I've been enjoying myself again over at ERV, maybe more than I should. Boy, do they hate me!
ERV's commenter-minions' inability to grasp most points is rivaled only by their familiarity with vulgar obscenities, but the gap is closing.
#69, ph42 -
But "I don't like it" is YOUR entire reason for rejecting every other religion besides your own.
How would you know that? You've never asked me.
Just FYI, I reject other religions for the same reason I reject naturalism - they're internally inconsistent, so I never even have to ask the question whether they correctly represent reality.
#70, Tyler DiPietro -
If you read them with a little care, you'll see that they're the same. My paraphrase is meant to summarise.
you still haven't explained how the inductive conclusion of common descent based on the evidence is dependent upon such a notion.
I don't see what's so hard about this. Let me repeat myself from above.
Thing is, we've got two competing explanations - common descent vs God did it. I'm looking for an argument why the former is better than the latter. What I see here, though, is some pretty serious violations of the normal and oft-proclaimed Darwinian scientist principles - we accept what we observe. You haven't observed common descent. You didn't observe these ERVs come to be. You don't have a time machine. What you do have is some pretty big assumptions, and assumptions that are tied to naturalism. On the other hand, the alternative - God created them that way - is obviously a non-naturalistic answer. It's a theistic, supernaturalistic answer. So I look at your answer and say that you've arrived at your conclusion through inconsistent means - you say usually that you accept what you observe, but in fact a great deal of this you haven't observed.
#71, ph42 -
Nature exists. This is obvious from any observations of the real world, and your determination to deny it makes no difference.
1) I don't deny nature exists. Your foaming hatred of anything Christian is getting in the way of your reason. Seriously, take a deep breath, go for a jog, have a glass of wine or sthg, then come back and let's talk.
2) How do you know your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true thoughts, if nature is all there is? If you're a bunch of chemical reactions, much like a shaken-up can of Coke? An animal evolved from a lower primate? A bag of molecules in motion? What's special about the human brain?
Nothing beyond nature has ever been conclusively demonstrated to exist.
Demonstrated by what means? What means do you accept to demonstrate things exist?
Many people claim to have seen supernatural things, but their claims are mutually exclusive
You do realise that mutually exclusive claims do not necessarily mean that both are wrong, but simply that both can't be right?
#72, Optimus -
love that Rhology says, "Just b/c you refuse to accept it b/c you have an a priori commitment to naturalism isn't my problem," and then defines naturalism as "an approach to philosophical problems that interprets them as tractable through the methods of the empirical sciences or at least, without a distinctively a priori project of theorizing." (Whatever that last bit of mangled English means.)
1) The "mangled English" is from a philosophy encyclo, in case you can't see hyperlinks.
2) And I'd fully expect an entry like that to be EXPRESSING a view, not pointing out its obvious weaknesses. This is in fact a problem for YOU and also illustrative of the kind of reductionistic thinking in which you engage. Naturalists, who say that only the natural exists, make a big deal out of demanding evidence for all questions. And yet what they never stop to think about (and which I'm trying to help you see) is that there's no way to get evidence that evidence is a good way to discover truth, beyond circular inductive "well, it's always worked for us!"-es.
#73, Reed -
By acknowledging that your god can do whatever the fuck he wants, you've admitted there is no evidence which we could perceive that your god couldn't create.
Correct. It is in fact my position that the God of the Bible created everything. It is perfectly distinguishable from last Tuesdayism b/c lT-ism is absurd; if God is lying to us, then we have no way to discover truth. About anything.
It's very helpful in understanding our world. Even if I granted that it doesn't say anythg about science (which I don't grant), there's far more to real life than science, and the Bible has tons to say about the human condition, society, morality, love and hate, good and bad, etc.
I do invite you to explain why your revelation is more believable than the revelation of hank.
How does the philosophy of hank account for the existence of the universe and of the laws of logic?
You say "naturalism is bunk", but it is objectively a better way to make predictions about the universe than appeals to ancient superstition.
Not if it's false.
Naturalism gives us vaccines and cars and airplanes and space ships. "god did it" doesn't give us shit.
No, scientific endeavor and study gave you those good things, and while naturalism cannot solve the problem of induction or justify the operation of physical laws into the future, Christianity does both. God holds the world and physical laws in the state they're in now, reliably and consistently so that things like airplane flight, ships' buoyancy, and vaccines work. How does naturalism ensure that those will be reliable one second from now? (Hint - it doesn't.)
#74, DJD -
If facts have to be interpereted through a worldview, they can't be used as evidence for that worldview.
Good question, but hopefully you've been paying attention when I've more than once referred to seeking internal consistency in worldviews.
even if you say "everything is evidence for God", then all that means is "evolution is evidence for God"
You have no evidence that evolution occurred in the way you say it did. You can't observe it. Your own ppl say the fossil record is useless in determining that question (and Gee's argument is sound). Further, God has told us how it went down; I see no reason to trust your pitiful "evidence" that begs the question for naturalism.
#75, Tyler DiPietro,
yeah it is, the fact that something "works" is predicated on it having some correspondence to reality.
I call assumption.
1) Science has gotten many things wrong when it thought to have nailed the cause for some event. Only to discover later it had it wrong.
2) If Joe Caveman runs away from a tiger, it could be from any number of reasons. Sure, it serves to keep him alive, but maybe he thought he was playing hide-and-seek with it. Or he wanted it to give him money, and he believes that the tiger will give it to him if he runs away from it at full speed and climbs a tree. The list could go on and on for these conceivable defeaters for this idea.
#77, Stephen Wells -
You read the whole Bible, that's nice. I told you exactly where to read; if you miss it AGAIN, that's no one's fault but yours.
but nowhere does it actually specify what a "god" is, what the origins of a "god" are, or how a "god" does what it supposedly does.
1) John 4:24, and all those other psgs.
2) God has no origin. He has always been. Isaiah 40-44.
3) He does it supernaturally. That's all throughout the Bible. Colossians 1.
Seriously, if you're gonna argue, don't use this willful ignorance. Who are you trying to impress?