I trust other people, as I must
1) You think you must, but you can't prove that.
2) Bottom line - you have faith in people you can't prove exist. I have faith in Jesus whom you think I can't prove exists.
I like Jesus better. Until you can produce some good reason not to think Jesus exists, I don't see why not follow Him.
3) Are you conceding that empiricism is a false epistemology? Your lack of defense of it makes you sound like you are. Makes me wonder how you think you know anything. Maybe you have blind faith in other humans, but why pick and choose? And of course, why not embrace solipsism?
Er, no, the "other appeals to authority" would be what you religious guys do
You just did it above. I'm sorry you're so blind to how you actually act, but all I can do is point it out over and over and hope you get it. I'm sure the readers do.
Scientific authorities can be checked by duplicating their work
Any scientific judgment commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Piling fallacy upon fallacy does not get you CLOSER to truth. More fallacies are worse than less.
In the end, it's the facts that count, not the authorities.
So why are you continually appealing to authorities? How are you personally checking their work to make sure it's factual?
And in the end, it's INTERPRETATION OF FACTS that counts, not facts themselves.
Fact: There's a rock.
Question: How old is it?
Answer: Depends on the presuppositions brought to the study of the rock.
If this is what you call "blind faith", that the sun will rise tomorrow, then you've just rendered the expression meaningless
You can keep saying it makes the expression meaningless, but that doesn't change anything. You're just uncomfortable with the appellation so you're hoping you can bully me into not saying it.
You have no evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, nor that any physical process/law will remain in place. You also have no evidence that the physical processes/laws you think you observe were in place 300 years ago when nobody was paying attention. You have faith, blind faith.
NOT to call what you have 'blind faith' would render the expression meaningless!
because by your usage, everything is blind faith.
That's not even close to the case. Too bad you're too busy thinking of bad arguments so you won't have to listen to the truth that you don't pay attention and learn about the truth. You're heading for wrathful judgment, and it will be fully deserved.
z: Uniformitarianism is the necessary basis of any world we can hope to describe
That's just an assertion, and is blatantly false. The Christian WV handles it just fine.
How is this false, blatantly or otherwise?
The Christian worldview, as said before, provides for natural processes and laws just fine.
That's why.
Ironically, the atheist wv doesn't.
If we can't rely on the sun rising tomorrow, or on gravity holding us down, how could we know anything about the world?
Great question!
Answer: YOU CAN'T.
That's why I say that atheism is absurd. By George, I think you may be finally making some progress.
I don't have to "assume" uniformitarianism: I observe it,
That's false. You observe an infinitessimally tiny fraction of all incidents and processes at work in the entire universe. I mean, it's ridiculously small. Every day the ratio composed of:
NUMERATOR: things and events you observe
__________________________________________
DENOMINATOR: all things and events on Earth (to say nothing of all things and events in the universe)
grow smaller and smaller.
Have you observed 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all things and events since the origin of time?
How could you even know? And what difference would shaving a few significant figures off here or there make?
You need to pry open your mind and realise how little you really know.
I observe it, and it accounts for the data.
1) And YEC accounts for the data too.
2) You need to prove that data carries any meaning, on atheism.
3) I'm not impressed when someone tells me that they've seen their hypothesis account for 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all possible observations that could be made. I doubt you're much impressed on any other issue, but of course since you're emotionally involved with this one, you won't be consistent here.
3) If we're talking on Christianity, no, it doesn't account for the data, not even close, since God's Word is also data (in fact, it's infallible eyewitness testimony).
If you characterize the atheistic belief that the sun will rise tomorrow as "viciously circular blind faith", then I guess you should be happy you have a worldview where God tells you that the sun will rise.
That's funny. I am pretty happy about that, that I have a reason to think it will (but if it doesn't rise tomorrow, I'll be in the Eschaton, and I'd be even happier about that). The question is: why, since you don't have a reason to think it will, aren't you looking for a worldview that actually accounts for this kind of stuff?
Oh, I know, it's b/c the Bible says you hate God, and your emotions and evil heart lead you away from Jesus.
All you've got is a bald assertion that you can be sure of stuff we atheists can't be sure of, nothing more.
This may come as a surprise, but you're not God. Just talking doesn't change reality.
42 comments:
Rhology, you do realise the sun is shining on the Earth all the time, don't you? It's sunrise somewhere every second of every single day.
And you're wrong btw, absolutely wrong, but rather then go through it all with you AGAIN, I'm just going to watch you continue to make an almighty fool of yourself, over and over again.
you do realise the sun is shining on the Earth all the time, don't you?
Yes. So?
Makes me wonder what Rho does when he is sick. I'm guessing he would never appeal to authority in the form of a physician, especially when medical science is all one logicical fallacy piled atop another. Hmmmmm.
