Friday, October 14, 2011

David still doesn't get it

David said...



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.
Fri Oct 14, 02:33:00 AM CDT



1) This is in effect just saying "well, I concede it's fallacious, but I KNOW IT WORKS!!!!" That's begging the question, and it's another expression of David's blind faith religion.
Plenty of untrue things "work". Placebos "work". Newtonian mechanics "work". False religions lead people to do virtuous things. Etc.
2) Why not just address the actual problem? Or does it not bother David to commit logical fallacies? It wouldn't surprise me, given that he is an atheist.
3) I'm unsure how many times I have to say this, but I'll just repeat it again: Christianity is the foundation for science. It solves the logical fallacy I've identified, but atheism does not solve it.
Thus, Christianity gives us science. Atheism gives us nothing.
Because God keeps the world running in an orderly fashion and has put in place regular, predictable physical processes, we can trust that the future will generally be like the past.
On atheism, as we've seen, there is zero reasonn to expect such.

28 comments:

zilch said...

I'm unsure how many times I have to say this, but I'll just repeat it again: Christianity is the foundation for science. It solves the logical fallacy I've identified, but atheism does not solve it.

Good thing that this "logical problem" is only a problem on your epistemology then, and not a real problem in the real world. Or is it? You haven't shown how so far, no matter how many times I've repeated the question.

Thus, Christianity gives us science. Atheism gives us nothing.

Christianity gives us science? How? By threatening Galileo with torture for his heliocentrism, or trying to get the Flintstones accepted in public school science classrooms? And yes: atheism give us nothing. Atheism itself doesn't purport to do anything other than give us reasons to not believe in gods.

Because God keeps the world running in an orderly fashion and has put in place regular, predictable physical processes, we can trust that the future will generally be like the past.

Don't need God for that job, the world itself does that.

JC said...

Rhology,

You said "Why not just address the actual problem?" but I think I missed the problem you are referring to. Can you please restate the problem or give me a link to where you outline the problem. Thanks

Rhology said...

JC,

Outlined here and here.

My guess is you'll wave your hands and pretend the problem isn't there b/c I haven't asked a "valid question", but you could always surprise me.

David said...

I probably should have said "....especially when YOU THINK medical science is one logical fallacy piled atop another." I, personally, don't think that at all. You failed to answer the question I noticed.

Your worldview lacks one important ingredient. Falsifiability. Hypotheses that are not falsifiable aren't science. I think I'll stick with my worldview. It's turned out some amazing results.

Science deals in probabilities, not absolutes. It also works. Remember that the next time you're at the doctor's office.

Sorry - can't help with the trip to France, but god's speed. ;)

Rhology said...

Hypotheses that are not falsifiable aren't science.

Is that hypothesis falsifiable?

David said...

"Because God keeps the world running in an orderly fashion and has put in place regular, predictable physical processes, we can trust that the future will generally be like the past."

Excellent! So now we can use uniformatarian principles!

Right?

-Other David

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

"Is that hypothesis falsifiable?"

Using falsifiable testable hypotheses is like using a tool. We use this tool or method because it's worked well in the past in helping us understand and explain that the natural world. You rely on the products of this tool on a daily basis. It has been much more successful than relying on a literal reading of the OT.

So asking "is that hypothesis falsifiable" is similar to asking "is that hammer falsifiable".

-Other David

zilch said...

Excellent! So now we can use uniformatarian principles!

Not so fast, Other David. Rho will certainly say that you are borrowing, or perhaps stealing, these uniformitarian principles from Christianity, and that if you're an honest non-Christian, you will be forced to give them back, since you can't legitimately ground them on Christless principles. Right, rho?

One more thing I noticed in the original post- rho said:

This is in effect just saying "well, I concede it's fallacious, but I KNOW IT WORKS!!!!"

Then I'll take what works over what's "not fallacious", since it's evident that by "fallacious" you simply mean "not supported by my Deity". That's a rather special meaning of "fallacious", but not uncommon in religious circles. It shouldn't be considered an argument, though.

What this basically boils down to is this. I (and others here, one way or another) say "we can't prove or be absolutely certain that the world is the way it seems to be; all we can do is try to understand it the best we can, and work with that". Rho (and a couple other Christians here) say "that's not good enough. If you don't have absolute certainty, then you have nothing at all; and your beliefs are therefore merely your subjective opinions, and are therefore objectively meaningless."

