A university student with whom I've recently become acquainted over the course of 2 ID events at the local university and who is a friend of the infamous and highly daunting blogger ERV, has posted a few comments, culminating in this one. I respond:
Good to see you and talk to you and Scott Friday.
Rho - 'Ha ha! Caught you there! See? Assumptions! Evolution refuted!!!!'
Yes, an assumption masquerading as an evidence at a crucial point in your argument. *I'm* the one arguing that everyone has assumptions, remember? You assume what you have to prove in this case.
Who was the one asking question after question, Rho?
I think we both were. One of us produced answers consistent with his worldview and the other acted like a Christian sometimes and sometimes provided assumptions when he was asked for evidence.
Logic and mathematics are concepts created by man to ease life up a bit
That won't fly unless you're seriously proposing that before there were any human minds (since you nix the idea of a supernatural mind) to think these thoughts, there was both a universe and not a universe at the same time in the same way. Evolution was both occurring and not occurring at the same time in the same way. There was simultaneously one planet that would eventually be called Earth, no planet, and 15,067 planets in the same place and in the same way.
Or perhaps you think I could make my own logic (since I'm a human) and it would be just as valid. Only my "logic" could conceivably not incorporate the law of non-contradiction, so my logic would both be and not be at the same time.
No, clearly laws of logic are not human convention. Try again.
It is a tool.
That man has DISCOVERED, not invented. You have to account for it, on naturalism. Christianity can acct for it just fine.
I show you the natural world and you ask me to prove it is exclusively natural. I cannot.
Correct. You ASSUME it is only natural, but you can't produce evidence to that effect. that's what we talked about this past Friday night. Point is, evidence cannot be the king, cannot take the highest place as decider of our epistemology.
because I see no evidence of there being any supernatural element, I conclude it safe to assume a natural world till somebody provides evidence to prove otherwise.
And we just got thru dispensing with evidence as the king, the firm foundation. It is no foundation at all.
Thus, it's on you to provide a framework worldview whereby you can acct for the big questions nearly as well as Christianity can, and then we can talk. Describe how it is that order emerged unguided from chaos. Describe how it is that non-moral matter became moral beings. How non-rational rocks turned into rational thinking beings. How the mind of a snail is qualitatively distinguishable from that of a man's. How, if we're bags of molecules in motion, we're any different than a table, which is also molecules in motion.
You are the one making the positive assertion of there being a conscious,living, metaphysical element to the world
And you're making your own positive assertions. You have just as much onus as anyone else. There is no neutral, default position.
Till you do that, naturalism is the default position.
What is your argument for that? Provide some evidence for naturalism! (You can't, as we've already discussed.)
of course, the God of the Bible created it all.
Again, evidence, please.
The communication of an infallible, omniscient, timeless, truthful being is the most potent evidence there could possibly be. Why should I trust your interpretation of the facts to which you come w/o benefit of a time machine when I could just ask the one who was there?
do not use circular logic.
Everyone uses circular logic when it comes to axiomatic statements like these.
I deny that mine is viciously circular; that is, it is self-justifying. God is a sufficient starting point that accounts for all these big questions. What is the start for naturalism?
Besides, your little graphic gets it wrong.
The Bible is infallible b/c it is the Word of the infallible God. We know that b/c God has told us so, but it starts with God, not the Bible.
Of course, we can compare this with the naturalist view of the world: Truth exists b/c I told you so b/c if it didn't our existence would be meaningless, but it's not meaningless b/c I told you so.
Pardon me if I put alot more weight on the omnipotent God than your word.
You are not an IDer; you are a creationist.
Correct, I am a YoungEarth Creationist.
you are honest enough to not disguise creationism in a cheap tuxedo and try to sell it as ID.
Such a pitiful ad hominem! ID, judged on its own merits, does just fine. To see how, I commend my challenge to you. I'd love to see your response.
Just how is yours any 'truer' than the rest?
Well, let's see. Mine accounts for reality, logic, value, morality, existence...Yours can't prove you're not a brain in a vat. That's a tough call!
Years of observed, tested, consistent, scientific, peer reviewed and published data is utterly full of horsecrap.
Correct. Why so surprised? Many more (and smarter) people have been believing Christianity for far longer, and you don't hesitate to call it horsecrap.
Scientists work on the premise that observed laws of nature remain consistent over time, which is an observation itself.
It has been an observation for about 100 years, but even that is flawed, since you can't be in all places at all times, even on Earth. You assume it b/c it's useful as a working hypothesis, and bully for you. You have no idea whether said processes were even close to how they are now even as much as 150 years ago, since you don't have a time machine. You know even less that they won't change in one second. You can assume it, that's fine, but call it what it is.
Literally everything you use today, from the clothes we wear, to the field of medicine, everything is a result of working with that assumption.
Which is an assumption much more reasonably held if one is a Christian, b/c God has promised to hold the world together in very similar natural processes until the end.