On a happier note, Rho. I can't tell you how thrilled I am to see you are thinking of leaving the country! Why should we Americans have all the fun pointing and laughing at you YEC's?! I'm sure France could use a good chuckle at your expense too!
Bon voyage!
Hey, rho, if you come to France, you're only a train ride away from Vienna. Come on out and lunch is on me. We can speak Eurpean. You can say, Je suis le gran fromage, and I'll reply, Nein, ich bin der grosse Käse.
We've been over all this before without issue, but maybe I can get a few more wrinkles in so you can at least understand my position as I believe I understand yours (inasmuch as that's possible without having heard voices in my head). I say:
I trust other people, as I must
You reply:
1) You think you must, but you can't prove that.
So I must "prove" what I think? I don't get it. Must I also "prove" that I breathe? I really don't understand your concept of "proof" here.
2) Bottom line - you have faith in people you can't prove exist.
Yes. And so do you, unless your "proof" consists of "the Bible said so and so nyah nyah!", which is what you've proffered so far.
I have faith in Jesus whom you think I can't prove exists.I like Jesus better. Until you can produce some good reason not to think Jesus exists, I don't see why not follow Him.
Sure, that's fine, go ahead and follow Jesus if that is your thing. I've never said you shouldn't. I personally prefer not having faith in Jesus, because I have this thing about trusting what seems to be in the world, not the word, and because I have a limited tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
3) Are you conceding that empiricism is a false epistemology? Your lack of defense of it makes you sound like you are. Makes me wonder how you think you know anything.
My defense of empiricism is that it works and fits the data, so far. What you interpret as a "lack of defense" is simply my admission that I cannot be absolutely certain of anything. But as I've said before (in other words), your idea that one must have an epistemology that "proves" that reality is real is a chimera, a construct that words support but the world does not. Again, for at least the gazillion and oneth times, you have yet to prove that your source of certainty obtains, or that it gives you anything other than a feeling of logical corroboration.
I say: Scientific authorities can be checked by duplicating their work
You reply:
Any scientific judgment commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Piling fallacy upon fallacy does not get you CLOSER to truth. More fallacies are worse than less.
Good thing scientists don't give any truck to your "logical fallacy" here, but merely continue adding to our knowledge of the world, including the knowledge necessary for this cyberchitchat to take place. Science works. If philosophy or theology has a problem with that, so much the worse for philosophy or theology: they are thus revealed as mere wordplay.
Again, the world is the final arbiter of how things are, not some conceit about what words do on their days off. Isn't there something in the Bible about idle hands being the Devil's playground? The same is true in philosophy: idle words, that is, words which are decoupled from reality, are the playground of counterfactual worlds. Entertaining, but not illuminating.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
Hey David,
Your help can make the transition even faster! ;-)
And YEC accounts for the data too
Yeah, YEC "accounts" for the data in the same way as Last Tuesdayism "accounts" for the data: by saying that God (or Last Tuesday) made everything "look" old. This is a no-account account.
You have no evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, nor that any physical process/law will remain in place. You also have no evidence that the physical processes/laws you think you observe were in place 300 years ago when nobody was paying attention. You have faith, blind faith.NOT to call what you have 'blind faith' would render the expression meaningless!
Not really. We all have "blind faith" in this sense: I have "blind faith" that the world will continue as it has, more or less, and so do you. I cannot prove that it will; nor can you. It's part of the human condition; and if all our faith in the world is thus "blind", then the term is rendered meaningless. Besides, my position is simpler: things are as they were. Yours requires all kinds of special tweaks and fudges, all in an attempt to preserve some sort of truth value for an ancient text where donkeys and snakes are said to talk. I'll take my "blind faith" over yours.
This may come as a surprise, but you're not God.
Not a surprise, and I've never claimed otherwise. Do you have a point here?
by saying that God (or Last Tuesday) made everything "look" old. This is a no-account account.
How could "last Tuesday" "make" something look old?
Does Tuesday have some sort of volition or something?
And you can assert all day that it's a no-acct acct, but when YEC explains the data, it explains the data.
We all have "blind faith" in this sense: I have "blind faith" that the world will continue as it has, more or less, and so do you.
1) YES, precisely. You have blind faith.
2) That's not the object of my faith. Try again. Prove you understand my position at least a little.
Besides, my position is simpler: things are as they were.
That's your position by faith, w/o evidence.
So, you do not accept MY position, which you think is by blind faith.
So... you think I have blind faith, and you've admitted you have blind faith. Where do we go from here?
Do you have a point here?
Yes, I do.
I'm the other David, the one without a website...
First, YEC doesn't explain the data, or to put it more precisely, YEC is repeatedly contradicted by the data. That’s why it was rejected by the largely Christian scientific community over 200 years ago.