There are two problems with the Christian critique here. One is that they proffer no evidence that their God exists, and thus, there's no reason to take their "godgiven" certainty seriously. The second is that there's no reason to believe that the uncertainty of the atheist position is any kind of real problem or handicap. How can simply admitting that one does not know for sure be a handicap? To me, it is rather a sign of humility in the face of the incomprehensibly vast and complex Universe.

JC said...

Rhology, I put up a post regarding your issue with POI and the naturalist wv at http://fortheloveofreason.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-not-so-problem-of-induction.html.

Rhology said...

other david,
So now we can use uniformatarian principles!

You forgot a few things, since we're talking about MY WORLDVIEW now.
1) God is a much higher standard of evidence than human experience, so yes, we can generally use those uni principles, but that's not the whole story.
2) God sometimes performs miracles. That's why I said "generally".


The use of testable hypotheses is a tool. It's a method.

Is that statement falsifiable?

David said...

Heading out of town for a couple of days. I'll reply to comments directed at me on Monday.

Other David

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

“God is a much higher standard of evidence than human experience, so yes, we can generally use those uni principles, but that's not the whole story. God sometimes performs miracles. That's why I said "generally".”

And what is the evidence that you possess knowledge of this “much higher standard of evidence”? What if you don’t possess this knowledge? How could you tell that you were wrong?

So, sometimes God keeps the world running in an orderly fashion and has put in place regular, predictable physical processes, and we can trust that the future will generally be like the past.

And sometimes God doesn’t keep the world running in and orderly fashion with regular predictable physical processes, and sometimes we can’t trust that the future will generally be like the past.

Sometimes uniformitarian principles work and can be applied and sometimes they can’t. Who knows when the principles work and when they don't? It all depends on the whims of God.

So, we live in a world of magic. Why do science? How can science be done? How does one interpret ANY given observation when that observation may be the product of either an orderly predictable process OR it may be the product of pure magic and miracle? Is that rock a million years old or a thousand years old or was it created last Tuesday? Who knows?


“Is that statement falsifiable?”

To repeat, is a hammer falsifiable? The use of testable and falsifiable hypotheses is like the use of a tool. You don’t have to use the tool if you don’t want to, but it’s been an extremely valuable tool with respect to understanding how the natural world works. And as Zilch says, it's quite useful for cutting out the crap.


If there was no global flood, how could you tell that your claim is wrong? Now, if you’re not interested in cutting out the crap, by all means, embrace the untestable myth of your choice.

Other David

David said...

By the way, if God can and does suspend both the "rules of nature" and uniformatarian principles whenever God wishes to do so, why do you go to doctors?

If God wants you dead, then treatments that worked on others at an earlier date won't work on you. If God wants you alive, then God can provide a miracle, no treatment needed. Going to a doctor is pointless.

Other David

David said...

From Dave S. (not other David)

Rho doesn't seem interested in answering the MD question. Thanks for all your help! (and Zilch's too!)

zilch said...

Hey, Davids, I'm having a great time here! Trying to get my head around rho's mindset has forced me to examine my presups very carefully, and sharpen up my thinking about what I believe, and both of you have presented enlightening new ways to look at things. Please look me up if you're ever in Vienna, or in the SF Bay Area in the summer, and lunch is on me. This goes for rho as well, as I've already said years ago.

Rhology said...

Hey y'all,

Time crunch. Patience is a virtue.

David:
And what is the evidence that you possess knowledge of this “much higher standard of evidence”?

That's a terrible question.
1) **I** don't possess it. Where did I say anythg like that?
2) When we're discussing such fundamental questions of epistemology, don't make the mistake of asking for "evidence". As if you can adduce evidence for your own epistemology. Come on.

What we need to ask is: Whose worldview accounts for the possibility of evidence and the cognitive faculties to understand it?



What if you don’t possess this knowledge? How could you tell that you were wrong?

I couldn't tell. Nobody could know anything. That's the point.




And sometimes God doesn’t keep the world running in and orderly fashion with regular predictable physical processes, and sometimes we can’t trust that the future will generally be like the past.

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.



Why do science? How can science be done?

http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/search/label/science


How does one interpret ANY given observation when that observation may be the product of either an orderly predictable process OR it may be the product of pure magic and miracle?

