Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[Cornell]

@Tassman

Any conclusion to a philosophical deductive argument is only as good as its premise. And the premises of ALL philosophical arguments can only be based upon the knowledge of the day. The knowledge in the Classical/Medieval period of Aristotle and Aquinas has been superseded by the facts acquired by modern scientific methodology. E.g. the former had no knowledge of counter-intuitive nature of quantum mechanism. Nor did they have any concept of the possible eternal nature of the universe, whereby all things are contingent upon what went before and what went before had no beginning.

It doesn’t matter if they had knowledge of a counter-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics, because quantum mechanics doesn’t refute anything that they say. As Alexander pruss points out the PSR that I modern Theists defend concerns explanation, which is the giving of reasons sufficient to explain the explanandum, not the giving of reasons logically sufficient for entailing the explanandum. So your objection fails.

I hate to break it to ya, as I see this canard repeated so many times by the atheist community, but modern scientific methodology doesn’t do squat to Aristotle or Aquinas’ arguments, nor does it damage any of the newer arguments that we see today. The philosophical arguments are actually better now, because we have more and more bright minds to work with. I see Theists getting closer to making an argument that leads to being virtually certain that a God exists.

Certainly alien creators are possible, much more likely than a creator deity, because the former can be understood in terms of the known laws of nature whereas the latter cannot. But until such time as we have some evidence the notion remain an un-testable hypothesis.

That’s not a good argument at all, because God is not subject to the laws of nature. I have absolutely no idea why you would think that the universe would exist first, and then poof out comes a God. Though you do have a very strange concept of God so if you want to stick to arguing against your concept of God, go right ahead, but you’re ultimately attacking a strawman.

God is why the laws of nature are here, so when we understand the laws of nature we are in a way understanding God, just like you think that when we understand the laws of nature you’re understanding the godless universe. There really is no difference, besides the fact that I think the universe contains initial agency and consciousness.

The second problem with this is that when a naturalist states one cannot define God their claim is ultimately self-refuting, since by defining God as undefinable, one has engaged in an act of definition. It would be like uttering in English the sentence "I cannot speak a word of English."

Merely wishing for an ultimate goal, when there is no credible evidence of one is delusional thinking.

There is no wishing, it’s just me looking at how the world is , and then providing the best explanation for why it is like this. In fact I don’t even have to be a Theist in order to realize how obvious it is to notice the purpose in this reality. (though I can’t see how he can consistently be what he is if Theism is false, I just think he makes a good case for what he argues) Evan Fales argues that the universe looks like a teleologically organized system, this is an entity organized so as to have some (or possibly more than one) end, goal or purpose.

We can distinguish TOSs whose teloi are imputed from those whose teloi are intrinsic or original (ITOSs).
For example, a can opener has the purpose it does because it was designed for that purpose or is, at least ordinarily , used for that purpose.

An acorn’s telos is to grow into an oak, the natural ends of an oak are connected, obviously enough, with the things that are good for and bad for it. Flourishing, for example, just is an oak-tree good. Other things – adequate water and sunlight – are good for oak trees because they are means to (causally necessary for) intrinsic oak-tree goods. So, roughly we may say that the intrinsic goods for an ITOS are the states of affairs that constitute achievement of its ultimate ends, and the instrumental goods are those that serve or promote those ends.

Makes more sense than saying there is no purpose whatsoever.

When you "help a little old lady" it's because, as evolved social creatures we instinctively help others within the social group.

Ok, so then helping this old lady means nothing then, simply because I was forced to do it from the blind watchmaker evolutionary process. These instincts are nothing but a delusion. That is to say, if determinism is true because of the blind nonrational magical evolutionary process and materialism, then we aren't morally responsible for our actions.

Natural selection is NOT impersonal and it is NOT mainly concerned with self-preservation. The self-preservation you refer to is contingent upon the preservation of the group to which we belong. These are evolved qualities and include the naturally selected instincts of altruism, reciprocity and adherence to the rules of the group. It is religion that is the more selfish; it focuses upon personal salvation.

I agree that the godless natural selection is moreso concerned with kin selection, but when it comes to 'value' this is still all just an illusion put forth by the blind watchmaker evolutionary process, so ‘religion’ can’t be blamed for anything, because this is how evolutiondidit. Religious people couldn’t help it, because they weren’t in control.

Your argument just ends up biting you in the rear, because as micheal ruse points out being ‘selfish’ isn’t bad, or wrong, and this is because ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ are pointless illusions that give us a psychological disadvantage towards a purposeless universe.
“The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.”

- Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge,

natural selection is impersonal because it doesn't care about whether or not our species goes extinct.

So you can you sit in your bed until you wither away and die or go out and be a huminatarian. No matter what you do, the natural selective process doesn't care, and when you die it gets even better as there are no rewards for good deeds and no punishment for evil actions.

Quite the reverse; it is YOU attempting to define our world though your own absolutist filter;

Well I use sound reasoning and I don’t shoot myself in the foot.

I don’t have to appeal to some purposeless, meaningless, valueless, unconscious, nonrational substance that somehow magically gave matter rationality.

How we view our fellow humans has demonstrably changed over the millennia – from a purely tribal mentality to one whereby we recognize the human rights of ALL individuals.

There are no rights if Theism is false, ‘rights’ are just an illusory human construction made up by the blind watchmaking evolutionary process, only because it gives us a psychological advantage.

So since the evolutionary process is nonprogressive in any meaningfully moral, then we could as easily have evolved a different moral system from that which we have. Instead of thinking that humans all rights, we could have hated certain humans and come to the conclusion that only male humans over 6 feet tall should have rights, while everyone else has lesser rights. Michael Ruse refers to this as the “John Foster Dulles system of morality” named after the secretary of state under president Eisenhowever. Dulles hated the Russians, and he realized that the Russians hated him, but he also recognized that he needed to get on with them. This he did with success, but without in any sense invoking what we would call traditional morality. He took their hate into account just as he took on his own hate into account. Therefore humans could as easily have evolved a completely different set of substantive moral norms, and this includes your claim about ‘recognizing human rights for ALL’ therefore your claim is unpersuasive.

ALL religions throughout human history, from animism thorough to polytheism then monotheism have been man-made attempts to explain the human condition. And ALL, without exception, have invented a deity or deities who demand sacrifices in order for their anger to be appeased. These were and are the deities both primitive people and present day people believe in. As for God’s existence "not being dependent upon a contingent being", IF, as is hypothesised, the universe is itself eternal the concept of a Necessary Being of any sort is irrelevant. And, for all your talk about the lack of absolute knowledge in science, it is philosophy which is dependent upon the evolving understandings of science for its world-view. And if the scientific knowledge does not support the philosophical argument based upon it the latter fails - as did Aristotle's concept of a geocentric universe when science proved the heliocentric universe.

It doesn’t matter if religion through history has been man-made attempts to explain the human condition, because the truth of our condition doesn’t dependent on what religious people throughout history think, nor does it matter what people in modern times think. The truth is independent of human minds so your point is irrelevant. You need to stop worrying about what religious people said in the past, and start dealing with the arguments in the present, because they’ll only get better.