Second, I can't figure out how you can avoid using uniformatarian assumptions yourself. The problem here is that your Christian faith also depends totally on uniformitarian thinking. For example, you have no evidence that Jesus existed unless you use uniformitarian assumptions.
In fact, everyone uses this type of the thinking. So, what’s the problem with uniformitarian thinking? Throw it out, and you throw out Christianity, too.
Signed, Other David
"That's your position by faith, w/o evidence."
You keep saying this. "Faith without evidence". What is your definition of evidence? What counts as evidence?
-Other David
Rho says:
How could "last Tuesday" "make" something look old?
Does Tuesday have some sort of volition or something?
Sure, why not? If the authors of the Bible can invent a Supreme Authority with volition, then I can invent a Last Tuesday with volition. Inventing religions is a democracy, is it not? Unless you have some evidence for the existence of your God, then I don't see why I should believe in His volition and not in the equally-evidence-free Last Tuesday's volition.
And you can assert all day that it's a no-acct acct, but when YEC explains the data, it explains the data.
The other David has already covered this nicely, but I'll just add this: depends on what you mean by "explain". Since ID "explanations" are not falsifiable, then any old explanation will do: the Christian God, ripples in the Matrix, or the fact that polar bears are white. No way to prove any of these explanations are wrong, either. And it's telling that science has a really good track record at demoting divine intervention, in the form of, say, thunderbolts, to a describable and pretty well understood natural phenomenon. Along with this understanding comes the ability to make predictions and to control the phenomena, at least to some extent.
The track record of religion in this area is woeful. I'll stick with science.
I said:
Besides, my position is simpler: things are as they were.
You replied:
That's your position by faith, w/o evidence.
So, you do not accept MY position, which you think is by blind faith.
So... you think I have blind faith, and you've admitted you have blind faith. Where do we go from here?
In the first place, if having experienced many thousands of sunrises, and having heard of the same experience since recorded history, and knowing enough of the mechanics of the Solar System to understand pretty thoroughly how it is that the Sun rises, doesn't count as "evidence" of uniformity, what does? What some book says? My standards are higher than that.
Your definition of "blind" is "not recognizing Jesus as Lord". My definition of "blind" is "lacking the ability to see". Your definition is far more parochial than mine- only those you believe to be True Believers lack my "blind" faith, and thus your definition is not very useful in the big wide world.
Alan depends upon the Primacy of Existence being correct before he even begins to build his shaky house of faulty logic on top.
Let's look at this. If we assume reality to be real, and that our senses are giving us (more or less) an accurate representation of that reality, then we should be able to quantify, observe, experiment on, interact with, and alter our reality. This we do, every single second of every single day, with absolute success. The fact that you're able to read these words shows that this model works.
However, Alan insists that his god is needed for us to be able to understand the world, in fact he goes as far as saying intelligibility is IMPOSSIBLE *without* his god.
But he's wrong, because if he was right, we would live in a universe where miracles happen, where the nature of reality could be altered at any moment on the whim of an all powerful super being. In that world science would be impossible, as we could never know anything for certain - being unable to work out whether we were seeing unaltered reality, or the result of a miraculous intervention. In fact intelligibility would be impossible in this model of reality.
So, which do you choose? A model of reality that works, day in day out, and doesn't need a god anywhere in it? Or a reality where knowledge of our universe is impossible due to a supernaturally caused lack of uniformity?
Alan is demonstrably wrong.
I look forward to seeing how he deals with that.
Howdy,
Other David said:
YEC doesn't explain the data, or to put it more precisely, YEC is repeatedly contradicted by the data.
What did you have in mind? Give the strongest line of evidence you think contradicts YEC, please.
That’s why it was rejected by the largely Christian scientific community over 200 years ago.
Something tells me there might be a bit more to it than this simplistic portrayal of the history of the issue.
Not that it particularly matters.
I can't figure out how you can avoid using uniformatarian assumptions yourself.
That is possible.
The problem here is that your Christian faith also depends totally on uniformitarian thinking
No, it does not.
For example, you have no evidence that Jesus existed unless you use uniformitarian assumptions.
How do you figure?
in fact, everyone uses this type of the thinking. So, what’s the problem with uniformitarian thinking?
Just b/c everyone uses it doesn't tell us anything about its truth.
You haven't really interacted with my arguments as of yet.
You keep saying this. "Faith without evidence". What is your definition of evidence?
My definitions don't matter in this question, since I am conducting an internal critique of the atheist worldview. The atheist needs to answer that question, and we can go from there.
zilch said:
If the authors of the Bible can invent a Supreme Authority with volition, then I can invent a Last Tuesday with volition.
1) I don't admit the Bible authors invented God. You need to give us a reason to think so.
