Inconceivable concepts

[JDBLACK]

Supernaturalism is, to me, any concept that is not explainable by the known laws and theories of the natural universe.  This also includes any concept that cannot be tested and falsified by objective methods.  “Pyramid power” is supernaturalism.  It can and has been falsified.  It is a false claim of power that does not exist.  “Psychic powers” is supernaturalism.  This concept has been tested in various forms and has always failed.  Some forms claim that its power is not testable and therefore, not falsifiable, which makes it supernatural.  “Faith, or prayer healing or miracle healing” is supernatural for the same reasons.  Many different studied have been conducted and they show no efficacy to faith healing.  Studies that have shown any relationship at all have all been shown to have methodological flaws and even they show only a slight efficacy (and that’s when they were cheating).  The only studies shown to have any significant effects are those that show an improvement in a person’s outlook when they are knowingly prayed for, and this was independent of deity.  So, it’s clear the relationship here is psychological and not supernatural.  Ghosts, heaven and any other after-death phenomenon are supernatural.  There is no objective, falsifiable evidence that supports their existence and any perceived evidence always falls short upon further scrutiny.  So, I hope that makes my definition of “supernatural” clear.  Basically, if you can’t objectively verify something, it is not natural and either does not exist, was a hoax or was mistaken for something else.

The problem with your characterization of supernaturalism and your parsing of “Christian” supernaturalism is that they all play by the same rules.  IOW, they all look the same and act the same.  No supernatural phenomenon has any objective evidence.  They are all promoted by authority figures that cannot verify their claims.  They are not subjected to any form of peer evaluation.  They all make extraordinary claims that are not normally known to exist.  I am not arguing that supernaturalism cannot possibly exist, but rather that if it does; we have no way to objectively verify that it does, and that limits its scope to a personal, subjective experience.  I do not accept any claim from this perspective.  I’m a skeptic after all.  I also do not believe that if god does exist and interacts with the natural world (which I reject), that the methodology is not understandable by any human.  IOW, there’s no rhyme or reason to it and no one can make sense of it.  It is essentially random.  Being random, there are plenty of natural processes that fit that same bill nicely.  So, again, not much for god to do.

Your take on Christianity does not include many forms of pseudoscience and supernaturalism, and you claim that you are aligned with “orthodox” Christianity, which seems to be just another euphemism for “True” Christianity.  My argument is that this is nothing but special pleading.  I’ve debated with dozens of Christians who make this same argument.  However, each one of those had distinctly different beliefs about supernaturalism and biblical interpretation.  In some cases the debate was taking place on an open forum, such as this one, and side debates sprung up between two “orthodox” Christians over the very arguments they were staking their positions on.  If this isn’t profound evidence of the disorder among Christianity, then I don’t know what is.  On many occasions these departures of belief can become heated and angry.  There are real and deep divisions among many “Orthodox” Christians regarding supernaturalism and scripture and they cannot be resolved because these things are not falsifiable or testable.  Many of the supernatural concepts I have discussed are deeply held beliefs of Christians.  You may claim that they are wrong or that they are misguided and that you know the answers they don’t.  I find this position to be self-righteous and arrogant.  No offense intended, it’s just how I view it.  And we aren’t even including the “Non-orthodox” Christians, such as Mormons, Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Primitive Baptists, Amish, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholics, Calvinists, Pentecostals…I could type until my fingers bled.  If you par down your “orthodox” Christian group to just you and a few people who completely agree with you, then you are absolutely right.  But Christianity is a vast ocean of beliefs, some overlapping, others completely at odds.  And it is my opinion that there is no such thing as “Orthodox” or “True” because there is no objective point of reference.  The Bible is the closest thing you have to this, but even this is subjective and contentious and can hardly be considered absolute by every Christian walking the earth today.