Second scientific knowledge goes nowhere without philosophy holding its hand, this quote will be posted again.

" Scientists sometimes deceive themselves into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."

—Daniel Dennett, ‘Darwins Dangerous Idea’

Science goes nowhere without the philosophy that underpins it, so unless you have something to show me otherwise I will continue to argue what I’m arguing now.

And how is one supposed to alter ones genetically encoded instincts?

I don’t know what this has to do with anything I said.

I’m constantly bemused at the importance given by certain theists to a novelist who reached his peak 70 years ago.

Appeal to time, who cares if it was 70 years ago, 700 years ago or 7,000 years ago, what matters it he actual argument itself, so when you’re able to slip away from the ad-hominem and take on C.S Lewis’ actual argument, I’ll be right here to defend it. Your hand-waving doesn’t ultimately refute what he says.

But we don’t know theism is true.

We have good reasons to think it is, this is why I’m arguing my case.

Drinking water is demonstrably necessary for survival; the existence of magical spirits is NOT demonstrably true.

And the point just flew over your head, but I thank you for agreeing with me on the fact that primitive people did have access to truths about reality. Drinking water quenches thirst was one of them.

I have no doubt whatsoever that this will be the case; and the most primitive thing of all, I surmise, is that we still cling to the superseded mythical notion of gods and spirits.

So if this is the case, then are you conceding the fact that your arguments right now are primitive? Or do we need to invoke special pleading and just say ‘well only religious people will be looked at as primitive, because special pleading’???

Empirically tested science doesn’t claim it can lead to all knowledge. But knowledge-claims about the natural world cannot be shown to be true without it.

ok so, let’s put that reasoning to the test, I want you to please demonstrate this statement of yours as being true via the use of empirically tested science.

So you and your word-games didn't do so good there, more to the point.

Wait, so can philosophy lead us to knowledge or did you change things up?

Evolved, genetically encoded “instinct” is not the same as saying we are “forced to believe things”.

I don’t see a distinction, please demonstrate your claim rather than assert it and hope I just believe it. I mean, your blind watchmaking magical naturedidit evolutionary process gave us large brains certain genetically determined, strategic rules or directives, which we being into play when dealing with new awkward situations. IN other words, we are genetically determined to believe that we ‘ought’ to help each other, so I don’t see why we aren’t forced to believe things by this same process. Therefore, I see no distinction at all.

Your carefully selected quote is misleading. It is not representative of his typical thinking whereas you seemed to be suggesting it was.

OK I guess he just argues things about himself that don’t represent his thinking, makes sense.

Theism most probably IS false and regarding lack of ultimate purpose, there’s no reason why we can’t enjoy the ride for as long as it lasts. I do. I feel sorry for those who need the fantasy of life eternal to give the present meaning.

Your enjoyment of the ride is nothing but a mass delusion given to you by a purposeless process. All you’re doing is deluding yourself into a psychological state, only because it leads to comfort. This ride is absurd, and pointless. IF it has no end goal, then it was never important to begin with.

//Extraordinary how you can totally miss the most salient feature of Camus:

Then why are you using Camus at all? In no way does he support your world-view, quite the reverse. He considers it absurd.

HE doesn’t support my worldview however I always wonder why not all atheists follow his lead when it makes so much sense. (IF Theism is false) I mean why is that you choose to tell me how you think reality really is, when none of this matters anyways? I find it hard to believe that you don’t think there is any intrinsic purpose to our existence.

Of course there are. But, again, one does not base an assessment of the human condition upon the pathological exceptions to the norm.

And as I argued before, there is no norm, just arbitrary blind watchmaking at work!

The point you've missed in your continual attempt to filter everything your absolutist mindset, is that survival is an evolved instinct of all living creatures from earthworms to babies. It has nothing to do with intrinsic worth per se.

How could survival be an evolved instinct if it wasn’t present in the very first organism, that…well….had to survive to propagate its DNA right? Sorry not buying it, survival is an essential trait and if it wasn’t then we would have never have gotten past the first organism.

Nor is the prime imperative of survival dependent upon what humans believe.

Do you believe that?

Whatever that means…

The opposition of scientific realism
“Scientific realism is a positive epistemic attitude towards the content of our best theories and models, recommending belief in both observable and unobservable aspects of the world described by the sciences.” - Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

There are NO absolute truths, except ones we define to be true such as 1+1=2.

Are you absolutely sure about this?

The nearest we can get to absolute truths are the established theories of science which have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt; the laws and constants of the universe have been verified to date and appear to exist throughout the entire universe.

So it’s absolutely true of the fact that the nearest we can get to absolute truths are the established theories of science which have been shown to be true beyond reasonable doubt?

Possibly but unlikely! And, more to the point there’s no viable alternative. Theism is entirely unsupported by any substantiated evidence.

Possibly but unlikely, how do you know this? Are you omniscient to the point where you know the future?

Theism is supported by great evidence, you just have to ditch that verificationist nonsense.

If you think, without substantiated evidence, that “theism is true”, then your “metaphysical optimism” is merely metaphysical delusion - or at best, metaphysical wishful thinking.

Well delusions do happen a lot on your naturedidit magical substance that supposedly is the reason for why existence exists, I mean this mechanism caused pointless conglomerations of matter that identify themselves as 'humans' to believe in religions for thousands of years, but now....supposedly we can everything right, and have every reason to trust this blind, nonrational, purposeless process.....right

Anyways you need to defeat the arguments against Theism before handwaving it away. So far you haven’t done so, and this is why I’m optimisitic about Theism, it’s because the alternatives have garbage explanations that hardly anyone ever wants to defend, and because Theism has much more simplicity, coherency, explanatory scope and power than everything else.

[Tassman]

Tassman

No one ever complains on Facebook, however I have changed things up on my replies only because JimL was threating to leave,

and since I enjoy debating those who adhere to the silliness of scientism

Too bad! God only has more importance than invisible unicorns if he exists; there is no substantiated evidence that he does.

What a load of pretentious nonsense. The bottom line of atheism I that there is insufficient evidence to warrant the belief in a god or gods. End of story.

This is important, because Christian pressupositionalists can share the same mentality as atheist presuppositionalists, and with that being said, their style of arguments will be similar.

Graham Oppy who is an atheist philosophy points out why

"A key difference between Naturalism and Theism is that naturalists suppose that agency and consciousness are late and local features of reality, whereas Theists suppose that agency and consciousness are initial features of reality"

- Graham Oppy 'Debating Christian Theism' pg 75

God is only in the debate inasmuch as he can be

are you telling me that the US was founded by men of religion?

What I'm telling you that it makes no sense according to common word-usage to refer, as you did, to "religion" being devoid of the concept of a supernatural deity or power. This is what you did when you said:

You reject all deductive arguments because

No, I'm asserting that without a true premise in a deductive argument, one cannot arrive at a true conclusion other than by chance.

Second, verificationism is false as it is self-refuting
Verificationism says something only has meaning if it can be empirically validated. Well, the truth proposition, "All propositions must be empirically verified in order to have meaning", cannot be empirically verified itself, so by its own criteria, it has no meaning.

Third, your epistemologyAs long as you believe the premises, you cannot deny the conclusion.