2) Since you do admit that you invented LTwv, why would I believe it? Who are you to tell me what's true?
3) This is the same idiocy as produces the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Provide an answer to EVERY QUESTION here and then we can talk.
4) Also, answer how a day can have volition. Or a position. I'm afraid you're not making a lot of sense.
Since ID "explanations" are not falsifiable,
1) Watching Darwinians do their cute little dances whenever counterevidence is brought up, this is just a bad objection.
2) If Darwinians get to pretend they're just "sharpening their theory to match the evidence" and that's not falsifying the hypothesis, so does ID.
3) The principle of falsifiability is itself not falsifiable.
4) Darwinism is very falsifiable. I'll definitely grant that, since it has been falsified. I much prefer a hypothesis that is not falsifiable, b/c I prefer to believe things that are true.
5) Since you brought up "ripples in the Matrix", be fair. You can't give us any reason to think we're not all in the Matrix, given your presupps. I can.
Anyway, please give us a way to falsify the statement "we are not in the Matrix".
The track record of religion in this area is woeful. I'll stick with science.
Science can't even answer these questions. Why should any objective thinker be impressed with your own bowing down to the altar of science, blind to its weaknesses and failures?
if having experienced many thousands of sunrises, and having heard of the same experience since recorded history, and knowing enough of the mechanics of the Solar System to understand pretty thoroughly how it is that the Sun rises, doesn't count as "evidence" of uniformity, what does?
1) Let's start with something that is statistically significant and go from there.
2) If having experienced many thousands of blessings from Jesus, and having heard of the same experience since recorded history, and knowing enough of the mechanics of the human heart to understand pretty thoroughly how it is that God changes hearts and makes radically different people, doesn't count as "evidence" of Jesus, what does?
Your bias is showing. Again.
If we assume reality to be real, and that our senses are giving us (more or less) an accurate representation of that reality
IOW, if we posit "human senses are reliable" as your RELIGION, which you believe BY BLIND FAITH.
I posit God as my fundamental axiom. You posit your senses. Why won't you admit you are a very religious man?
then we should be able to quantify, observe, experiment on, interact with, and alter our reality. This we do, every single second of every single day, with absolute success.
So, if our senses are giving us (more or less) an accurate representation of that reality, then our senses are giving us (more or less) an accurate representation of that reality.
Why is that not viciously circular? Help me understand your thinking.
The fact that you're able to read these words shows that this model works.
Not at all. As explained many times to you before, Mr. Theology-Degree-Holder, the Christian worldview accounts for the accuracy of senses and cognitive faculties just fine.
Atheism doesn't, for a variety of reasons. The fact that your senses work should point you to Jesus.
And your last comment about uniformity is based on poor theology. Again.
This is yet another reason to hold your understanding of theology in utter contempt. You really don't have much of any idea what you're talking about.
I answered it here.
"I answered it here."
and I pointed out you were wrong, again.
Really, you're nothing but a loud mouth with a deep seated delusion. Good luck in France though, I don't think they're as willing to put up with religious bullshit as your fellow Americans are.
I pointed out you were wrong, again.
Well, you asserted it. You didn't give an argument. Surprise surprise.
Alan, as you've proved over and over again that you have no interest in evidence (or anything that's contrary to your point of view), why would I bother engaging with you at any level beyond 'you're wrong'?
You're a trollish control freak, deeply unpleasant and very very snide. I'm sure, if he existed, Jesus would be ashamed of you.
You've surrounded yourself with a safe little circle of sycophants, but you're seen in the wider blogging community as a nasty, self interested, crowing, wannabe-bully.
I genuinely feel sorry for you, it must be horribly lonely thinking you're the only person in the world who's right.
Heading out of town for a couple of days. I'll reply to comments directed at me on Monday.
Other David
1) I don't admit the Bible authors invented God. You need to give us a reason to think so.
Are you still doing an internal critique of atheism as you said? If so, then you need to prove that the Bible authors didn't invent God. I already know that you don't believe that.
2) Since you do admit that you invented LTwv, why would I believe it? Who are you to tell me what's true?
Why would I lie to you? Have I ever lied to you?
3) This is the same idiocy as produces the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Provide an answer to EVERY QUESTION here and then we can talk.
I would say rather "whimsy" than "idiocy". Sure, the FSM is a fantasy, but it can be a useful tool to explore issues of belief. I personally prefer the IPU, as you may recall.
And as far as Triablogue goes, how about putting up my latest reply to your post there that I sent in several days ago?
And I must say, that you have nerve demanding that I answer a whole new set of questions, when I still have questions I've asked you for the last several weeks here left unanswered, despite my having repeated them many times. For instance: what disadvantage accrues to me for not having a solution to the POI?
