory breaks down once you get within a planck time or two within the origin of the universe, and at that point all bets are off. Now, it is certainly the case that people do speculate about what happens beyond the point that current theory can be used reliably. But that is exactly how scientific progress occurs, by carefully speculating about what might come next, but that isn't faith, at least not by any definition that I'm aware of.<BR/><BR/>Now please explain to me how this is a statement of faith. I'm not taking any of this on faith, I'm looking at the evidence and taking it as far as it goes, beyond that point, I really don't have anything to say.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36741845160068457162009-03-30T21:38:00.000-04:002009-03-30T21:38:00.000-04:00"(Only agnosticism is faith-less.)"The definition ..."(Only agnosticism is faith-less.)"<BR/><BR/>The definition of agnosticism claims that not only does one lack enough knowledge to make a decision about God, but that one can NEVER know the answer for sure. <BR/><BR/>That is the sort of staunch, absolutist claim that most people who claim to be "agnostic" are attempting to avoid. This is why I no longer call myself "agnostic".<BR/><BR/>That one would make such an dogmatic statement about what knowledge man may attain in the future, 10, 100, 1000, 1million years from now is nothing short of putridly moronic. <BR/><BR/>Atheists are as open to evidence as anyone if not more. We are as open to the evidence for God as you are for faries. You do not believe in faries but in the face of very solid evidence you would change your mind no? There is no differance here in terms of the atheist and "God" (whatever that incoherant, ill-defined concept even means, but that is another issue).<BR/><BR/>It is a simple concept that theists just cannot seem to grasp.<BR/><BR/>No atheist who values evidence would ignore good evidence for the Christian God. <BR/><BR/>Thats the point now isn't it? The evidence for the Christian sky-daddy is very, very, very poor and the cumulative evidence against is overwhelming. This is why those of us who were once believers LEFT the fold despite our utmost feveret, deep desires, which greatly biased towards Christianity to start with. Many of us now are disbelievers despite what we so greatly desired to be true. And it broke our hearts.<BR/><BR/>YOU are the one who just does not get it.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16316242988335557519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4078386204814221422009-03-30T21:31:00.000-04:002009-03-30T21:31:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16316242988335557519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41622087161429467482009-03-30T21:07:00.000-04:002009-03-30T21:07:00.000-04:00So far, science relentlessly discovers natural cau...So far, science relentlessly discovers natural causes for what was once explained as supernatural. Disease is caused by germs, not demon possession. The moon orbits the earth because of gravity and inertia, it is not being pulled by a god in a chariot.<BR/><BR/>This story has been repeated a thousand times.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, by induction, I conclude that there is probably nothing supernatural. This conclusion is provisional, and might change in light of new evidence.<BR/><BR/>So Al, what part of that do you call faith?GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89190379102513578472009-03-30T20:51:00.000-04:002009-03-30T20:51:00.000-04:00Steven:The problem though, is that we're not makin...Steven:<BR/><BR/><I>The problem though, is that we're not making positive claims about the existence of something that we can't show to exist. </I><BR/><BR/>Oh yes, you do. You still don't understand, do you? Let me repeat from above, this time with emphasis added:<BR/><BR/>"In light of the above, the claim by atheists to only "follow the evidence" is a false, unjustified claim. Naturalism is not a lack of faith. <B>It is an active faith that nature somehow brought about our universe. </B> " <BR/><BR/>It entails is a positive claim about the existence of something that you can't show to exist.<BR/><BR/>(Only agnosticism is faith-less.)Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25471743029928799152009-03-30T19:55:00.000-04:002009-03-30T19:55:00.000-04:00Lee Ellis says he has no problems at all fitting m...Lee Ellis says he has no problems at all fitting morality, consciousness, and mathematics into his naturalistic worldview.<BR/><BR/>Must be nice. I'd like to see the theory of consciousness worked out, as Lee will get a Nobel Prize within a year if he pulls it off.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80703331440928340272009-03-30T17:04:00.000-04:002009-03-30T17:04:00.000-04:00The question of how the universe got to be in the ...<B>The question of how the universe got to be in the state that it is in is irrelevant to the question of the existence of gods.</B><BR/><BR/>Hush! Bill Craig needs to feed his kids.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41621519215594050732009-03-30T16:57:00.000-04:002009-03-30T16:57:00.000-04:00On the contrary, in order to be able to believe in...<I>On the contrary, in order to be able to believe in a naturalistic origin of the universe, the atheist must NEGATE DATA on what science tells us about actual matter,...</I><BR/><BR/>Or we can say that we simply don't know everything, which is, in fact, true. However, to posit the existence of a deity requires more than this.<BR/><BR/>Al, all you are really doing here is attempting to shift the burden of proof. The problem though, is that we're not making positive claims about the existence of something that we can't show to exist. The question of how the universe got to be in the state that it is in is irrelevant to the question of the existence of gods. We are here, and we know we are here even if we don't know the why's and hows of it all. You are just playing at nothing more than the old god of the gaps argument: Since science can't explain xyz, there must be a god. It's a non sequitur.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.com