Certainly, but this does not mean the premises are true, just that you believe

It would only be superfluous if there was another explanation that could do the job better than a deity.

Thus is merely an Argument from Ignorance!

Was it magic?

Right so how does this help your case? If every contingent fact has an explanation for its existence then how do you escape an infinite regress of contingent facts that determined both the future and the past with respect to contingent facts?

No its not. See above re the necessity for a true premise in order to arrive at a true conclusion.

Sez who?

Your principle cannot stand up to its own standards. What empirical or conceptual considerations establish your own thesis, or at least give it an edge over the competing thesis of metaphysical realists such as myself?

onlyhttps://www.cslewis.com/uk/about-cs-lewis

either the existence of gods OR highly intelligent creator aliens. But that of the two possibilities the latter are more likely in that they obey the physical laws of the universe where gods are hypothesized to be above them.

This would only be true, if verificationism was correct.

assumed

Well obviously anything created by the divine would have the divine touch, right? Or do I need to verify this by looking at every living thing that has ever lived and ask God if he made it? Anyways, I see no problem here. Humans can do propositions, so can God, Therefore humans are more God-like with respect to the intellect than other animals. Unless there is evidence of other animals having group debates about epistemology, I rest my case.

Yes! Do you have good reason to suggest rationality did NOT arise from the incremental process of natural selection as a survival mechanism given that this is demonstrably how Evolution works? Why wouldn't this be the case regarding "rationality" given that EVERY phenomenon which has been explored in detail to date has had a naturalistic solution - without a single exception in several hundred years of scientific research?

without any reference at all to what they are "about'.

SNIPPED!

Cherry-picked quotes. No links. And all irrelevant in any case. There is no reason to doubt the Evolutionary process and no substantive reason to support an alternative approach.

No dilemma. Knowing the facts about how the universe functions increases our chances of survival. False beliefs do not necessarily lead to extinction; that wasn't the argument.

Ok so if I have an agenda to teach my little cousin 2 + 2 = 4 because I feel he should be good at math, does that a priori dismiss anything I say?

The argument from reason suffers the same difficulty that all metaphysical arguments do, namely the fact that all the reliable evidence we have points to naturalism, and none of it points to non-natural causation. None!

There was no wrong assumption, this is because Theism is obviously true. See above

But it is not, quite the reverse. See above.

It has no means of doing this? You just used armchair philosophy to arrive at your conclusion right here, otherwise show me the science experiment that lead you to your conclusion.

You misunderstood what I said, when I say rationally intelligible, I mean that we can learn something about reality, because we have the tools to understand it. This has to be ASSUMED, otherwise any attempts to use reason to justify reason ends up in a circle.

The most productive tool for understanding reality is scientific methodology. It has the ability to empirically test its hypotheses; philosophy does not.

And what verifiable evidence supports this claim?

Are you suggesting that you can show something to be true when it isn't capable of being verified? Why should I believe your unverified claim just on your say so?

So now you add a Circular Argument Fallacy to your Special Pleading Fallacy.

Correct. And unlike god-did-it, Evolution is supported by considerable whereas Theism is not.

Evolutiondidit is not an explanation, so I'll go with the better explanation it looks like rationality always existed in some form. If that means God (necessary rational being) + evolution > necessary nonrational substance + evolution, then so be it.

[Sparko]

And still Tassman and JimL continue to use philosophy to make their points and have not produced any scientific evidence to support their case. The irony is astounding.

[Tassman]

And still Tassman and JimL continue to use philosophy to make their points and have not produced any scientific evidence to support their case. The irony is astounding.

For Sparko everything is philosophy. For him "the cat sat on the mat" is a philosophical statement.

[Cornell]

tassman

I don’t blame him. And while you at it how about employing the View Post facility so your interlocutor can refer back to the relevant part of the debate if necessary.

Because that’s hand holding, it’s not that hard to scroll up or go back a page.

Ah yes. “Scientism is…often widely abused as a term to refer to science and attitudes associated with science, and its primary use these days is a pejorative”. Skeptic’s Dictionary. This seems to fit your use of it. Interesting that you feel the need to resort to attempted belittlement.

The belittlement is justified, because those who adhere to scientism are those who hand-wave at philosophy, but yet can never solve their number one problem.

1 The only things that we can know are those that are scientifically proven to be true.
2 Premise 1 hasn't been scientifically proven to be true.
3. Thus, based off of premise 1 and 2, there's no reason to believe 1.
4 Therefore it is self-refuting and incoherent to think that we can't know something just because it hasn't been scientifically proven.

Nope, just basing what I know of Buddhism upon personal experience of living in the 98% Buddhist country of Thailand. Buddhism in its pure form is a philosophy of life rather than a religion, although as commonly practised it’s strongly influenced by Hindu religious practises.

Ah so I guess Karma (law of conservation of moral energy, because that’s not supernatural) and Reincarnation, Nirvana and all that talk, have nothing to do with the supernatural.

Anyways academia says your wrong, and that’s why I posted an scholarly book published by Routledge, so I’ll take Routeledge over your personal experience. Your method is simple, you demonize ‘religion’ then sugarcoat ‘religions’ that you like to the point where you have to label it as a non-religion, but yet when you want to label something a religion you bring up ‘supernatural’ as the essential labelmaker, the problem resides when you factor in reincarnation and it’s spiritual forces that are in involved. Well according to Buddhists man is releasing spiritual energy in the universe, (depending on which of the 10 stages he is at) but I guess that’s not supernatural in your book, because you like the religion and need to cut it a few breaks.

Too bad! God only has more importance than invisible unicorns if he exists; there is no substantiated evidence that he does.

Yes there is, you just choose to ignore it. Theism is highly more probable than non-theism, and I’ll continue to make my case on why.

What a load of pretentious nonsense. The bottom line of atheism I that there is insufficient evidence to warrant the belief in a god or gods. End of story.

More like, you just don’t want a God to exist so you’ll come up with any excuse to ignore the evidence and hold to silly beliefs such as non-theism which has 0 explanatory power, 0 explanatory scope, no simplicity and terrible plausibility. You can’t explain why existence exists without a God and this is why atheist scientists and philosophers will continue their search (many years of searching now and still no answers) to nothing.
It was the scientist Robert Jastrow who said it best
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
- God and the Astronomers

Certainly! But this is a conditional statement as indicated by “IF”. There is no more credible evidence for gods existing than unicorns existing, which was my point. They are both imaginary entities.

Yes there is, you have to dislodge the argument from reason!

Theists may “suppose that agency and consciousness are initial features of reality". But a mere supposition does not make it so. One needs hard evidence.

You mean like God just making it so obvious for you, right? Is your standard to become a Theist like Peter Boghossian? Do you demand God to write his name in the clouds, just so he can have your precious belief in him?

God is only in the debate inasmuch as he can be “supposed” to exist (Oppy’s word), but merely “supposing” God’s existence doesn't make his existence any more real than any other imaginary entity, e.g. invisible pink unicorns or elves.

First off I don’t think that we can say that those entities are imaginary. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. I think it’s possible that elves could exist, even if I was an atheist I don’t see why it’s impossible to state that they don’t exist and yet conclude that they are imaginary, perhaps they live in a multiverse.