4) Also, answer how a day can have volition. Or a position. I'm afraid you're not making a lot of sense.
Hey, it's just a thought experiment. You answer me how a donkey can talk, and I'll tell you how a day can have volition.
1) Watching Darwinians do their cute little dances whenever counterevidence is brought up, this is just a bad objection.
Give me what you consider to be counterevidence for evolution, and we can discuss it. Give it your best shot.
2) If Darwinians get to pretend they're just "sharpening their theory to match the evidence" and that's not falsifying the hypothesis, so does ID.
True enough, but the problem is that when "sharpening the theory to match the evidence" happens to ID, it always happens in the direction of ID simply giving up a claim for design and admitting that it could have happened naturally. ID does not gain ground, it only loses it; and it has been losing it since at least lightning was discovered to be electricity and not bolts tossed by Thor.
3) The principle of falsifiability is itself not falsifiable.
So what? It's of obvious utility, and it's obvious why it's necessary, to cut out the crap that has no evidence going for it.
4) Darwinism is very falsifiable.
Indeed it is- a pre-Cambrian bunny would do it. Thank Darwin.
I'll definitely grant that, since it has been falsified.
Again, please give me what you consider a good example of how it has been falsified.
I much prefer a hypothesis that is not falsifiable, b/c I prefer to believe things that are true.
I'm not sure you really understand what "falsifiable" means if you say this. If something is not falsifiable, it does not mean that it is true, but that it cannot be proven either true or false. An example of an unfalsifiable statement is "there is a solid copper sphere outside our spacetime cone with the word "Gog" stamped on it". Or: "God exists, but is not perceptible".
5) Since you brought up "ripples in the Matrix", be fair. You can't give us any reason to think we're not all in the Matrix, given your presupps. I can.
Anyway, please give us a way to falsify the statement "we are not in the Matrix".
Again, I can't falsify the statement- it's another unfalsifiable. But I can ignore it, just as I can ignore Russell's Teapot, the Gog sphere, the Bizzaro World, etc. And again, unless you're doing an external critique here, you can't falsify the Matrix either- you need your God to do that, and He remains to be proven.
zilched:
I don't have to "assume" uniformitarianism: I observe it.
rhoplied:
That's false. You observe an infinitessimally tiny fraction of all incidents and processes at work in the entire universe. I mean, it's ridiculously small. Every day the ratio composed of:
NUMERATOR: things and events you observe __________________________________________DENOMINATOR: all things and events on Earth (to say nothing of all things and events in the universe)
grow smaller and smaller. Have you observed 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of all things and events since the origin of time? How could you even know? And what difference would shaving a few significant figures off here or there make?You need to pry open your mind and realise how little you really know.
Oh, believe me, I'm aware of, even if I can't fully comprehend, the magnitude of what I don't know. Part of that is my admission that I can't be perfectly certain of anything.
But let's look carefully at your numbers here. You say that I cannot know more than a practically infinitesimal fraction of what goes on in the Universe. That's true enough, and it's true for you too. But unless I assume solipsism, and believe that the entire Universe centers on me, and thus the uniformity I see is just of my own creation, then uniformitarianism is the best picture I have, since I can test it in making spotchecks in many many places- and these spotchecks of mine, and of billions of others, keep coming up with the same story: the Universe is (at least to a very high degree) uniform in its laws and structures, and at least some of it can be predicted and manipulated. The probability that the Universe is not highly uniform, and that all our spotchecks have, by some unimaginable coincidence, merely happened to find exactly those places that were uniform, is very very small.
Uniformity, like evolution, may not be the godgiven truth. But it's the best story around. What you're asking me to do is give up this story, that the Universe is more or less the way it seems, because that's the best way to account for the evidence, for your belief that I can only believe my eyes and reason if I believe in your book. The Word rather than the World. Sorry, your book is just one of many such that claim to be the truth and are mostly unfalsifiable. I'll stick with the world.
About the Matrix and the other unfalsifiable fantasies you listed: Christianity should be on that list too, or at least its unfalsifiable creeds should: all the stuff that is supernatural and not reproducible.
This reminds me of a story in Sylvie and Bruno, Lewis Carroll's cloyingly sweet successor to the Alice books. In some imaginary country, they pride themselves on the accuracy of their maps. So they start making increasingly large ones, to show more detail: they go from an inch to a mile, to a foot to a mile, to a yard to a mile, and of course finally make one at the scale of a mile to a mile. But they never unfold it, because the farmers complain it would block out the light for their crops- and now they use the country itself for its own map, and it works nearly as well.
