Presuppositional Apologetics

[shunyadragon]

Our very physical universe is the evidence that it is finite and temporal. That it, the universe, is eternal is purely a metaphysical interpetation. To argue that interpretation is a possibility is also a metaphysical interpretation.

Still waiting . . .

There is no objective falsifiable evidence that our physical existence is either eternal nor non-eternal. It is purely a metaphysical interpretation to conclude or assume that either is true by the evidence.

[37818]

Still waiting . . .

There is no objective falsifiable evidence that our physical existence is either eternal nor non-eternal. It is purely a metaphysical interpretation to conclude or assume that either is true by the evidence.

You seem to fail to comprehend in order to have a scientific falsifiable evidence it must be finite and temporal in nature and not being true to be falsified.

Question: can the scientific method of falsifiable evidence be applied to itself?

[hansgeorg]

It might include arguments like the atheist worldview doesn't have the necessary preconditions for logic, since for all he knows he is just a "brain in a vat".

Or, if apes have no idea of propositional truth, how did such ideas and capability of having them "evolve" from consciousness of apes?

Or another popular one is that atheists don't have the necessary preconditions for morality, since they have no objective standard against which to judge what is right and what is wrong.

Rather, they do, like everyone else, have the necessary preconditions for actually being normal, but their scenario doesn't explain how anyone got it.

Note, precisely like logic can reach universally valid conclusions, like "a poodle is a mammal" or "days are normally brighter than nights, due to sun", morality has its valid universals.

[hansgeorg]

"Well I would agree that a rational Creator is a good precondition for logic and an intelligible universe, whether or not God is a necessary condition is another story."

I agree that the idea of a rational creator would certainly explain why the universe has a certain intelligibility to it. But how do you demonstrate the actual existence of this creator? To posit his existence is one thing, and to demonstrate it is another. It seems like a highly speculative assertion, really no more than an unprovable hypothesis.

I'd say, electrons are an unproven hypothesis.

[hansgeorg]

How is it that the universe came to possess the uniformity that enables us to do logic? Good question. But let us be careful not to make the same mistake made by humanity countless times throughout history, and attribute something to a god just because we don't understand it. What is certain is that that uniformity is there, and it is reliable. It has proven itself to be a consistent foundation upon which to reason. As an atheist, then, I am completely justified in my use of logic. I don't just assume it. I recognize it as a reliable means of engaging with the world around me.

But can you, as an atheist, explain how a mind can mirror, not just this or that fact, but precisely the logic uniformity of universal validity of the universe?

[hansgeorg]

"And as far as ethics go, there are no universal or transcendent moral norms in a godless universe, nor can there be. The universe would be ultimately unjust, moral law would not be authoritative, i.e. if you get away with it in this life, you actually get away with it."

I agree that there are no transcendent moral laws in an atheistic universe. But I don't think it matters. It just means that morality is a social construct. We have many social constructs that work perfectly fine for a well-ordered society. In the U.S., we drive on the right side of the road. This is not some kind of transcendent moral law, and yet it is binding, and there are penalties for not obeying it. If someone got pulled over for driving on the wrong side of the road, it wouldn't make sense to respond to the police officer that it doesn't matter because, after all, they drive on the left side in the U.K., and driving on the right side is completely arbitrary. There are definitely differences between traffic laws and the more serious moral questions, but my point is just that something being a social construct does not preclude it being binding upon people. You have to understand how social constructs work. Within the construct, laws take on a kind of objectivity. Not objective in the transcendent sense, but in the sense that, within the framework, they are the law of the land and people are required to obey them.

That is exactly why Atheism and its "spiritual twin" Modernism worked so exceedingly well in states like Prussia or Communist Russia.

They want a basis for morality which leaves no transcendental morality by which to question the law of the land.

Seen in that way, Lisa Parks was simply a criminal - which I don't agree on for a moment. And so was of course John Brown.

[hansgeorg]

But once I demonstrate that it is subjective, the next logical thing for us to do is work out how we live together in a world where sometimes different views of morality clash. We would also need to determine what values we want to serve as the foundation for our morality, things like a value for human life, liberty, etc. This is actually not that hard, since human nature has a pro-social bent to it, evolved from our primate ancestors.

Instead of the greater objectivity of moral traditions, then, the lesser intersubjectivity of a construct involving basically a revolutionary project.

And that project of constructing and reconstructing morality has cost so much blood the last 100 years. Next year we will be commemorating the Russian Revolution.

And already, some Frenchies seen prepared to recommence persecutions:

The other bad news was about a month ago, when Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet proposed to make it a crime to preach that the laws of God (or of a Sacred Text) are more obliging than the laws of the French Republic.

"For example" she argued, "if you preach that a woman is worth half as much as a man, because the Qoran says so, you are to be charged with this crime" (equality between men and women being one law of the French Republic).

Obviously, if the proposed ban on digital interference with abortion becomes another law of the Republic, this means that preaching that it is a good thing to dissuade from abortion becomes an offense too.

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2016/1...or-france.html

[shunyadragon]

You seem to fail to comprehend in order to have a scientific falsifiable evidence it must be finite and temporal in nature and not being true to be falsified.

Please cite in a reference referring to the philosophy of science and the methods of falsification where '. . . to have a scientific falsifiable evidence it must be finite and temporal in nature and not being true to be falsified.' Fundamentally not true in terms of science.

Being finite nor temporal is a requirement for falsifiable scientific theories, models nor hypothesis. In fact the hypothesis that our physical existence is finite or temporal, nor eternal or non-eternal is not falsifiable based on scientific evidence.