Second, if you can derail my arguments for God, I’ll join your team I promise, but if you can’t then I hope you’d reconsider your position.

What I'm telling you that it makes no sense according to common word-usage to refer, as you did, to "religion" being devoid of the concept of a supernatural deity or power. This is what you did when you said: “I actually think superhuman control or anything involving agency isn't necessary”.

That doesn’t answer the question. Are Deists religious yes or no? Was the Deist George Washington a religious man?

What about Aristotle?

I’m not rejecting the value of Deductive Arguments; you’ve completely missed the point. All forms of Logic are very important within its limitations.

I disagree, for instance the law of excluded middle has no limitations, because if it did then this statement couldn’t tell us whether or not the forms of Logic are important within its limitations is either true or false.

The point is that in order to obtain a true conclusion in a Deductive Argument one must begin with a true premise. And the premises of Deductive Arguments can only be based upon the existing world-view of the day - which may or may not be “true”. E.g. what was considered self-evidently true in Aristotle’s day – or Aquinas’ day, has subsequently found to be incorrect in many cases - mostly thanks to increasing scientific knowledge of how the universe works. Hence, with an inaccurate premise one cannot arrive at a true conclusion.

But if the conclusion is true, then it doesn’t matter how much knowledge science gains because the truth is true in actuality. Time periods don’t change the truth.

So anyways, what was found to be incorrect?

No, I'm asserting that without a true premise in a deductive argument, one cannot arrive at a true conclusion other than by chance.

But your criteria demands that God should be verified, so this makes no sense. Otherwise what makes a true premise, true independent of verification? .

Indeed! But I’m not defending Logical Positivism, which a self-refuting argument as you say. But while Verificationism is rightly dismissed as an epistemological system, the thrust of its main argument has not been similarly dismissed and the verification of hypotheses about the natural world is an essential, productive and proven component of science.

I really don’t see much of a distinction between verificationism and logical positivism, with that being said scientific knowledge doesn’t account for all knowledge, and verificationism still works off of metaphysical presuppositions such as the reliability of the senses, and the uniformity principle. William Lane Craig has taken this down as well
He argues that by stating everything must be subject to falsification principles (verificationism). Verification and logical positivism then refutes itself. All I have to say is: "Is this statement empirically verifiable or falsifiable?" In order to meaningful an informative sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically verified.

Is that statement capable of being empirically verified? Well obviously not, there is no amount of scientific testing that you can do to verify that statement. So by it's own criterion the verification and falsification principles turn out to be meaningless combinations of words, or at best just arbitrary definitions, just conventional truths which we are at liberty to reject.


God is also a philosophical question rather than a scientific one, this is why we have a philosophy of religion facility in top universities such as Cambridge and Oxford.

Certainly, but this does not mean the premises are true, just that you believe them to be true; there’s a difference. You are confusing a valid argument with a “true" or "sound" argument.

I guess you missed it when I said this,
“You do not need to be certain of the premises in order for the argument to be sound. If certainty was the criterion for a good argument, there would be almost no good arguments”

And again: “Verificationism” is NOT my epistemology. See above. You’re fighting a strawman.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

Thus is merely an Argument from Ignorance!

That’s impossible, because you made an argument stating that my explanation is superfluous, but yet didn’t explain how, you just asserted it, so if you can so why your explanation is better than I’d agree that God isn’t necessary and is an extra step in the explanation. What you’re doing here is shifting the burden of proof, so if you think that God is superfluous explain to me the alternative, if you can’t then I’ll dismiss the claim that God is superfluous because you have nothing to work with.

[Cornell]

Tassman

Of course invoking a “god-did-it” argument adds steps or traits; “god-did-it” is the step or trait and it’s unwarranted by the evidence. Parsimony applies.

Explain to me how God-did-it is an extra step compared to nature-did-it, and we can count the steps together. Explain to me what ‘nature-did-it’ is actually composed off while you’re at it.

Yet another Straw-man! No one’s arguing that evolution makes complexity arise from simplicity by magic. The only "magic" I see here is the god-did-it argument for which there is no credible evidence at all. This as compared to Evolution for which there is considerable evidence.

So in the same breath you shoot yourself in the foot.

On the one hand no one’s arguing that evolution makes complexity arise from simplicity by magic, but yet on the other hand evolution has credible evidence with respect to the explanation. So which is it?

The evidence indicates that complexity is generated by the addition and interaction of many simple improvements to a system via natural mutations. This is how Evolution works. There’s no doubt about this and no reason to assume that self-awareness and rationality didn't arise incrementally in this way and good reason to think it did. Everything else is a Red Herring.

So how did it arise incrementally, what exactly happened? Show me step by step what exactly happened. Forgot about your subjective view of what is considered to be complex and what isn’t, explain to me how nonrational matter somehow became rational matter given the fact that rationality didn’t always exist. Once again you’re just punting to evolutiondidit
Give me something to work with, how did evolutiondoit? I’m offering you suggestions
It created rationality ex nihilo by magic and went poof?
It took rationality from another dimension?
How did it do it?

How does invoking God "help your case"?

Ah so you have to answer my question with a question, this usually means that you have no idea so you’re forced to shift the burden to me, well I’ll be glad to tell you.
Premise - There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.
This is referred to as the Big conjunctive contingent fact,

Craig puts this into perspective

"...there cannot be an explanation of what Alexander Pruss calls the Big Contingent Conjunctive Fact (BCCF) which is itself the conjunction of all the contingent facts there are. [...] For if the explanation of the BCCF is contingent, then it, too, must have a further explanation, which is impossible, since the BCCF includes all the contingent facts there are. On the other hand if the explanation of the BCCF is necessary, then the fact explained by it must also be necessary, which is impossible, since the BCCF is contingent."
Pruss argues that that P can explain Q without P entailing Q. So it doesn't need to be that "if the explanation of the BCCF is necessary, then the fact explained by it must also be necessary, which is impossible, since the BCCF is contingent

Do you follow so far?

And why do you need to avoid an infinite regression? If a hypothetical deity can exist eternally then so can the matter of the universe - and there is actual evidence for the latter based upon the Laws of Nature and NO credible evidence for the former. A law of physics is that energy cannot be created, and even in apparent nothingness actual nothingness appears to be impossible. Aquinas’ concern about “infinite regression” is an Argument from Ignorance which doesn't take Quantum Physics into account.

The reasons why one needs to avoid an infinite regression are obvious, and Non-theism has no answer to this because it lacks a rational being with free will.

The infinite regress cannot explain itself, and this is because it doesn’t take into account the fact that there can be more to explaining the conjunction than explaining the conjuncts. If there were an infinite regress of explanations then , individual explanations of each one’s presence would miss the point of explaining why there are an infinite number of explanations that are all there. There is a coincidence to be explained. This first objection is a bit shaky, and it can be strengthened so I’ll await your response here.

No its not. See above re the necessity for a true premise in order to arrive at a true conclusion.

Yes it is, your criteria for the necessity for a true premise in order to arrive at a true conclusions entails the belief that it must be verified. Why is it that you were so gung ho about verificationism before (advising me how important it is to science and how it’s a proven commodity), and now you’re downplaying it?