Christianity, and all these other fantasies that purport to cover the world, merely block out the sun. Sure, there's some good advice in the Good Book, but most of the good stuff, for instance the Golden Rule, is not original, and is also derivable from observation and empathy. So there's no need for a Policeman in the Sky to lay down the law- we can, and do, do it ourselves. Sure, it doesn't work perfectly, but neither does religion, and religion has a way of making some people bigoted and angry.
cheers from sunny chilly Vienna, zilch
“What did you have in mind? Give the strongest line of evidence you think contradicts YEC, please.”
I could provide libraries of evidence, but it’s pointless to try to do this with you.
I’ve been down this road with you before, and the game is not worth the candle. You won’t even acknowledge the validity of simple principles like the law of superposition, so why bother? Your answer to any contradictory evidence will be either “it’s a miracle” or “you’re using uniformitarian assumptions”, never mind how well those assumptions have been tested.
I could ask how a handful of Bronze Age men built a wooden ship that was bigger than any other wood ship in the history of the worlds…and you’d say “miracle!”. You have made it clear that even if you are completely wrong, you will reject any means by which you can be shown to be wrong. So, fine. You believe this legend, and there is no means of testing this legend that you will accept. The evidence is there for others to see.
“How do you figure?”
How do I figure that you have no evidence that Jesus existed with uniformitarian assumptions? That’s easy. You cannot know ANYTHING about anything that happened in the past without making uniformitarian assumptions, even if that past was just an instant ago. You cannot do any history of any kind without making uniformitarian assumptions.
To be more specific, how did we know of the existence of the historical figure known as Jesus? Obviously, no one alive today saw Jesus on Earth. In fact, the only way we know of the existence of historical Jesus is by allegedly ancient documents. There is no other physical evidence of Jesus’ existence. All we have are the words. So, you had to learn of Jesus either by reading an allegedly historical document or by listening to someone else who had read this allegedly historical document.
Well, how do you know that a document is 2000 years old or that Jesus lived 2000 years ago? You have to make countless uniformitarian assumptions before you can conclude that a given text dates back 2000 years. You have to assumption that information transfer has worked the same way in the past as it does today, even though you weren’t there to see it. When the document claims that someone saw Jesus do something, you have to assume that vision and the vision-processing parts of the brain worked the same way 2000 years ago that these things work today. When the document claims that someone heard Jesus say something, you have to assume that the auditory nerves and language-processing parts of the brain worked the same way 2000 years ago as the work today. In short, Christianity is based on uniformitarian assumptions.
“Just b/c everyone uses it doesn't tell us anything about its truth.”
No, but it tells us that you shouldn’t claim about its use. You can’t do Christianity without it. So, do you really want to question its truth?
C'mon, David, you're getting all reality-informed on us again.
I said:
Uniformity, like evolution, may not be the godgiven truth. But it's the best story around. What you're asking me to do is give up this story, that the Universe is more or less the way it seems, because that's the best way to account for the evidence, for your belief that I can only believe my eyes and reason if I believe in your book. The Word rather than the World.
I just thought of another way of putting it, rho. You are asking me to give up my near certainty (sure enough to bet my life on, time and again, anyway) but not logically absolutely certain belief that the world is more or less the way it seems, based on my many, and humankind's many many observations of uniformity, for your alleged absolute certainty that the world is more or less the way it seems, contingent upon the existence of your God and based upon, not the world itself, but just one book. I think it's a bad bargain, unless you can independently prove the truth of your book.
Again, I would like to hear what's wrong (on my worldview; this is an internal critique, right?) with an admission of uncertainty on my part. Do I earn less money, or eat less well, or add less correctly, because of it?
A lot of blah blah blah from David, but here is one thing that needs correcting:
When the document claims that someone heard Jesus say something, you have to assume that the auditory nerves and language-processing parts of the brain worked the same way 2000 years ago as the work today. In short, Christianity is based on uniformitarian assumptions.
No, that's NOT an assumption. It is a RESULT of my presupposition, that the God of the Bible is and speaks.
Also, this is nothing more than a tu quoque. Even if I couldn't answer that challenge, that doesn't mean that you have answered it.
"A lot of blah blah blah from David."
And a lot of failure to answer from Alan. Among others, I'm not sure that you answered the following question. How would you have known about Jesus without the allegedly ancient text?
"It is a RESULT of my presupposition, that the God of the Bible is and speaks."
I see that we're back to blind faith.
So, the text in question is the product of magic and you don't have to make any uniformatarian assumptions at all? None?
If Person A writes someone writes that Person B heard Jesus say X, how exactly did Person B hear and understand what Jesus said? Didn't this involve auditory nerves and language-processing parts of the brain? How do you know that brains worked the same way 2000 years ago without uniformatarian assumptions?
Hasn't this text been copied for thousands of years? How do know that information transfer worked the same in the past as it does in the present?
How can one do any history of any kind without uniformatarian principles?
Is this really just a matter of you believe it, and that settles it?