Miracles are rare and are done for specific redemptive purposes.
The problem comes when God has spoken clearly about a given event (ie, creation, or the Flood) and "scientists" try to scratch around in the dirt 1000s of years later to prove Him wrong. I don't know why that would be impressive to anyone, outside of hatred-based bias against God.



The use of testable and falsifiable hypotheses is like the use of a tool.

Is that statement falsifiable?




it’s been an extremely valuable tool with respect to understanding how the natural world works.

Is that statement falsifiable?


If there was no global flood, how could you tell that your claim is wrong?

God was there and He said it happened, so there's really not any point in entertaining that thought. There are much more important thoughts to entertain, and I only have so much brainpower.




If God wants you dead, then treatments that worked on others at an earlier date won't work on you. If God wants you alive, then God can provide a miracle, no treatment needed. Going to a doctor is pointless.

You're quite ignorant of the Bible. That's too bad, I highly recommend you get to know it well, especially if you want to argue against Christians.
Yes, that is true. So what?
Your last statement does not follow, however, given that God usually works providentially through ordinary means such as doctors and medicine.

David said...

“**I** don't possess it. Where did I say anythg like that?”

Of course you’ve claimed to possess this standard. This is the basis for your claim that there was a global flood, etc. If only God possess this knowledge, then you wouldn’t know anything about an alleged flood.


“I couldn't tell. Nobody could know anything. That's the point.”

So, there’s no way to know if you’re wrong? Terrific. Didn’t peg you as a relativist, but one learns something new every day.


"Miracles are rare and are done for specific redemptive purposes."

How do you know that they are “done for specific redemptive purposes?” How do you know when the “specific redemptive purposes” clause holds? Do you know the mind of God?

To repeat, How does one interpret ANY given observation when that observation may be the product of either an orderly predictable process OR it may be the product of pure magic and miracle? Even if you say that miracles are only done for specific redemptive purposes, how can we tell when this condition holds for a given observation?


“The problem comes when God has spoken clearly about a given event (ie, creation, or the Flood) and "scientists" try to scratch around in the dirt 1000s of years later to prove Him wrong. “

But what if those who recorded the Bronze Age legends really and truly are wrong about a global flood? How could we tell if the legends are not accurate?

“I don't know why that would be impressive to anyone, outside of hatred-based bias against God.”

A hatred-based bias? Like the hatred-based bias of Christians who are old-earth geologists? What’s with the constant use of the H-word whenever someone disagrees with you?


“God was there and He said it happened, so there's really not any point in entertaining that thought. There are much more important thoughts to entertain, and I only have so much brainpower.”

Yeah, but what if God didn’t actually say what you claim God said?

To repeat, 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.


“You're quite ignorant of the Bible. That's too bad, I highly recommend you get to know it well, especially if you want to argue against Christians. Yes, that is true. So what?”

Given that you’ve just acknowledged that what I said was accurate, that would suggest that I’m not as ignorant of the Bible as you would like to believe.


“Your last statement does not follow, however, given that God usually works providentially through ordinary means such as doctors and medicine.”

Usually? What does usually mean? Who cares about “usually”? God can do as God pleases. If God wants you dead, then treatments that worked on others at an earlier date won't work on you, because the rules of the universe can be suspended. If God wants you alive, then God can provide a miracle, no treatment needed, because again, the rules of the universe can be suspended. God doesn’t need no stinkin’ doctors.

So why bother with the treatment? The outcome is totally up to God. God doesn’t need doctors, so why do you? Why should God bother to “work providentially through ordinary means”? Going to a doctor is pointless, and yet you go anyway. This is because you don’t really believe what you say you believe.

zilch said...

The problem comes when God has spoken clearly about a given event (ie, creation, or the Flood) and "scientists" try to scratch around in the dirt 1000s of years later to prove Him wrong. I don't know why that would be impressive to anyone, outside of hatred-based bias against God.

Yeah, those dirt-scratching "scientists" are real meanies. Ditto those tube-peeping "astronomers" who hate the turtles all the way down, and those snow-pushing "explorers" who hate Santa Claus and Superman. Lots of hatred going on here.

Honest to Pete, rho, you are your own poe.

Rhology said...

Of course you’ve claimed to possess this standard.