Question: can the scientific method of falsifiable evidence be applied to itself?

Actually yes, when ever the scientific methods of falsification are applied to theories, models and hypothesis the uniformity and consistency of our physical existence is tested by the predictability of the results is applied to itself and the assumptions of science, beyond this your question can only appeal to argument from ignorance.

[shunyadragon]

Anyhow my effort was simply to stave off the idea that theories of evolution are sufficient arguments against the existence of God -- at best the theories just push the discussion to details about the creation of the mechanisms of evolution.

Stave off!?!?! The science of evolution is fundamentally based on the science of Methodological Naturalism, which cannot falsify the hypothesis as to whether God exists or not. It simply deals with the science of the physical evidence.

[37818]

Please cite in a reference referring to the philosophy of science and the methods of falsification where '. . . to have a scientific falsifiable evidence it must be finite and temporal in nature and not being true to be falsified.' Fundamentally not true in terms of science.

That was my statement: "You seem to fail to comprehend in order to have a scientific falsifiable evidence it must be finite and temporal in nature and not being true to be falsified."

Being finite nor temporal is a requirement for falsifiable scientific theories, models nor hypothesis. In fact the hypothesis that our physical existence is finite or temporal, nor eternal or non-eternal is not falsifiable based on scientific evidence.

There is no scientific evidence that is not finite and temporal. Any claim to the contrary is not physical science - but metaphysics.

Actually yes, when ever the scientific methods of falsification are applied to theories, models and hypothesis the uniformity and consistency of our physical existence is tested by the predictability of the results is applied to itself and the assumptions of science, beyond this your question can only appeal to argument from ignorance.

That is not what I was asking. Apply the scientific method to the scientific method.

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/whats-...ntific-method/

[shunyadragon]

That was my statement: "You seem to fail to comprehend in order to have a scientific falsifiable evidence it must be finite and temporal in nature and not being true to be falsified."
There is no scientific evidence that is not finite and temporal. Any claim to the contrary is not physical science - but metaphysics.

Again . . .

Please cite in a reference referring to the philosophy of science and the methods of falsification where '. . . to have a scientific falsifiable evidence it must be finite and temporal in nature and not being true to be falsified.' Fundamentally not true in terms of science.

That is not what I was asking. Apply the scientific method to the scientific method.

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/whats-...ntific-method/

First and foremost this reference does not remotely propose any theory, model, nor hypothesis that our physical existence may be falsified nor otherwise be demonstrated that our physical existence is finite or infinite, nor eternal or non-eternal. Pointing out possible weaknesses in our scientific methods does not achieve that. Still waiting . . .

That is the answer I gave. The assumptions of science are indeed falsified over time by the predictability and uniformity of Methodological Naturalism. Again . . . beyond this you are appealing to an argument form ignorance.

Interesting reference, yes there are problems, but what is lacking here is 'who is going to bell the cat.' It does not offer a constructive alternative. The scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism do indeed work and consistently show predictable results that our whole world of technology and knowledge of our physical existence is based on. The problem remains 'What is the viable constructive alternative that works as well as our present methods of science? The article does not address that problem.

Can you offer a constructive viable alternative, and 'bell the cat.?'

So far in all the dialogues we have had, you have only proposed Theistic assumption concerning the nature of our physical existence and nothing beyond that.

[element771]

Why don't you see the non-rational, naturalistic option as more plausible, given that as we peer deeper and deeper into the universe we find more and more that it is actually governed by natural forces?

Hi Raul,

Welcome to TWEB. Just a little background on myself to frame where I am coming from. I was raised Catholic, had a dark night of the soul, decided to start over and read all I could for both sides of the argument that I could get my hand on, and came out of the other side a Lutheran. I don't necessarily agree with everything regarding Lutheranism but the stuff I don't agree with...doesn't really matter to me. I am also a scientist (a biophysical virologist to be specific) who accepts evolution as the mechanism that got us here. I have a passion for science and view that there is no real conflict between science and religion. Maybe there is conflict in some sects of religion and some "sects" (for lack of a better word) in atheism but I don't feel that way.

To answer your question, I think that it is inherently a choice. Yes, there is no empirically derived evidence for or against a God but I don't necessarily think there should be. The existence of God is not a science question but a metaphysical one. However, I believe that science can be used to inform our metaphysical outlook. IMO, I believe that you continue to dig deeper and deeper into physics, biology, etc to find an answer but there is none. All paths lead to this choice. What is more likely....Do you believe that behind our existence is a supreme mind that we call God or is it the blind forces of nature that has resulted in a bunch of carbon atoms becoming organized and self-aware?

IMO, this is the question that you need to answer but there is no way to empirically answer it...so, it is a choice.

[shunyadragon]

I'd say, electrons are an unproven hypothesis.

They have taken pictures of electrons at or near absolute zero.

Deplorable ignorance of science. Again, again and again science does not prove anything.

[37818]

Again . . .

Please cite in a reference referring to the philosophy of science and the methods of falsification where '. . . to have a scientific falsifiable evidence it must be finite and temporal in nature and not being true to be falsified.' Fundamentally not true in terms of science.

No. Why not, It is an obvious fact that what can be observed and measured is only finite and temporal.

<snip>
So far in all the dialogues we have had, you have only proposed Theistic assumption concerning the nature of our physical existence and nothing beyond that.

What is beyond being finite and temporal is metaphysical not physical science.

[37818]

They have taken pictures of electrons at or near absolute zero.

No, they have not taken pictures of individual electrons. But had detected the individual quantium behavior of electrons near absolute zero.

Got an image?