How would you have known about Jesus without the allegedly ancient text?
I wouldn't know much.
I see that we're back to blind faith
Much like you have viciously circular blind faith in things that your worldview goes on to assign extreme doubt to.
And I admit that I have presuppositions. One waits in vain for you to realise all the ones you have.
So, the text in question is the product of magic and you don't have to make any uniformatarian assumptions at all?
Where did I say anything about a text? That's YOUR interpolation into the conversation. I was discussing God.
If Person A writes someone writes that Person B heard Jesus say X, how exactly did Person B hear and understand what Jesus said? Didn't this involve auditory nerves and language-processing parts of the brain?
You still have no idea what you're doing.
I DO believe that nature is generally uniform, BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE. I have reason to believe in the general uniformity of nature.
IF ATHEISM IS TRUE YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT, other than personal preference aka blind faith.
How can one do any history of any kind without uniformatarian principles?
One can't, which is why I am on record saying many times that atheism results in absurdity.
Is this really just a matter of you believe it, and that settles it?
Is "uniformitariam holds, in an atheist worldview" really just a matter of you believe it, and that settles it?
"I was discussing God."
Your knowledge of God comes from an allegedly ancient text. So, you'd better be able to use uniformatarian principles or the text is worthless. And if you can use uniformatarian principles, then so can I.
"I have reason to believe in the general uniformity of nature."
That's fine, but unfortunately, you've been a little inconsistent about the uniformity thing. Something the world is "uniform", and sometimes it ain't. That creates a bit of a problem when it comes to understanding or knowing the past as any piece of evidence could be the result of a process that follows the rule OR it could be the result of a miracle.
You continue to promote Christianity as the thing that lets you draw all sorts of conclusions about nature, but then you throw this all away by saying that sometimes nature is uniform and sometimes it's not. Seems somewhat self-contradictory.
"IF ATHEISM IS TRUE YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT."
Actually, I think that Zilch has already explained why one might think that uniformatarian principles are valid in the absence of a tritheistic Christianity.
"One can't (do any history of any kind without uniformatarian principles)."
Ok, good, you agree. So let's use uniformatarian principles to look at what was happening on Earth around 5000 years ago.
Oh, wait, I forgot. We can't use these principles because of the "miracle clause" and because sometimes nature is uniform and sometimes it's not. Well, so much for being able to interpret any data of any kind related to past events. There goes history!
"...Which is why I am on record saying many times that atheism results in absurdity."
Oh, nonsense, but I guess it makes you feel good to say it.
I DO believe that nature is generally uniform, BECAUSE CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE. I have reason to believe in the general uniformity of nature.
IF ATHEISM IS TRUE YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT, other than personal preference aka blind faith.
What exactly do you mean by "reason" here, rho? You seem to think that hearing a voice in your head, or reading a particular book, can give you a "reason" to believe in general uniformity, but that mere observation of the real world is not a "reason" to believe in it.
Calling our belief in observation of the real world, aka science, "personal preference" and "blind faith" simply shows your aversion to reality as a source of information, if it conflicts with your book. Until you can show me that your book is right and the world is wrong, I'll go with the world- it's a lot bigger.
One last comment, and I think it will really be the last, unless you answer some questions or come up with some new answers, rho. I just thought of another way to depict our impasse here.
Rho is basically saying, "all or nothing at all". That is, absolute certainty, or no right to say or do anything. Two problems. One: rho's source of "all", of absolute certainty, is a ghost. Rho has not shown us that this ghost exists. Two: rho's unspoken judgment that if you don't have logical certainty as can only be supplied by a ghost, then you have nothing at all, is a baldfaced assertion with no support. Rho has never answered my question: so what if I admit that I don't have logical certainty all the way down? Until he does, or proffers evidence for his ghost, there's not much point in further discussion.
cheerio from chilly Vienna, zilch
David,
Your knowledge of God comes from an allegedly ancient text. So, you'd better be able to use uniformatarian principles or the text is worthless. And if you can use uniformatarian principles, then so can I.
Same mistake as Alex B keeps making.
No, you can't use those principles UNTIL YOU JUSTIFY THEM ON YOUR WORLDVIEW. Get to it. Sometime this week would be awesome.
Something the world is "uniform", and sometimes it ain't.
Maybe you missed the word "general" in there. I said it for a reason.
Why did I say it? Confirm you've been paying attention.
I think that Zilch has already explained why one might think that uniformatarian principles are valid in the absence of a tritheistic Christianity.
Nah, he really hasn't. But let the reader judge.
You who haven't yet even grasped the problem aren't what I'd call the most competent judge of whether he has or hasn't.
We can't use these principles because of the "miracle clause" and because sometimes nature is uniform and sometimes it's not. Well, so much for being able to interpret any data of any kind related to past events. There goes history!