“SEZ” the Rules of Logic, that’s who. Namely, only if the premises of a valid argument are true can its conclusion be true (other than by chance).

Ah so the limited rules of logic come into play when it’s convenient, but now you’re dancing all over the place, just before you said
‘All forms of Logic are very important within its limitations.’

Key point, within its limitations, so you concede the point that it has limitations, but you never tell me exactly what they are, and you seem to hold tightly the rules of logic when they help your case, so I want to hear what exactly these limitations are.

A metaphysical premise cannot be established as true on its own account; it can only be based upon existing knowledge. It doesn’t have the methodology to acquire new facts about the natural world. Conversely, science does; it has the scientific method.

Hence, while new scientific facts can prove a metaphysical argument to be wrong, the reverse is not the case - i.e. a metaphysical argument cannot prove a scientific argument to be wrong.

And I think that’s entirely false, I mean I agree with you when it comes to empirical facts, but when it comes to conceptual truths I think your claim is egregiously false, because science works off of metaphysical presuppositions and if what you’re saying is true then we have an absolute disaster on our hands.

Science works off the metaphysical premise that it’s reasonable to conclude that other minds exist besides his own, well if he somehow proves this to be wrong then he is caught up in a solipsism and forced to believe that he is the only mind in existence, but if this solipsism is one that works off of what he thinks then he could revert back to believing it’s reasonable to conclude that other minds exist besides his own again and change his reality…..but the objective reality is still a solipsism, and the scientist is holding to a false belief.

So I highly disagree with you, and I actually think that metaphysics is just as important as science. Don’t worry though, because science is powerless when it comes to debunking first principles.
I suggest you search harder, and look at his degree.

No it doesn't; its word playing sleight-of-hand and typical of Arguments from Reason, so-called. How does pure spirit connect with the matter of a material body; where is the nexus?

Ahhh the overrated interaction problem that is easily answered by pointing out the fact that dualism does not require that the mind exist in radical independence from the physical brain.
The second problem is the fact that there is nothing we can find even in physical causal relationships, such as necessary conditions, so this dispels the mystery of how A causes B.

Last this objection basically amounts to “by what mechanisms does the mind interact with the body?” But this begs the question, because it assumes that all causation is mechanistic, so you’re presupposing the truth of your worldview and running with it as if it’s absolutely true, but this is precisely what is at issue here.

Therefore this objection fails just like it always does,

BTW: The Official CS Lewis Website doesn’t mention his qualifications as a philosopher, but I can’t be bothered arguing about it. He’s a spent force and so are his apologist acolytes such as Plantinga and Reppert.

He has a degree in ancient philosophy, what qualifications fit your view exactly?

These are some of the papers that I told you to look at on that philosophy database that was linked much earlier, perhaps you should stop worrying about acolytes with your ad-hominem nonsense and start looking at substance. Put your emotions aside and start giving respect where respect is due IMO…I’m not saying you have to worship the guy, but he is an academic.

C. S. Lewis (1945). Beyond Personality. the Centenary Press.

C. S. Lewis (1943). Christian Behaviour. New York, the Macmillan Company.
C. S. Lewis (1993). Friendship-The Least Necessary Love. In Neera Kapur Badhwar (ed.), Friendship: A Philosophical Reader. Cornell University Press. 39--47.

Given that you do not utilize the “view post” facility plus “snip” my responses, I cannot easily refer back to confirm what I said. You obviously like to give yourself the advantage.

Yeah I guess that ‘find’ tool on the webpage is hard, I guess you also don’t realize the fact that I respond to your views in chronological order….yep some advantage,

But I believe I said that there is insufficient evidence to establish either the existence of gods OR highly intelligent creator aliens. But that of the two possibilities the latter are more likely in that they obey the physical laws of the universe where gods are hypothesized to be above them.

So you think God can only be created by a universe that already exists, right? Therefore you think God’s can only be contingent?

So many words to say so little! The Necessary/Contingency argument of Aquinas is an example of how a premise grounded in an incorrect world-view will arrive at a wrong conclusion. Aquinas knew nothing of the counter-intuitive nature of the quantum micro-universe and based his argument upon the only universe he was aware of, namely the the macro-universe.

Aquinas doesn’t argue a necessary/contingency argument so I think you should sharpen up on your natural theology. I think you meant to say G.W Leibniz
So before you start making claims of me not bowing down to your verificationist epistemology, you should at least understand what the arguments are, and if you’re going to be name dropping, you should get the correct name of the philosopher, because it makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about when you state the incorrect one.

His efficient cause’s argument is that there must be a first cause because efficient causes cannot extend infinitely into the past. But there are good reasons to think an actual infinity is possible, and no empirical reason to think it’s impossible. A law of physics is that energy cannot be created, and even in apparent nothingness actual nothingness appears to be impossible.

Aquinas doesn’t mind an infinite past, have you actually ever read his works? This isn’t the Kalam, so if you want to argue against the Kalam, wait till I bring it up.

Here is a quick lesson in cosmological arguments, (so much for thinking that you studied the opposition)
Thomas Aquinas argues for an unmoved mover, an infinite universe or a finite universe is irrelevant to his conclusion
G.W Leibniz argues for contingency and uses the principle of sufficient reason, he argues that there can’t be an infinite regress of causation.
William Lane Craig argues for the case that an actual infinite is impossible

This is a classic example of how new facts about the nature of the universe can show how a metaphysical argument based upon a superseded world-view is simply wrong.

I don’t see where I was shown to be wrong, can you try that one more time and actually attack the cosmological argument that I’m defending?

No, it’s true because a premise based upon an assumed self-evident truth can be shown to be wrong by the acquisition of new knowledge – see above re quantum mechanics and Aquinas.

The self-evident truths that I use are conceptual in nature, and not empirical so by all means show them to be wrong. We can start with the fact that I think ‘I Exist’ I think that this is self-evidently true, so hopefully you can back up your words and prove me wrong.
Go ahead show me that I’m wrong by using science!

Begging the Question! Why would you assume that anything was created by a divinity and thus having “the divine touch”?

Because everything created by a divinity would be created by the divinity unless somehow the necessary being responsible for all contingent states of affairs wasn’t the necessary being responsible for all contingent states of affairs. To say that the divine isn’t responsible for all contingent states of affairs is to talk about a different ‘divine’ and as we’ve seen your god is very small, incoherent and not something that I’d ever defend, so I can understand why you’re an atheist.

Yes! Do you have good reason to suggest rationality did NOT arise from the incremental process of natural selection as a survival mechanism given that this is demonstrably how Evolution works? Why wouldn't this be the case regarding "rationality" given that EVERY phenomenon which has been explored in detail to date has had a naturalistic solution - without a single exception in several hundred years of scientific research?

Maybe because there is no distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism?

Anyways you’re just shifting the burden of proof here, and all you’re saying is ‘evolution works’ therefore it can explain anything no matter how silly it sounds.

But I’m skeptical of this gullibility you have in the godless evolution, my first argument which has still went unblemished was the fact that materialism cannot account for intentionality, and therefore evolution + materialism cannot account for rationality. Here is another argument put forth by Laurence Bonjour, let’s see if you resort to ad-hominems with him, just as you did with C.S Lewis.

“I don’t see how the conscious intentional content is physical, that is to say the conscious thoughts being about various things in a way that can be grasped or understood by the person in question. Take the example of a brilliant neurophysiologist who goes by the name of Mary, Suppose she studies me as a subject and comes to have a complete knowledge of my physical and neurophysiological makeup as I am thinking these various thoughts. Well can she determine on that basis what I am consciously thinking about at a particular moment? The one thing that seems the most clear to me is the fact that she could not do this merely on the basis of knowing my internal physical characteristics -- as it is sometimes put, knowing everything physical that happens inside my skin. There is no reason for me at all to think that the internal structure of my physical and neurophysiological states could somehow by itself determine that I am thinking about stocks rather than about the Ukraine or the stock market.”
QED

[QUOTE] Cherry-picked quotes. No links. And all irrelevant in any case. There is no reason to doubt the Evolutionary process and no substantive reason to support an alternative approach. {/QUOTE]

1. Once again

Argument from intentionality - Thoughts are "about" things. But it makes no sense to say that one physical state is about another physical state. Rational inference implies the existence of "aboutness." Thus, materialism is false.


Unless evolution used magic or was guided by an omniscient being, it will lack an explanation for why rationality exists in humans.

[QUOTE] No dilemma. Knowing the facts about how the universe functions increases our chances of survival. False beliefs do not necessarily lead to extinction; that wasn't the argument. [QUOTE]

So I guess knowing the facts about how the universe increases our chances of survival, so when it comes to those false beliefs of prayer, tithing, church service, baptism and all of that other stuff, we still survive anyways right?

“a priori” assumes something that is already known or self-evident; this doesn't apply to deities; it does apply to mathematics. So the latter is fine but I don’t approve if inculcating innocent young minds with mythological concepts, although I would go so far as Dawkins and call it “child-abuse”.

A priori doesn’t assume lol, it’s either knowledge or it isn’t. When was the last time you cracked open a book in epistemology?
Well, virtually the ENTIRE philosophical community disagrees with you there. That's akin to saying to biologists that their taxonomy is all wrong. Well, you can assert it but if you're right then you need to start making the case and overthrowing the accepted paradigm. An assumption is something baseless but most a priori claims have justification. Analytic ones, for example, have internal coherence as support for them.
First of all, a priori is a type of knowledge, not belief. Secondly, it is not based on assumptions, but necessary logical truths which exist within objects and scenarios. An a priori means I can make a knowledge claim about an object or scenario without directly experiencing it myself. Most derive from analytic propositions,where the predicate is already contained in the subject. Hence, the analytic a priori.
Example if needed
Experience is required to learn the relevant concepts involved in an a priori claim, but having grasped the concepts, you don't need to depend on experience for their epistemic justification. Thus, I might learn 2+2=4 by having added sea shells, pebbles, apples, etc. together; but having grasped the concepts of addition, equation, 2 and 4, I don't need experience to justify my belief that 2+2=4. I've never added two black swans with other two black swans to get four black swans, for example - but I don't need to do that, in order to believe that two black swans plus two black swans equals four black swans.

The argument from reason suffers the same difficulty that all metaphysical arguments do, namely the fact that all the reliable evidence we have points to naturalism, and none of it points to non-natural causation. None!

You can chirp all you want, but you haven’t defeated the problem of intentionality, wishing it away and pretending that everything supports your views doesn’t magically make it go away.

I don’t accept a naturalism vs. supernatualism distinction, however I do accept a materialistic vs. dualistic distinction, and materialism is entirely incoherent.

But it is not, quite the reverse. See above.

Problem of intentionality, try answering it, you can even go through all the nonsense that materialists have tried to use over the years.

We’re talking the rules of Logic, not science, and for a true conclusion to be arrived at it in a Deductive Argument the argument must be based upon a true premise. And philosophy does not have the methodology to generate new truths about nature. It can only reformulate the truths contained in our existing models, theories and laws as arrived at by science. Only science has the methodology to generated new knowledge about how the universe functions.

If philosophy doesn’t have the methodology to generate new truths about nature then how should I take this philosophical conclusion of yours right here?

The most productive tool for understanding reality is scientific methodology. It has the ability to empirically test its hypotheses; philosophy does not.

I see that you’re philosophizing and coming to the conclusion that philosophy can’t test its hypothesis, so how do I test this statement of yours? And if the most productive tool for understanding reality is scientific methodology why do you philosophize so much? I mean can you use the scientific method on the scientific method? Could you use the scientific method to support this statement of yours up above? I see that you didn’t so why are you being such a hypocrite? (Sparko rightly called you out on this)

Are you suggesting that you can show something to be true when it isn't capable of being verified? Why should I believe your unverified claim just on your say so?

Yes, So when you say no belief can be justified without evidence, which can be interpreted by verification, was this belief learnt directly through verification?
How does one touch, smell, taste, hear, or see this foundational belief?
The answer to this is: verification doesn’t reveal this truth claim, it is self-refuting!

So now you add a Circular Argument Fallacy to your Special Pleading Fallacy.

Can you verify this objection with the scientific method? If you can’t I’ll just dismiss it

Correct. And unlike god-did-it, Evolution is supported by considerable whereas Theism is not.

this makes no sense, because Theism isn’t in contention with evolution, try reading some Theistic evolutionists and catch up with the times.

Your “better explanation” lacks supportive evidence. Rationality and Reason can be argued as arising from the laws of physics as applied to us. Furthermore, such evidence as there is suggests a natural explanation; NONE points to anything else. Thus, the obvious “best bet” is being a naturalist.

Ok use the laws of physics, recreate the scene where rationality came about.

[Tassman]

nor does it damage any of the newer arguments that we see today. The philosophical arguments are actually better now, because we have more and more bright minds to work with. I see Theists getting closer to making an argument that leads to being virtually certain that a God exists.

Yep, it does; it pretty-well wrecks their arguments. The arguments of Aristotle or Aquinas are based upon the intuitive concept of a macroscopic universe. They had no knowledge of the counter-intuitive microscopic universe which we now know to be the reality.

God is not subject to the laws of nature.God is why the laws of nature are here,

Bald Assertions, i.e. Logical Fallacies.

The second problem with this is that when a naturalist states one cannot define God their claim is ultimately self-refuting, since by defining God as undefinable, one has engaged in an act of definition. It would be like uttering in English the sentence "I cannot speak a word of English."

providing the best explanation for why it is like this.

Ok, so then helping this old lady means nothing then, simply because I was forced to do it from the blind watchmaker evolutionary process. These instincts are nothing but a delusion. That is to say, if determinism is true because of the blind nonrational magical evolutionary process and materialism, then we aren't morally responsible for our actions.

to get to heaven and avoid eternal punishment.

.

Our ability to think rationally and draw reliable conclusions from our reasoning enhances our ability to survive. There is no reason to think that this quality didn't develop incrementally via natural selection. What in your view gave matter rationality, God? Evidence please.

There are no rights if Theism is false,

Of course they are - based upon the naturally selected instincts to maintain social cohesion; we are evolved social animals after all. There is no reason whatsoever to think they depend upon the magical thinking of theism.

"not being dependent upon a contingent being", IF, as is hypothesised, the universe is itself eternal the concept of a Necessary Being of any sort is irrelevant. And, for all your talk about the lack of absolute knowledge in science, it is philosophy which is dependent upon the evolving understandings of science for its world-view.

I agree. Philosophy and mathematics are the glue that holds the scientific enterprise together; they are essential components of science. But neither of these disciplines can establish new facts about the universe on their own. For this you need science.

There is no good evidence to think theism is true.

And the point just flew over your head, but I thank you for agreeing with me on the fact that primitive people did have access to truths about reality. Drinking water quenches thirst was one of them.

But they were wrong about the necessity to appease the angry spirits, which was the point you missed.

So if this is the case, then are you conceding the fact that your arguments right now are primitive?

Wait, so can philosophy lead us to knowledge or did you change things up?

I see no distinction at all.

And as I argued before, there is no norm, just arbitrary blind watchmaking at work!

Evolution is about mutations and where they lead, not initially about instincts.

Are you absolutely sure about this?

Theism has much more simplicity, coherency, explanatory scope and power than everything else

Ah yes, mythological tales are often much more satisfying than scientific arguments, they appeal to our primal urges. Although the Nordic Gods do this much better than the Abrahamic. This doesn't mean any of them are true of course.

[Tassman]

The belittlement is justified, because those who adhere to scientism are those who hand-wave at philosophy, but yet can never solve their number one problem.

1 The only things that we can know are those that are scientifically proven to be true.
2 Premise 1 hasn't been scientifically proven to be true.
3. Thus, based off of premise 1 and 2, there's no reason to believe 1.
4 Therefore it is self-refuting and incoherent to think that we can't know something just because it hasn't been scientifically proven.

More like,

Your personal opinion based as usual on supposition not fact.

Yes there is, you have to dislodge the argument from reason!

You mean like God just making it so obvious for you, right? Is your standard to become a Theist like Peter Boghossian? Do you demand God to write his name in the clouds, just so he can have your precious belief in him?

are merely NOT fact; your own quotes said so.

Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.

Maybe not, but does not equal credible evidence for God either.

This is not the point. You claimed that:

I disagree, for instance the law of excluded middle has no limitations

But if the conclusion is true,

THOUGHT

But your criteria demands that God should be verified, so this makes no sense. Otherwise what makes a true premise, true independent of verification?

By the criteria of Deductive Logic (not just my criteria), without a true premise in a deductive argument one cannot arrive at a true conclusion other than by chance - this applies to arguments about God and to every other Deductive Argument.

There isn't.

the thrust of its main argument has not been similarly dismissed. The verification of hypotheses about the natural world remains an essential, productive and proven component of science.

Note the bolded.

God is also a philosophical question rather than a scientific one, this is why we have a philosophy of religion facility in top universities such as Cambridge and Oxford.

I guess YOU

[Sparko]

For Sparko everything is philosophy. For him "the cat sat on the mat" is a philosophical statement.

do you even understand what philosophy is? It is reasoning and making logical arguments to prove your points. It also includes science as a subset. Now whether your philosophical arguments are valid or not, is a point of debate, but so far all I have seen from you in this thread is claims that science is everything and philosophy is useless, and your attempts at proving that by using philosophy. And that, my friend, is ironic indeed.

[JimL]

JIML



You do it constantly when you keep attempting to argue that philosophy alone can’t get us to knowledge.



It shows the limits of science, it is an example of why the growth of science is self-limited.



And your concept has no assurance on whether or not anything in world is what it seems, so you base your first assumption on either blind faith or a basic belief. You have not solved the problem of the external world, and this is why you try and sugarcoat it to the point where you don’t think this is a problem, so you just shrug your shoulders and make pretend that there is no problem, because that’s your only way out. Too bad it’s not that easy.

Then comes the problem of what forms such a constraint might take on the advancement of learning.

Pace Peter Medawar, at its most forward frontiers, science is at the very limit of comprehensibility. A secientist henceforward must train for ten to fifteen years if he is to take his place in the front line of those engaged in the struggle for understanding, and even as it is, modern science is beyond comprehension of any one mind. This would be different if science had a goal that could be attained, but it has not, this is because there can in science be no apodictic certainty beyond the reach of criticism. A scientist must spend years upon years before he can become adequately proficient in research, the scientist takes much longer than that already, for what is research but learning – and what scientist ever feels that, being complete, his research is now finished? So in conclusion the nature of science is such that a scientist goes on learning all his life – and must – and exults in the obligation upon him to do so. There is no determinate process of education at the conclusion of which a scientist can flex his muscles and pronounce himself ready at last to take part in the long struggle against ignorance and disease.



And for all we know, this probably hasn’t changed, but since you can’t predict the future nor have access to what really is in an absolute sense, you have no argument, because you haven’t proved anything. You’ve given evidence sure, but I already accept the evidence, I just don’t call it a proof in the absolute sense, because science isn’t big enough for that.



So prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that this demonstration will not change in 100,000 years. Every scientific anti-realist and postmodernist will gladly ditch their views if you can do this.



Can you please prove to me the fact that these things will not change? I mean I put a lot of stock into the uniformity of nature as well, but I can’t prove that the sun will rise tomorrow if you catch my drift.

Or maybe reality just popped into being 4 minutes ago with an appearance of age? How does one prove the reliability of the past?



Demonstrate it to me then, I want reasons on why 1,000,000 years from now no new data will dislodge these scientifically proven facts from absolute certainty, and show me why the uniformity of nature will never change.

Then let’s laugh at Bertrand Russell for getting it wrong,

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

- Bertrand Russell, ‘Religion and Science’

According to Bertrand Russell, you follow science as if it’s a religion. I think he’s right, as you are claiming certain scientific theories are absolutely true, a claim that I rarely see any scientists in academia ever make.


This is just an assertion, as you didn’t advise me on how you KNEW this.



According to these great minds, I actually know a lot more about science than you do.

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. What we usually call ‘scientific knowledge’ is, as a rule, not knowledge in this sense, but rather information regarding the various competing hypotheses and they in which they stood up to various tests; it is, using the language of Plato and Aristotle, information concerning the latest, and the best tested, scientific opinion. This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

- Sir Karl Popper, ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1: The Spell of Plato’ pg 229

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

- Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion" in The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion”

You take a religious mindset when it comes to science, I don’t, as I'm fully aware of the limits of science.



Because conceptual truths are not the same thing as empirical truths, the latter relies heavily on the reliability of the senses.

Science can’t ever get past the uniformity principle, and when I say it can’t get past it, I mean that science has to presuppose it, just like it presupposes the universe not being a simulation. This is why science cannot know anything for certain. Science can’t tell us whether or not our memories are working properly with respect to recalling the correct information. For all we know we could be recalling the wrong information, so we’re forced to presuppose the reliability of memory.



No it isn’t because skepticism about the external world is not the same thing as skepticism towards everything. Once again you are mixing up empirical truths with conceptual truths.

Another important point is that if the universe is contingent then there are no necessary features about our universe. In ‘Contempory Debates in epistemology’ I was convinced by the fact that in the real world certain properties are necessary features of reality. But in the brain in a vat world (or simulated world) they are merely empirical regularities. You seem to try and sugarcoat the simulated world by saying ‘well it doesn’t matter anyways’ well this isn’t a refutation, because you’re not making any argument against the possibility of a simulated world in itself so the skepticism still stands. This is why science cannot discover absolute truths about the universe.



You assume that ‘we’ exist, science can’t even prove my existence to you, or your own existence to me. You assume that other minds exist besides your own, and your only justification for this assumption is a conclusion based off your presupposition that I exist, though your conclusion has absolutely nothing to do with science, but everything to do with a metaphysical presupposition.

You also say it’s ‘highly unlikely’ that we live in a simulation, but you don’t give me any reason for this.

Last, a priori knowledge isn’t dependent upon whether or not I’m in a simulation, because I’d argue the case that there are truths that reside in all possible worlds. For instance ‘If something is necessarily true, then it’s impossible to be false’ this PROPOSITION is necessarily true in all possible worlds.



Likewise



I disagree, if you go, then I go. My existence is contingent upon yours, even if I’m just a thought.



Of course I do, as I’ve studied skepticism for many years. The problem is you keep misunderstanding the difference between a solipsism, problem of the external world, and the problem of perception. They aren’t all the same.

He that says nothing can be known, o'erthrows his own opinion.
For he nothing knows, so knows not that.
What need for long dispute?
These maxims kill themselves,
themselves confute!
--------------------------------Lucretius

[Tassman]

do you even understand what philosophy is? It is reasoning and making logical arguments to prove your points. It also includes science as a subset. Now whether your philosophical arguments are valid or not, is a point of debate, but so far all I have seen from you in this thread is claims that science is everything and philosophy is useless, and your attempts at proving that by using philosophy. And that, my friend, is ironic indeed.

Utter nonsense!

I have NEVER said that philosophy is useless. I have frequently argued, in these very forums, that philosophy is the glue that holds the scientific structure together, ensures its self-consistency, and prevents errors of false inference. However, and this is the only caveat, philosophy cannot generate new truths about nature. It doesn’t have the methodology to do this; it can only reformulate existing knowledge as found in the current models, theories and laws of nature. Only science has the methodology to generate new truths about nature.

[Tassman]

by magic,

You are. You offered magic as a possible solution.

but yet on the other hand evolution has credible evidence with respect to the explanation. So which is it?

Complexity has demonstrably evolved from simplicity via Natural Selection.

You should understand how Natural Selection works. Educate yourself:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.htmlReductio ad Absurdum; how you love your Logical Fallacies.

SNIP!

Do you follow so far?

The reasons why one needs to avoid an infinite regression are obvious, and Non-theism has no answer to this because it lacks a rational being with free will.

The infinite regress cannot explain itself,

And why does it have to explain itself?

I want to hear what exactly these limitations are.

The rules of logic are essential to science within their limitations and the limitations, as stated numerous times, are that they can only reformulate existing facts about the universe. They are not able to discover new facts about the universe; only science has the methodology for this.

SNIP!

know that it does. Gotcha!

Uh, no! I see no credible evidence of any sort for a deity.

Once again: If a hypothetical deity can exist eternally then so can the matter of the universe - and there is actual evidence for the latter based upon the Laws of Nature and NO credible evidence for the former.

A law of physics states that that energy cannot be created, and even in apparent nothingness actual nothingness appears to be impossible. This is the quantum vacuum and it is hypothesized that it has existed eternally.

and prove me wrong.

Maybe because there is no distinction between naturalism and supernaturalism?

You mean that there is no evidence of anything more than the natural universe, as governed by the laws and constants of nature. I agree! So why are you a theist?

SNIP!

1. Once again

Argument from intentionality - Thoughts are "about" things. But it makes no sense to say that one physical state is about another physical state. Rational inference implies the existence of "aboutness." Thus, materialism is false.

Once again: There is no reason to assume that rationality did not arise incrementally via natural selection as have the other human qualities.

When there's so much data and emerging science in areas like neurobiology, conventional biology, sociobiology, human psychology, emergence, evolution, physics, etc. that actually can and will provide real answers, why should one care about metaphysical speculation based upon a static world-view?

Unless evolution used magic or was guided by an omniscient being, it will lack an explanation for why rationality exists in humans.

This is an argument from ignorance, i.e. a god-of-the-gaps argument. There is no reason to assume that rationality did not arise incrementally via natural selection as have the other human qualities.

So I guess knowing the facts about how the universe increases our chances of survival, so when it comes to those false beliefs of prayer, tithing, church service, baptism and all of that other stuff, we still survive anyways right?

SNIP!

none of it points to anything else.

I do accept a materialistic vs. dualistic distinction, and materialism is entirely incoherent.

Despite the lack of substantive evidence, that'd be right. Where is the nexus between the material body and the immaterial soul again?

If you disagree with it then you need to show the mechanism whereby philosophy can acquire new facts about nature. This as opposed to the scientific method which demonstrably can!

That is not what I said. Only science has the methodology to generate new knowledge about how the universe functions. Philosophy has many uses including the ability to reformulate the truths contained in our existing models, theories and laws as arrived at by science. Only science has the methodology to generate new knowledge about how the universe functions. As said previously, philosophy is useful within its limits.

this makes no sense, because , try reading some Theistic evolutionists and catch up with the times.

Ok use the laws of physics, recreate the scene where rationality came about.

What part of incrementalism via favourable mutations over millions of years did you not understand?

[Sparko]

Utter nonsense!

I have NEVER said that philosophy is useless. I have frequently argued, in these very forums, that philosophy is the glue that holds the scientific structure together, ensures its self-consistency, and prevents errors of false inference. However, and this is the only caveat,

You have already been given examples of how philosophy can generate new truths about nature. Especially OUR own nature. Or rather I should say "discover" new truths, since you don't "generate" truth, you just uncover it.

utter fail on your part.

[JimL]

Originally posted by Cornell

I think I exist, I think that this is self evidently true, so I hope you can back up your words and prove me wrong.

Exactly what do you mean by "I" in the above quote Cornell?

[Tassman]

You have already been given examples of how philosophy can generate new truths about nature. Especially OUR own nature. Or rather I should say "discover" new truths, since you don't "generate" truth, you just uncover it.

utter fail on your part.

Nope. A metaphysical premise cannot be established as true on its own account - it can only be based upon existing factual knowledge, which may or may not be true. It doesn't have the methodology to acquire new facts, whereas science does. Thus philosophy can reformulate the existing known facts, sometimes enabling us to view them in a new way, but they remain grounded in the existing world-view. E.g. Aristotle's world-view was grounded in the intuitive notion of a geocentric universe. It took scientific methodology to prove that he was wrong.

Or rather I should say "discover" new truths,since you don't "generate" truth, you just uncover it.

You don't actually. It is a process,not a discovery and it involves input from several branches of the natural sciences and multiple testing of hypotheses. There are very few "eureka moments" in science.