Of course I haven't.
His revealing it to me means He is the source. You've been implying I'm the source.
I am a *recipient*.



So, there’s no way to know if you’re wrong? Terrific. Didn’t peg you as a relativist, but one learns something new every day.

So dense.
I'm not sure how it wasn't obvious that I was taking atheism to its logical conclusion. IF ATHEISM IS TRUE I don't see how we could know whether anything is wrong or right.
But I"m not an atheist. You need to go ahead and actually answer the question on your own worldview.



How do you know that they are “done for specific redemptive purposes?”

God said so in the Bible.



How do you know when the “specific redemptive purposes” clause holds? Do you know the mind of God?

God said so in the Bible. I recommend you read it a bit.


But what if those who recorded the Bronze Age legends really and truly are wrong about a global flood?

IF CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE: They're not, b/c they were repeating the message God gave them. God isn't wrong.
IF ATHEISM IS TRUE: Yuo have no way of knowing whether any historical analysis you do is true b/c you don't even know w hether you can trust the deliverances of your senses and cognitive faculties.

So, decide on which worldview you want to proceed, make it clear, and then move forward.




Like the hatred-based bias of Christians who are old-earth geologists?

Old earthers are generally just following in the footsteps of the hardened skeptics, trying to compromise with them. They're not taking the lead.



What’s with the constant use of the H-word whenever someone disagrees with you?

1) The Bible tells me that about people who disbelieve in God.
2) Please tell me you're consistent and call out the real abuses of that word when it comes to the invective that pro-aborts hurl at pro-lifers and pro-homosexuality people hurl at "traditional values" people.



Yeah, but what if God didn’t actually say what you claim God said?

You mean, if a completely different religion were true?
Brilliant, let's explore that. What are the doctrines associated with this religion you're creating by pulling out of the air? Tell me about it. Preach the Gospel to me.



To repeat, 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

That's OK, b/c the same is clear about you to me.



Given that you’ve just acknowledged that what I said was accurate, that would suggest that I’m not as ignorant of the Bible as you would like to believe.

You missed the part about which I said "yes, that is true".
Specifically, 'If God wants you dead, then treatments that worked on others at an earlier date won't work on you. If God wants you alive, then God can provide a miracle, no treatment needed' is true, however your conclusion was extremely unbiblical. Extremely. Go back and try again.



Usually? What does usually mean?

Usually


The outcome is totally up to God.

Yes. And?



God doesn’t need doctors, so why do you?

B/c God doesn't usually heal people directly.
He does sometimes, but most of the time He works through providential means, as I explained already.



Why should God bother to “work providentially through ordinary means”?

That's a large Bible study. Tell you what, go to your local Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian church (excluding a PCUSA church) and ask them that question, ask the pastor if he'll be willing to talk to you about it.



Going to a doctor is pointless, and yet you go anyway.

Your words, not my position.

Rhology said...

zilch,

What in the world is a "Poe"? Alex B keeps saying it, and now you've picked up on it.

Anonymous said...

"What in the world is a "Poe"?"

And thus we can see clearly that the single best explanation for Alan's beliefs is that he has access to the internet, but doesn't know how to use it.

David said...

“His revealing it to me means He is the source. You've been implying I'm the source.”

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. My point was that you are claiming to have access or knowledge of this “higher standard of evidence”. Whether you are the “source” or the “recipient” doesn’t really seem relevant. You claim the knowledge of gods. I don’t care if you claim to be a recipient or the source.


>How do you know when the “specific redemptive purposes” clause holds? Do you know the mind of God?

“God said so in the Bible. I recommend you read it a bit.”

Where, exactly? Chapter and verse?

Besides, I think that you missed the point. I’m not just and only talking about specific events in the Bible. I’m talking about any given event and/or any given observation at any point in time.

Observe an event, any event. Did that event occur as a result of the natural, uniform workings of the physical world OR did it occur as the result of a miracle? In any given case, how can you tell the difference? How do you know that miracles are “rare”, and even if rare, how do you know if this is one of those rare cases? How do you know when there is a specific redemptive purpose at work here?

If you can’t tell the difference, then we live in a world of arbitrary magic.


“IF CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE: They're not (wrong about the flood), b/c they were repeating the message God gave them. God isn't wrong.”