Why do you say that?
It's really not all that hard. God is a higher standard of evidence and truth than mere human observation, but God hasn't spoken on all issues and not with a microscopic level of granularity. He gave us brains for a reason. There's plenty to discover; we just need to remember our place in the story, and if we think we've discovered sthg that proves God wrong, we need to remember we're not omniscient.
zilch,
What exactly do you mean by "reason" here, rho? You seem to think that hearing a voice in your head, or reading a particular book, can give you a "reason" to believe in general uniformity
Hmm, I don't remember saying anything like that.
It sounds suspiciously like a convenient strawman for you.
Calling our belief in observation of the real world, aka science, "personal preference" and "blind faith" simply shows your aversion to reality as a source of information
That might be true if I weren't evaluating the entire question ON THE BASIS OF ATHEISM.
Rho is basically saying, "all or nothing at all". That is, absolute certainty, or no right to say or do anything.
Totally false.
1) Unless you qualify "absolute" with what I'm really saying, that's one wrong count.
2) It's not a "right". It's that you have no way to know whether any of these things are actually true. You disclaim blind faith as a good way to discover truth and then engage in blind faith to arrive at what you think is true. I'm sorry you still haven't grasped this after the years you've been hanging around my blog.
One: rho's source of "all", of absolute certainty, is a ghost. Rho has not shown us that this ghost exists.
1) I don't need to show that God exists. You know He does.
2) I know you know b/c you act like He does even in your denials, b/c you think your denials are supposed to mean sthg to someone else, and that they represent a true statement you're making that you think you've observed. None of these things are consistent with atheism, as you continue to demonstrate.
3) Similarly, you haven't shown that quite a few things exist, and you've admitted that you can't show that they exist. So what's the problem with not being able to show that one's fundamental axiom exists? This is a category error.
Rho has never answered my question: so what if I admit that I don't have logical certainty all the way down?
Yes I have, but I'll answer again.
Jell-O 6 no arithmetically bones and the further they Tuesday the much.
"No, you can't use those principles UNTIL YOU JUSTIFY THEM ON YOUR WORLDVIEW. Get to it. Sometime this week would be awesome."
You've been given an answer to this question. Justification has been offered. Repeatedly. I understand that someone who craves absolute certainty will not be satisfied the answer. So it goes. You've been given the answer.
"If we think we've discovered sthg that proves God wrong, we need to remember we're not omniscient."
So, there you have it. If the text said it happened, then it happened, right?. If we think that we have proven the text wrong, then we must be wrong.
It's clear to me that if it turns out that you're actually wrong about floods and the age of the earth, then there's no way that you'll ever, ever, ever acknowledge that you're wrong. Ever. There is no possible observation that you will ever be accept as disproof of a global flood, etc. You will dismiss any and all evidence that contradicts your opinion by saying "God has a higher standard of evidence" (an untestable assertion, not and argument) or "it was a miracle" or "uniformitarian principles don't apply here". That's all very very neat and tidy, but ultimately blind and self-contradictory.
As for the rest of your comments, sorry, old boy, but you really didn't address my points. You failed to explain how I can know if any given observation is the result of the regular or uniform workings of the natural world OR a miracle. So, how can I do either history or science?
So, with respect to these points, as you would say, get to it. Sometime this week would be awesome.
So, there you have it. If your senses make you think it happened, then it happened, right?. If we think that we have proven your senses wrong, then we must be wrong.
You failed to explain how I can know if any given observation is the result of the regular or uniform workings of the natural world OR a miracle. So, how can I do either history or science?
I'm sorry you didn't understand. Talk to you later. Re-reading it might help.
"I'm sorry you didn't understand. Talk to you later. Re-reading it might help."
Ah, I think that I just found what appears to be your response to the "how can you do science" question at the other post.
I said:
Rho has never answered my question: so what if I admit that I don't have logical certainty all the way down?
Rho replied:
Yes I have, but I'll answer again.
Jell-O 6 no arithmetically bones and the further they Tuesday the much.
I take this to mean that without absolute logical certainty, one is reduced to uttering gibberish. Speak for yourself, rho. I wonder, though, how far this goes down in your worldview. You've already said that I can't say I know that two plus two equals four on my worldview. Can I say that I'm hungry without being inconsistent? Can I smack my lips? Can I breathe? Can I extract energy from ATP? Or is my very existence a lie?
Your beliefs lead you to establish some strange domains with bizarre borders. As I've said, more power to you if it's useful for you to look at things this way. But your conclusions do not follow from my worldview: what you imagine that I lack in the way of grounding is a chimera of your fantasy. That is, unless your fantasy is true. But you've shown nothing that would make me believe it, and it certainly is not self-evident.
Post a Comment