On gaps:  I’m saying that Christians once claimed god as the source of many natural occurrences.  They believed that god was actively intervening in things like tornadoes and spoiled milk.  We now know this is untrue.  Nature is capable of spawning intricate phenomena with no rhyme or reason and there is no deity at work causing tornadoes to wreck a town because its people were immoral.  That was once a gap that god resided in.  That gap is now closed.  With most of those gaps closed, what is it god is supposed to be doing?  IF there is a god, he isn’t very busy.  And contending that god is merely “encouraging” people through emotions or thoughts is fine, but there’s absolutely no evidence for this.  Arguing that Consciousness is a purely supernatural phenomenon is a nice conjecture, but again, no evidence, just faith.  One day we may have the precise mechanisms of consciousness, and may have the technology to create consciousness ourselves.  When this happens, another small gap will be closed.

The intelligent design movement appears to be doing great work in demonstrating that the physical bears marks of intelligent design.

I have seen no “great” work that supports the ID movement.  There’s plenty of conjecture, and some of it is interesting, but no supportive, objective evidence has been found that cannot be explained by a purely natural mechanism.  And PLEASE, don’t go into your versions of supportive evidence because I sincerely doubt you’ve written anything new on ID.  I’ve already read the work of the only people working in the field and they’re “work” is not laughable.  I’m actually beginning to believe it would be a good thing to teach this stuff in schools.  It’s takes about five minutes to discuss everything ID claims and about five seconds to discuss the evidence for it—god did it!

Would this lead us to the Christian God alone?  No, but it would certainly lead us to posit some type of supernaturalism.

It’s nice you admit this.  This is a problem I’ve pointed out to Many Christians who don’t seem to acknowledge it.  IF ID is ever proven to be true, then there is no objective reason to believe that it will support the Jesus myths and not something completely different.

Now, it is not fair to classify this movement as pseudoscience and here is why- they are doing careful scientific research and then positing that the research has lead [sic] them to conclude there is a designer. They are doing honest research and they are credible scientists. Simply because you may disagree with their findings does not mean you can accurately label them as a pseudoscience. They would do be doing pseudoscience if they were carrying their presuppositions in first (which they did not-most made their discoveries and then became Christians after the fact), or if they were incompetent (which they are not), or if they are being deceitful (and they are not).etc.

ID is pseudoscience for one reason.  Its proponents have observed certain interesting characteristics of nature and hypothesized that only a supernatural force could have caused these things to become what they are today.  Well, that idea cannot be tested.  So, ID cannot be science.  OTOH, science has looked at the same characteristics and found completely realistic natural mechanisms that could easily account for every single ID claim.  Some of these actually STRENGTHEN the Evolutionary model, thank you very much, Mr. Dembski!  So, it’s not a matter of disagreement.  Disagreement in scientific fields means you have to ditch your hypothesis and go back to work.  It doesn’t mean you are practicing pseudoscience.  But when you present scientific concepts that have no evidence to support them, even evidence that contradicts them, then you are practicing pseudoscience.  Essentially, if you cannot get a consensus of scientists to agree with your findings, then you have not done your job well enough and cannot claim victory.  You have to go back to work and produce more and better evidence.  That’s how science is done.  It’s tough and doesn’t play partial to anyone.

There’s simply no way you can call what the ID people do “honest research” or “scientific”, unless you don’t understand what “scientific” means.  And anyone who is doubtful of the true motivation behind the ID movement hasn’t learned that the vast majority of financial backers of the ID movement are rich fundamental Christians.  ID is nothing but Creationism, Mark II, and it’s steam is already slowing down.  In another decade we won’t even remember it.

Interestingly, the ID proponents are silent on the mass of fossil and genetic evidence that supports the Evolutionary Model.  How do these things fit within their ID model?  They do not say.  So, if we are counting gaps, I would say that evolution has some gaps that need research to fill them, but ID is basically one gigantic gap that is filled by god.

I would argue that you are right that there is no evidence against a starter deity, and would simply add that there is evidence for design.

All the ID concepts can be lumped into simple pareidolia.  So far all the ID hypothesis have been explained by evolutionary mechanisms.  It is interesting to me how ID proponents like Dembski and Behe continue to tout their failed hypothesis when their conjecture has been thoroughly and properly dismissed.  If they were real scientists, as they claim to be, they would be conducting real research to convince other real scientists that their ideas are correct, instead of continuing to write books based on the same failed notions. 