And how do you know that God gave them the message? What if God didn’t give them this message? How could you tell? If it happens that you are wrong, how are you going to be able to see that you are wrong?

Look, I get it. You believe the legend absolutely, positively, without question and without the ability to test its accuracy. No evidence that I can present will ever lead you to conclude that there was no flood. None.


“IF ATHEISM IS TRUE: Yuo have no way of knowing whether any historical analysis you do is true b/c you don't even know w hether you can trust the deliverances of your senses and cognitive faculties.”

Well, again, we’ve been over this, so I’m not going to waste time with it.


“Old earthers are generally just following in the footsteps of the hardened skeptics, trying to compromise with them. They're not taking the lead.”

Do, do these Christians hate God? What do you suppose convinces them that the earth is really quite old?


“The Bible tells me that about people who disbelieve in God.”

Well, of course it does. That’s SOP for cults. If you’re not with us, it’s because you hate the entity that the cult follows.

You said “I don't know why that would be impressive to anyone, outside of hatred-based bias against God.” And yet, many well-informed Christians ARE impressed. Do they hate God, too?


“Please tell me you're consistent and call out the real abuses of that word when it comes to the invective that pro-aborts hurl at pro-lifers and pro-homosexuality people hurl at "traditional values" people.

Huh? What? Two wrongs make a right? What does this have to do with YOUR actions and YOUR choices?


“You mean, if a completely different religion were true? Brilliant, let's explore that. What are the doctrines associated with this religion you're creating by pulling out of the air? Tell me about it. Preach the Gospel to me.

Utterly irrelevant. All religions could be false. We could all be wrong. You don’t get to claim truth just because another belief is false. You’ve totally failed to address the question here.


“That's OK, b/c the same is clear about you to me.”

Oh, nonsense. Old earth geology offers countless opportunities for disproof. Science rests on the idea that even our most cherished ideas could be discarded tomorrow if the data require this.

David said...

>The outcome is totally up to God.

“Yes. And?”

And you don’t get the point. Saying “God doesn’t usually heal directly” doesn’t address the point. Saying “most of the time He works through providential means” doesn’t address the point.

Let’s try again.

How do you know that “God doesn’t usually heal directly”? Remember, sometimes the natural world follows uniform patterns and sometimes it doesn’t. Remember, sometime God lets the world turn on its own and follow uniform and predictable patterns, and sometimes God performs miracles. And in any given case, you can’t tell if the outcome is due to uniform and natural processes or miracle.

So, a doctor tries a treatment and the patient gets better. Why does the patient get better? Is it because the treatment worked because it was based on an accurate understanding of the uniform workings of nature? OR did it work because God set the rules of nature aside and performed a miracle? How can you tell the difference? How do you know that God ISN’T “healing directly”? You can’t tell. You don’t know. Saying something “usually” happens a certain way doesn’t help.

Now let’s consider a specific case.

You have bacterial pneumonia. Your lungs are filling with fluid, and the doctor says that you’re going to die within a day. The doctor offers you penicillin. What do you do and what will the outcome be?

There are four possibilities.

You take the penicillin, and the penicillin saves your life, because God chooses to allow the natural world to work in a predictable and uniform.

You take the penicillin and die anyway, because God chooses to suspend the rules of nature and kill you.

You refuse the penicillin and you die, because God chooses to allow the natural world to work in a predictable and uniform.

You refuse the penicillin and you live, because God chooses to suspend the rules of nature and miraculously cure you.

Here’s the point. In all cases, your choice, the doctor’s actions and the rules of nature are totally irrelevant to the outcome. In all cases, the outcome is entirely a matter of God’s choice.

So, why go to the doctor? Why take the penicillin? Why bother to understand how the natural world works? Again, God don’t need no stinkin’ doctors, so why do you think that you need a doctor? If you truly believed as you say you believe, you wouldn’t bother with doctors or drugs. Just let God decide.


“Your words, not my position.”

This is your position, you just haven’t thought it through.

zilch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zilch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zilch said...

Your computer does have google, does it not, rho? But here you are- the fifth google listing for "poe" (the first four are obviously not applicable) is the Rational Wiki definition of "Poe's Law". An instantiation of Poe's Law is a poe. For instance, the Landover Baptist Church is a poe. Check out their Creation Science Fair- it's a blast.

cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch