Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why not deep time?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Mr." Black must be a hoot to debate with.

    What would be the topic "Methodological Naturalism vs. Non-Methodological Supernaturalism"?

    Fundies say the darndest things...

    K54

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
      I'm not sure I follow. How can science, which is limited to this plane of reality, falsify this plane of reality itself? Or do you mean certain particular beliefs about things within this plane of reality?
      By scientific methods science progressively tests and falsifies certain aspects of our physical existence through hypothesis and theories. Science cannot falsify the physical existence itself.

      Exactly. "All hypotheses and events"---including origins and reason the current operations of the external world are taking place. This requires one to assume that God is behind none of it.
      No, it does not. Methodological Naturalism is not capable of falsifying a hypothesis that God is behind none of it. In fact as a theist and scientist I assume God is behind it.

      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      ...clearly states that scientific methods cannot address theology questions because the methods can only test the objective 'testable' and 'falsifiable' nature of our physical existence.
      Which do not include origins, since that's in the past.
      True, science cannot falsify a hypothesis proposing the absolute origins of everything, i. e. our physical existence. Methodological Naturalism can only falsify theories and hypothesis of origins of 'things' within the scope of our physical existence.

      This, again, begs the question, as neutrality is impossible when it comes to the biblical worldview. Since God created everything outside of Himself, including man, and everything we do, including every thought we have, is to be under subjection to God's supreme authority (1 Corinthians 10:31, 2 Corinthians 10:5), any attempt to be "neutral" is in fact sinful and rebellious. Any approach to science that excludes the supernatural as an explanation for origins or the continual upholding of the laws of physics begs the question against the biblical worldview. Thus Christ said, "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12;30, Luke 11:23). Anyone who disagrees with Christ's statement has already disagreed with Him from the start, thus begging the question.
      There is no begging the question involved here, since all you cited above involves theological questions which are out of the realm of possibility from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism.

      1.) Straw man fallacy. Go back and re-read my statement. I said, "The Christian has testimony from an all-knowing being who has observed every area in the universe." I did not say, "All Christians believe that testimony".
      No strawman here. when stated that 'The Christian has testimony . . .' you did not qualify that this did not include all Christians. If you qualify this by 'The Christian testimony that believe as I do . . . then you would not be referring to ALL Christians.

      2.) But since you bring it up, biblically speaking, a Christian is someone who follows Christ and believes what He teaches, and He taught the Old Testament as well, which includes God's claim to be omniscient and omnipresent. If they deny a fundamental aspect of God's nature, they are in fact espousing a false god, and thus engaging in idolatry, not Christianity.
      The problem is most Christians, of course, may agree with the above, but still markedly disagree with the version of Christianity you believe and your argument in this thread.

      3.) The Bible is the authority on who does, or does not, qualify as a Christian. Take responsibility for your own claims and do not refer to Christians collectively as falling in line with your non-authoritative and arbitrary definition.
      I do definitely take responsibility for my reference to Christianity collectively, because I acknowledge the diversity of beliefs without stereotyping which is the correct version or not.




      You have misunderstood the question. I'm not asking you about what you have observed, but rather about what you have not observed.
      Not having evidence against a claim is not the same thing as having evidence for said claim. I don't doubt that you have never seen a contradiction take place. But that is not the issue. It's one thing to say that contradictions have not happened, but it's entirely another to say that contradictions cannot happen.
      How do you know that the law of non-contradiction is absolute?
      I fully understand the questions you are asking, and again the question represent an Argument form Ignorance by definition.

      Never said contradictions cannot possibly happen from the human perspective, but of course, you have to answer to that possibility yourself, because you are a fallible human and not God.

      I'm not questioning uniformity (as a Christian I have every good reason to hold to it).
      Claims of contradiction from the perspective of different religious beliefs is problematic, because the Jew, Muslim, Roman Church believers would consider you in contradiction with God's Law of non-contradiction.

      m questioning is your worldview's ability to justify the claim that nature is uniform? What is the basis for such a claim in your worldview?
      I have answered this question repeatedly many times and there is no reason to repeat it. Seer got it right when he said, 'red is red, regardless if you are blind.'

      I already addressed this straw man above. My claims have to do with what the Bible says when it's read in context. You do believe that written communication is possible, no?
      No you did not address this except by an assertion of belief. Of course, written communication is possible, but unfortunately by the evidence of the history of fallible humans, interpretations are highly variable.

      [quote] If this were true you would be a Christian, because my view of the law of non-contradiction (LNC henceforth) is that it's an eternal reflection of the biblical God's thinking, which is derived from the Bible.

      What we agree on is that the LNC is absolute.
      The Law of non-contradiction is absolute from the perspective of God, but not the fallible anecdotal claims of human belief, because of the unfortunate huge diversity of these claims, and everyone who believes differently is in contradiction.

      my question is, what the basis for such a claim in your worldview?
      answered this many times, see above.

      Hundreds of years of observation have yielded results that are consistent with the claim, but those observations have not proven it. And before one could have any rational grounds for making scientific observations (or doing science at all) they would already have to have justification for the claim that contradictions are impossible, or else they would be left with an absurd view of reality, and science would make no sense.
      Again, again, again and again this is a fallacy an Argument from Ignorance as defined: Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

      It is up to you to prove it false, and not just assume it is false. You cannot prove the Law of no-contradiction demonstrating the continuity and uniformity as demonstrated by the 100% of objective observations in history is false.

      Which god are you referring to? If it's not the biblical God, then who is it? How do you know that he/she/it created anything?
      I have answered this question repeatedly, there is only one God. I believe in that God.

      Fallacy of irrelevant thesis and straw man again. I'm repeating what the Bible, which is the Word of God, teaches, and Christians are, by definition, followers of God who submit to the clear teaching of His Word. You cannot speak for God and define His followers in a way that's more convenient for you.
      I am not narrowly defining Christians as believing one way or another. It is you who is equating Christians as believing as you do,

      This is not what I asked. You have indeed dodged. I asked, "who is the god of whom you speak, and how can you know anything about him?" You have given no answer.
      I have answered the question, but of course sense you believe you know the absolute truth of God, will not accept it, but nonetheless I have done so. If you wish more information read the information concerning the Baha'i Faith yourself.

      You cannot speak for God as to who qualifies as a Christian, nor what views one can hold and still remain a Christian. That's God's area.
      I never claim this, cite my posts correctly.

      This is not an answer to my question. If you can't know anything for sure, then do you justify this claim of your about fallibility right here?
      No problem, by the evidence, humans throughout history have clearly demonstrated their fallible limited nature.

      You have begged the question again, shuny. How can you know what "sufficient justification" even is if you can't know anything for sure? Please justify this claim of yours. The fact that you're making knowledge claims after having denied knowledge demonstrates that you really do know the biblical God, who grants epistemic certainty to all of His creatures, and you are suppressing that truth in unrighteousness.
      Begging the Question and Arguing for Ignorance by definition. The same questions apply to all including you.

      How do you know you cannot be wrong?

      I am fallible just as seer, JimL and you. You have given no reason to believe differently.

      Your Tower of Babble will go no further then the clouds.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-04-2014, 05:31 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Hundreds of years of observation have yielded results that are consistent with the claim, but those observations have not proven it. And before one could have any rational grounds for making scientific observations (or doing science at all) they would already have to have justification for the claim that contradictions are impossible, or else they would be left with an absurd view of reality, and science would make no sense.
        I thought I would highlight this statement because of the problems it present. First, scientific methods do not prove anything. Are you not aware of how scientific methods work? Actually neither have you asserting your argument simply based on what you 'believe to be true.'

        The Argument from ignorance is specific in terms of the problems of claims of no proof or proof required either for or against an argument when such claims are not possible.

        Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

        Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
        1.true
        2.false
        3.unknown between true or false
        4.being unknowable (among the first three).

        © Copyright Original Source


        .
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-05-2014, 01:43 PM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Shuny, I'm short on time, so I'll try to make this quick.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          There is no begging the question involved here, since all you cited above involves theological questions which are out of the realm of possibility from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism.
          I think we have different definitions of methodological naturalism, and most non-Christian "scientific" folk I've debated on the issue disagrees with you.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          No, it does not. Methodological Naturalism is not capable of falsifying a hypothesis that God is behind none of it. In fact as a theist and scientist I assume God is behind it.
          You're not understanding what I'm saying. The definition of methodological naturalism I cited above said, and I quote, "It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.
          "All hypothesis and events" does not mean "some" or even "most". The beginning of the universe is exactly what many scientists purport to prove, and, being an event, is required to be explained, as per methodological naturalism, by reference to natural causes. Ergo methodological naturalism assumes a non-supernatural explanation for the beginning, and continual existence of the universe, as well as why it continues to operate in a uniform, law-like fashion, begging the question in the process.


          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I assume God is behind it.
          1.) Why?
          2.) The definition of methodological naturalism I gave above (which you said is "clear and excellent") said that "all scientific endeavors... are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events". Science presupposes the uniformity of nature, and you posit God behind that, which is not a natural cause or event. Thus your scientific endeavors are in reference to the supernatural, not to natural causes and events.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          No strawman here. when stated that 'The Christian has testimony . . .' you did not qualify that this did not include all Christians.
          I didn't say it doesn't include all Christians. I pointed out that having obvious testimony readily available and acknowledging that testimony are two different things. I shouldn't have to make qualifications about a claim I wasn't even making.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          The problem is most Christians, of course, may agree with the above, but still markedly disagree with the version of Christianity you believe and your argument in this thread.
          1.)Then it's irrelevant, as all Christians agree on the essentials (God's omnipotence, the trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation in Him alone, etc), which is what I'm referring to in my argument.
          2.) My argument doubles as an argument for "my interpretation".


          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I do definitely take responsibility for my reference to Christianity collectively,
          Great. Than you'll no doubt gladly stop imposing your own loose definition on that category of people, thereby miscasting them as believing in many different types of gods.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I fully understand the questions you are asking, and again the question represent an Argument form Ignorance by definition.
          False. I did not say that if you can't prove it's true, then it follows that it's false. My point is that if you cannot prove it true from within your worldview, then your worldview cannot justify even those basic claims that are required in order for human experience to be intelligible.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Never said contradictions cannot possibly happen from the human perspective, but of course, you have to answer to that possibility yourself, because you are a fallible human and not God.
          I'm asking about humans' beliefs. I'm asking a question about reality. Are contradictions possible, shuny?



          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Claims of contradiction from the perspective of different religious beliefs is problematic, because the Jew, Muslim, Roman Church believers would consider you in contradiction with God's Law of non-contradiction.
          All non-Christian worldviews reduce to absurdity.



          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I have answered this question repeatedly many times and there is no reason to repeat it.
          No, with respect, you haven't.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Seer got it right when he said, 'red is red, regardless if you are blind.'
          The problem here is that you're making knowledge claims about God. So to justify them you need to present an epistemology which makes Him known.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          No you did not address this except by an assertion of belief.
          No, I didn't make an assertion about a belief. I made a knowledge claim. Please note the difference.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Of course, written communication is possible, but unfortunately by the evidence of the history of fallible humans, interpretations are highly variable.
          Are you implying that every interpretation is equally valid? If not, then your point is irrelevant, as the misinterpretations die off as the Bible is read in context. If your answer, on the other hand, is yes, then it would render written communication impossible, reducing your reply to absurdity.


          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          The Law of non-contradiction is absolute from the perspective of God,
          How do you know what God's perspective is?
          Last edited by Mr. Black; 10-06-2014, 05:56 AM.
          Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Corinthians 1:20)

          Comment


          • Hey, Shuny and Mr. Black

            You might want to move your debate to a new thread if you desire an readership greater than what this thread has.
            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

            [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

            Comment


            • Just curious how "Mr." Black's definition of methodological naturalism differs from the standard (real!) definition?

              I also wonder if he understands what "scientific method" is?

              Gawd, this dude would be SO much fun to "debate" in person.

              Like the New York Giants playing Stanford.

              You decide which side is which.



              K54

              Blackie -- look up the definition of "risible".

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mr. Black View Post
                I think we have different definitions of methodological naturalism, and most non-Christian "scientific" folk I've debated on the issue disagrees with you.
                I go by the standard academic definitions of, Methodological and Metaphysical Naturalism as used in the English language. In a previous post you stated that Methodological Naturalism 'must' reject the existence of God. This view goes along with presupposition arguments for God and the justification of a literal interpretation of the Bible proposed by Van Til. This represents an adversarial approach to science where it is asserted the ONLY justification for knowledge is in the belief in God, and a literal Calvinist interpretation of the Bible as described in the following quotes. I will quote Van Til and other presuppositionalist theologians in the future to make this more clear.

                Source: http://www.puritanboard.com/f35/various-sundry-cornelius-van-til-quotes-74171/



                "My reason for arguing this matter is that together with all orthodox believers I have frequently argued, as you know, that the historicity of Christianity cannot be maintained unless the historicity of the Old Testament and in particular the historicity of the Genesis account be also maintained." -- Cornelius Van Til, "The Defense of the Faith", pg. 251

                ‎"There are those who worship and serve the creature and there are those who worship and serve the Creator. This is the simple differentiation with which I am concerned. I try and call men back to the recognition of the fact that they are creatures of God by challenging their false assumption of their non-createdness, their autonomy, or ultimacy." -- Cornelius Van Til, "The Defense of the Faith", pg. 248

                © Copyright Original Source



                You're not understanding what I'm saying. The definition of methodological naturalism I cited above said, and I quote, "It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.
                This is ok, but not complete. In Methodological naturalism the above only applies to the physical nature of our physical existence. The scientific methods CANNOT answer metaphysical questions, such as the existence or non-existence of God

                "All hypothesis and events" does not mean "some" or even "most". The beginning of the universe is exactly what many scientists purport to prove, and, being an event, is required to be explained, as per methodological naturalism, by reference to natural causes. Ergo methodological naturalism assumes a non-supernatural explanation for the beginning, and continual existence of the universe, as well as why it continues to operate in a uniform, law-like fashion, begging the question in the process.
                First, again, again and again you lack the basic high school level grasp of the basics of science. Science does not 'prove' anything. The above, nonetheless is false. The hypothesis and theories tested and falsified through scientific methods apply 'ONLY' to the nature of our physical existence. IT CANNOT answer any questions concerning the metaphysical nature and origins of our physical existence as either non-supernatural nor supernatural.

                1.) Why?
                . . . because I believe God is the Creator of our physical existence and all possible worlds both physical and spiritual.

                2.) The definition of methodological naturalism I gave above (which you said is "clear and excellent") said that "all scientific endeavors... are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events". Science presupposes the uniformity of nature, and you posit God behind that, which is not a natural cause or event. Thus your scientific endeavors are in reference to the supernatural, not to natural causes and events.
                explained above.

                False. I did not say that if you can't prove it's true, then it follows that it's false. My point is that if you cannot prove it true from within your worldview, . . .
                Contradiction above. To say you cannot prove it true from within your worldview, says you cannot prove it's true unless you embrace my worldview. Nonetheless, your world view where you only have the justification and knowledge to prove things 'true' takes the fideist view that the historical Genesis is the literal history of our physical existence and rejects the physical evidence that supports the science.

                . . . then your worldview cannot justify even those basic claims that are required in order for human experience to be intelligible.
                This is simply a presuppositional statement of belief from the Van Til Calvinist tradition that concludes the account in Genesis is the literal history of the universe, world and life including humanity. This does not represent an acceptable justification of the knowledge nor the knowledge you claim concerning the physical nature of our universe.

                Source: http://www.puritanboard.com/f35/various-sundry-cornelius-van-til-quotes-74171/


                "My reason for arguing this matter is that together with all orthodox believers I have frequently argued, as you know, that the historicity of Christianity cannot be maintained unless the historicity of the Old Testament and in particular the historicity of the Genesis account be also maintained." -- Cornelius Van Til, "The Defense of the Faith", pg. 251

                ‎"There are those who worship and serve the creature and there are those who worship and serve the Creator. This is the simple differentiation with which I am concerned. I try and call men back to the recognition of the fact that they are creatures of God by challenging their false assumption of their non-createdness, their autonomy, or ultimacy." -- Cornelius Van Til, "The Defense of the Faith", pg. 248

                © Copyright Original Source



                I'm asking about humans' beliefs. I'm asking a question about reality. Are contradictions possible, shuny?
                I replied specifically, 'from the human perspective' contradiction are possible. I believe from God's perspective the Law of non-contradiction holds absolutely.

                All non-Christian worldviews reduce to absurdity.
                An assertion simply based on you presuppositional Calvinist belief. No coherent argument has been proposed beyond this.


                No, with respect, you haven't.
                The argument has been presented. You are simply rejecting it 'stonewall' from your religious perspective.

                The problem here is that you're making knowledge claims about God. So to justify them you need to present an epistemology which makes Him known.
                The problem is you as a matter of a presuppositional statement of belief that all possible epistemologies are false and without justification. There is virtually nothing I could add that would address this.

                No, I didn't make an assertion about a belief. I made a knowledge claim. Please note the difference.
                Whether belief, justification or knowledge claim, it does not change my point. It is simply a presuppositional assertion, nothing more.


                Are you implying that every interpretation is equally valid? If not, then your point is irrelevant, as the misinterpretations die off as the Bible is read in context. If your answer, on the other hand, is yes, then it would render written communication impossible, reducing your reply to absurdity.
                No I never made the claim that 'every interpretation' is equally valid. Your assertion is that all possible other interpretations and world views are false and lack justification for knowledge except yours, without a coherent argument. That is the problem


                How do you know what God's perspective is?
                The same way you seer and you know, I believe it.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 10-07-2014, 08:01 AM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • FYI, as you guys debate "methodological naturalism", it would be useful to look back at the definition of the term when it was originally coined by Wheaton College philosophy professor Paul DeVries. Here's the reference: Paul DeVries, “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences: A Christian Perspective,” Christian Scholars Review 15, no. 4 (Summer 1986): 390.
                  "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                    FYI, as you guys debate "methodological naturalism", it would be useful to look back at the definition of the term when it was originally coined by Wheaton College philosophy professor Paul DeVries. Here's the reference: Paul DeVries, “Naturalism in the Natural Sciences: A Christian Perspective,” Christian Scholars Review 15, no. 4 (Summer 1986): 390.
                    Could you summarize it here?

                    Thanks!

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • Moderated By: Bill the Cat

                      Closing thread per OP request.

                      ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
                      Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      - Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment

                      Related Threads

                      Collapse

                      Topics Statistics Last Post
                      Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                      48 responses
                      135 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post Sparko
                      by Sparko
                       
                      Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                      16 responses
                      74 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post shunyadragon  
                      Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                      6 responses
                      48 views
                      0 likes
                      Last Post shunyadragon  
                      Working...
                      X