And BTW, I’ve read some revealing articles about Anthony Flew that indicate a serious conspiracy regarding what he really did reveal during his last months alive.  Some people very close to him have discovered that much of the writings attributed to him were, in fact, not of his doing, but that of theists he had become friends with, who clearly saw an opportunity to skew his beliefs in an attempt to discredit and smear the atheist worldview.  This dovetails nicely with my arguments against accepting historical documentation without skepticism.  Here we have a man, not long dead, and his controversial writings have been drawn into contention by people who knew him well and have studied his own diaries.  We’re only talking about a man’s opinions, not miracles.  What were his actual opinions in the last years of his life?  What’s been written and what is actual fact are not clear.  Hence my warning about taking written documents too literally.

[drat16]

 

I’ve read some revealing articles about Anthony Flew that indicate a serious conspiracy regarding what he really did reveal during his last months alive. 

Well please examine the Flew case a little further. Flew is still very much alive, he is not dead. In fact, he has a new book that is about to be published. There are several weird websites that are posting remarks about a conspiracy theory, etc. but that is all that they are usually - weird websites. I know a man who had lunch with Flew two weeks ago and he said Flew was very much in touch with reality and that Flew was quite offended with Dawkins implying that he was senile. The man I spoke to said he does not doubt that the recent comments regarding theism come from Flew's himself. Flew is certainly weak, he is an aged man, but he is not senile or incompetent. Flew has publicly and personally stated his beliefs, so he is taking full responsibility for them, no one is writing them and signing his name to them. I am not claiming that Flew is a Christian theist, for he is not. However, I was only pointing out that the ID movement did cause him to move to a form of theism.

ID is pseudoscience for one reason.  Its proponents have observed certain interesting characteristics of nature and hypothesized that only a supernatural force could have caused these things to become what they are today.  Well, that idea cannot be tested.

1)By 'tested' are you speaking out of your empiricism only epistemology (I'm just wondering)? Also, what evidence are you saying cannot be tested (I'm just trying to clarify)? The physical evidence proposed by IDers can be tested for sure, but the supernatural deity it points toward of course cannot be empirically tested in a lab. However, if empirical evidence that can be tested does seem to point to something unseen, then I'm not so sure there is a great leap here. Gravity itself is something that cannot be seen. However, physical evidence that points to the existence of gravity is sufficient for us to believe in it.
2) Remember that you yourself have stated that modern cosmology has not completely ruled out the possibility of a creator deity. Since this is the case, is it wise to completely reject ID at this time? It is possible for one to hold to a creator deity and modern cosmology, so positing that the world is designed by that creator is not too large of a step- ID is only attempting to demonstrate evidence of that design. Originally, many of the IDers started out as total atheists, but have gradually moved toward theism and Christianity- and it was what they viewed to be strong indicators of design that made them do this.

I also do not believe that if god does exist and interacts with the natural world (which I reject), that the methodology is not understandable by any human.  IOW, there’s no rhyme or reason to it and no one can make sense of it.

Just to clarify how Christians explain this, Christian supernaturalism would posit:
1) that God cannot act different from his nature
2) that God cannot act in a way outside of the rules of logic (God cannot do the logically impossible)
3) that God has revealed himself in a special revelation- making Him and His acts not only knowable but understandable

Supernaturalism is, to me, any concept that is not explainable by the known laws and theories of the natural universe.

This is one of the standard definitions of supernaturalism, you are correct. However, notice the phrase 'natural' before the word universe. Supernaturalism is something that is simply unexplainable by the natural or physical things in this universe. This does not mean, however, that supernaturalism is not explainable at all or is willy-nilly, etc. It is unexplainable by the physical, but not totally unexplainable. Also, the physical can at least point to the supernatural and give evidence for it, and I would argue that there would be the objective evidence for the supernatural. Physical evidence of design would be evidence of a supernatural designer, and the physical evidence used there would certainly be objective. Christian theology posits that the supernatural is understandable due to special revelation (the bible) and would also posit that the physical world gives evidence of the supernatural (ex., Rom. 1).

The problem with your characterization of supernaturalism and your parsing of “Christian” supernaturalism is that they all play by the same rules. 

Remember that Christian supernaturalism is bound by the guidelines set in the Bible. A Christian would reject other forms of supernaturalism because  Scripture is used as the measuring tool. Also important for consideration are God's nature, the fact that God will only do the logically possible, etc. I am not asking you to agree to the Scriptures here, just pointing out the tools and methods Christians use to differentiate between a Christian view of supernaturalism and other views. So, a Christian can believe in the supernatural yet still reject other competing supernatural views.
My point was simply that all Christians, regardless of denomination, would agree to the core tenants of christian supernaturalism. Now, in 2nd and 3rd level issues there is certainly disagreement but those controversies do not impact the core Biblical view of supernaturalism accepted by all Christians.

So far all the ID hypothesis have been explained by evolutionary mechanisms.  It is interesting to me how ID proponents like Dembski and Behe continue to tout their failed hypothesis when their conjecture has been thoroughly and properly dismissed.

I would like you to answer Behe's concept of irreducible complexity due to evolutionary mechanisms. I'm asking because I am simply curious as to what you would say.

Interestingly, the ID proponents are silent on the mass of fossil and genetic evidence that supports the Evolutionary Model.  How do these things fit within their ID model?  They do not say.  So, if we are counting gaps, I would say that evolution has some gaps that need research to fill them, but ID is basically one gigantic gap that is filled by god.

Most would be progressive creationists and there would be no problem in affirming both creation and the fossil record as it is. Progressive creationism is a theory based on the findings in the fossil record.

[JDBLACK]

My apologies, I was getting Flew confused with another atheist that had recently died.  I couldn't locate the information where I had read that yesterday, so I must have misplaced it.  But at any rate, I think it's preposterous to hold up an atheist who convertes to deism as some sort of evidence of Christianity, or even deism for that matter.  If one atheist is convinced by an argument, that doesn't in any way make the argument correct.  Perhaps if the bulk of atheists were to accepthe argument, you might have something important and the hold outs would be considered the incorrect ones.  At this point, the argument is simply not convincing to the bulk of skeptics.  And if you insist in going in this direction, then we'll have to parade out the list of hard core Christians who converted to Atheism and have you explain that....please, I don't really want to hear your explanation.

Also, what evidence are you saying cannot be tested (I'm just trying to clarify)?

The claim that only a god could have created "X", and that no natural mechanism could have done it.

The physical evidence proposed by IDers can be tested for sure

 

You just can't test the idea that god caused "X" to occur or "Y" to be a value of the universe.  You can test the hypothesis that some natural mechanism caused "X" to occur.  If enough of these hypotheses were falsified, then I suppose it's possible to speculate (not test) that god is the cause.But we really haven't met a challenge that comes close to that so far.  To come to that conclusion would require an exhaustion of our observational skills, and probably a very long time because if a question is ever answered in that maner, all further inquiry ends.

Gravity itself is something that cannot be seen. However, physical evidence that points to the existence of gravity is sufficient for us to believe in it.

Now you're being ridiculous.  Gravity is a phenomenon that can be observed.  "Seeing" gravity has no meaning.  It isn't a physical object; it does not reflect light.  The visibility of a phenomenon is not an issue; it is it's observability.  ID claims no observable phenomenon.  It only looks at existing structures (such as an eye) and claims that god created it that way and no natural mechanism was at work.  That's not observable, nor it is testable.  In fact, there is ample evidence that supports the Evolutionary origins of eye development!  So, we have a natural mechanism that explains it and it agrees with our theories, but Behe just can't let go of it and refutes the evidence in lieu of his pseudoscientific argument.  That's just insane!

2) Remember that you yourself have stated that modern cosmology has not completely ruled out the possibility of a creator deity. Since this is the case, is it wise to completely reject ID at this time? It is possible for one to hold to a creator deity and modern cosmology, so positing that the world is designed by that creator is not too large of a step- ID is only attempting to demonstrate evidence of that design. Originally, many of the IDers started out as total atheists, but have gradually moved toward theism and Christianity- and it was what they viewed to be strong indicators of design that made them do this.

I never said anyone should "reject" ID as a concept.  I was intrigued by it from the first moment I heard of it.  All I'm saying is that ID is not a science, it is just another form of theism.  I don't mind if people want to continue to contemplate and study ID, but they should not pass it off as science and it should not be taught in school as such until it begins to act like science. 

Your last statement is meaningless.  All you really said is that some people were convinced ID is correct and therefore took a view of theism, which means only that those people made bad scientific decisions.  ID has no objective evidence, so making such a decision on it is silly.  One might as well conclude that Astrology is real.  If it holds some philosophical value for them, that's different and I'm willing to entertain it, but it holds almost no scientific value.

Just to clarify how Christians explain this, Christian supernaturalism would posit:
1) that God cannot act different from his nature
2) that God cannot act in a way outside of the rules of logic (God cannot do the logically impossible)
3) that God has revealed himself in a special revelation- making Him and His acts not only knowable but understandable

This isn't really saying much at all.  It just means that god wouldn't act in a way that god wouldn't act, which is circular and meaningless.  Saying god wouldn't act illogically is also meaningless unless you knew nearly everything about god.  You couldn't make this claim about any person with any real accuracy, let alone an eternal, omnipotent being whom no one truly understands.  It's just preposterous to suggest such a thing.  The best you could claim is that as far as you can tell, the bible is consistent and doesn't ask anything irrational or illocial of anyone.  I would reject that as well, but it's not nearly as far a cry as what you have proposed.  And I know all Christians believe god has revealed himself; that isn't really new information, either.  But you left out the many Christians who believe in ghosts, evil spirits, resurrections, healings......a whole cacophany of supernatural woo woo.  Claiming that something is true just because lots of people beleive it is a very big fallacy.

This is one of the standard definitions of supernaturalism, you are correct. However, notice the phrase 'natural' before the word universe. Supernaturalism is something that is simply unexplainable by the natural or physical things in this universe. This does not mean, however, that supernaturalism is not explainable at all or is willy-nilly, etc. It is unexplainable by the physical, but not totally unexplainable.

You are just parsing words, drat.  All we have and all we know is the physical universe.  If the physical universe doesn't show evidence for an IPU, then what do you have?  An imaginary creature.  I've spent hours and hours debating with people over imaginary or philosophical ideas.  It's good fun over a pint, but it eventually gets you no where.  At the end of the conversation, we still have to live and survive in the physical world.  Any theology or philosophy a person draws upon for courage or inspiration is fine with me, but please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting that because something is explainable by unexplainable means, that it must be true!  That's patented nonsense!

Also, the physical can at least point to the supernatural and give evidence for it, and I would argue that there would be the objective evidence for the supernatural. Physical evidence of design would be evidence of a supernatural designer, and the physical evidence used there would certainly be objective. Christian theology posits that the supernatural is understandable due to special revelation (the bible) and would also posit that the physical world gives evidence of the supernatural (ex., Rom. 1).

No physical evidence points to any supernatural beings.  It just doesn't exist.  The only physical evidence claimed to point to a designer is Behe's irreducible complexity and the constants of the universe.  And these things amount to assumptions, nothing more.  There's no effort to find a natural explanation, just an assumption that there is none.  That's nonsense.  When you reference the bible, you are just back on stories again.  And worse yet, you're talking about the Revelations of all things!  Not even Christians can agree on what they mean.  Stories are not evidence; they are stories; they could be compete fabrications or total exaggerations and you have no way to know differently.

Remember that Christian supernaturalism is bound by the guidelines set in the Bible. A Christian would reject other forms of supernaturalism because  Scripture is used as the measuring tool.

Tell that to Gene, who believes in mass healings by Benny Hinn.

Also important for consideration are God's nature, the fact that God will only do the logically possible, etc. I am not asking you to agree to the Scriptures here, just pointing out the tools and methods Christians use to differentiate between a Christian view of supernaturalism and other views. So, a Christian can believe in the supernatural yet still reject other competing supernatural views.

This is getting repititious.  Yes, they can, but they so often don't!  You seem to be projecting your personal beliefs on all of Christendom.  I feel like I'm talking to a wall here.  How can I put this so you will understand?  I know scores of Christians and I guarantee that I could ask them and get dozens of examples of where you don't agree with them.  So, who's right and who's wrong?  And how can you convince anyone you are the one who's right?  These people are just as righteous as you are, after all.

My point was simply that all Christians, regardless of denomination, would agree to the core tenants of christian supernaturalism. Now, in 2nd and 3rd level issues there is certainly disagreement but those controversies do not impact the core Biblical view of supernaturalism accepted by all Christians.

So you seem to be saying that as long as Christians all agree that Jesus died and rose in 3 days, then anything else is immaterial.  You are just dismissing the fact that many Christians believe in forms of supernaturalism that you disagree with.  Well, you've just made my point.  Christians practice supernatural thinking all the time and have no more evidence or reason to back it up than they do their magic bible thinking.  One is the same as the other as far as I can tell.

I would like you to answer Behe's concept of irreducible complexity due to evolutionary mechanisms. I'm asking because I am simply curious as to what you would say.

Behe thinks that some things are too complex to have been formed naturally (such as bacteria flagella), which is a premature conclusion.  All of his examples have been refuted by evolutionary mechanisms so far, yet he continues to use the same examples.

Most would be progressive creationists and there would be no problem in affirming both creation and the fossil record as it is. Progressive creationism is a theory based on the findings in the fossil record.

At least it's not a total loss for them.   

Drat, it's been nice talking to you, but I just don't have time to keep going in circles with you.  You can argue, I'll give you that, but still, you are basing your arguments on the same things that the best apologetics do and I've read all that, done all that.  Nothing new under the sun, I guess.  Anyway, I don't see any reason to continue this debate.  It's just taking me away from other, more important things.  One more thing.  If you aren't familiar with James Randi, you should look him up and consider studying his work as a skeptic.  Randi has been actively pursueing pseudoscience for years.  He's been attempting to force practitioners of supernaturalism to demonstrate their power, or connection to a supernatural world.  This includes several well known practioners of Christian healing techniques.  Of course they usually refuse or wiggle their way out.  He's as up front and honest as anyone you'll ever meet and his is dogged in his refusal to accept the excuses of those who claim to have special powers.  His philosophy is that if any human really has tapped into a universe beyond the physical one that we know of, then it should be shared with all of humanity, but he wants to discredit anyone who is faking it.  Check him out and you'll see what I mean.

[drat16]

That's fine- if you want to stop then I am busy anyway.



If you want me to respond and to continue the discussion at some point in the future, let me know. I think we both know where this would go anyway, I would have basically argued these points: origin science is based more on inference/probability and it is not fair to introduce your empirical only validation principle into the realm of origin science when you critique ID, that there are sufficient philosophical arguments for supernaturalism that make it reasonable for one to assume the existence of more than just the physical world, that simply because there is disagreement among theists over what constitutes a miracle does not automatically discount the notion that there is in fact on true biblical view concerning what is miraculous and what is not (it is logically possible that some theist are wrong while others are right- the fact that there is disagreement does not entail that both are wrong), that God must be bound by the rules of logic- there are several philosophical arguments for this, etc.

Thanks for the good discussion, God Bless.

[JDBLACK]

If you want me to respond and to continue the discussion at some point in the future, let me know.

I do not.

I think we both know where this would go anyway, I would have basically argued these points: origin science is based more on inference/probability and it is not fair to introduce your empirical only validation principle into the realm of origin science when you critique ID

I have not put up a true debate on origin science, so it's inappropriate to inject it at the end of the discussion.  Yet any analysis on the origin of life MUST absolutely depend on empiricism.  Philosophy introduces absolutely no new information or evidence.  If we are ever to undertand the origins of life, it will only be through empirical evidence and not philosophy.

that there are sufficient philosophical arguments for supernaturalism that make it reasonable for one to assume the existence of more than just the physical world

I've never discounted or rejected the notion that philosophical arguments for a creator are valid and very compelling.  They are.  However, at the end of the conversation, you are still left iwth only hot air, which is all philosophy is, really, two guys getting drunk and talking about things they have no evidence to support.  If you want to really KNOW something, you have to stop talking and actaully do something.

that simply because there is disagreement among theists over what constitutes a miracle does not automatically discount the notion that there is in fact on true biblical view concerning what is miraculous and what is not (it is logically possible that some theist are wrong while others are right- the fact that there is disagreement does not entail that both are wrong), that God must be bound by the rules of logic- there are several philosophical arguments for this, etc.

This is merely a red herring argument and of no consequence, a non sequitur, of no value or importance.  It doesn't matter how you define "miracle", none have been verified as having any source outside the natural universe.  There are plenty of unexplained phenomenons, but none that bend the laws of the physical universe in such a way as to declare them supernatural, and never have any been tied causally to contact with god.

Yes, we know where this conversation is going/has gone.  It appeared to me that I was talking to a rational person, not a full blown creationist.  That lambskin has been shed now and I realize I was correct in originally avoiding a debate with you months ago.  I only wish I'd stuck to my original senses.  I don't as a rule attempt to convert those that have been brainwashed into religion, but I'm happy to help those with no understanding or knowledge of science learn a few things or find the resources to learn.  But I really am never interested in butting heads with a hard core creationist.  My time is worth more than that.  Thanks for not being honest in the beginning.

[drat16]

JD,
This is always funny to me- you leave right when things get interesting and then about a month later come back and try to somehow offer an argument by taking me out of context. If you want to continue the discussion, then please feel free to do so. If not, then please do not take me out of context. Let's have a healthy, stimulating discussion instead.

Origin Science-
I have not just 'interjected' origin science into the discussion. We have been discussing origin science for a while on this thread. We have been discussing this topic: Is the teleological argument true?- does life bear marks of complexity due to a complex designer or is that claim false? You rejected ID on the grounds of your empirical only system and on my last post I was stating that this is not the best argument against it. Understand what we have been discussing here: is there an intelligent mind behind life? That is an origin science question.  The entire discussion is concerning itself with origin science. You can't debate ID, etc. without discussing origin science as it is an attempt to offer an explanation of human origins. You reject the conclusion ID draws (your right as a person) and that is why we are having this discussion, a discussion centered on origins.

Philosophical Arguments-
I'll try to not take your attack on philosophy personally   Needless to say, I think it would do you well if you took some courses in the discipline as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy does and does not do.  I can't convince you probably (as you appear to enjoy arguing against everything I say) but it does make you look rather ignorant of the field.

Let's review your argument here for a second- once again you are inserting the assumption that empiricism is the only way to gain knowledge.  I have never stated that empirical tests are not helpful, however I emphatically state that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved empirically. You continually seem to state that God does not exist because He has not been empirically proven, but I think you are have a confusion of categories here. The reality is that God is not physical and therefore it is impossible to either prove or disprove his existence through physical tests.  To try to ask a non-physical object to be proven by an empirical means is a fallacy. At best,  through empiricism only one cannot state with certainty if God exists or not and you end up in agnosticism.

Where does that leave us though, as agnosticism is not very fruitful? Well let us take Richard Dawkins for example. Dawkins admits upfront that God cannot be empirically tested. However, Dawkins then admits that this does not automatically prove or disprove God's existence! What does Dawkins do? He enters the world of probability and metaphysics to test 'the God hypothesis.' Obviously I disagree with the Dawkinsian conclusion, but he did make the right philosophical step. You keep claiming that God isn't real because there is no empirical evidence and that argument simply appears foolish (logical positivism at its worst). If you want to dismantle God's existence you must follow what other respectable scientists and philosophers do (including Dawkins)- examine the metaphysical arguments and gauge by probability. If you want to debate if God exists, then we should move to examining the arguments for the existence of God as Dawkins is willing to do.

Another example: ID is simply an inferential argument that the physical bears mark of a creator. Can ID be tested empirically? Of course not, it is an inferential argument. When I refer to physical evidence for ID, I am referring to the physical elements on this earth that, I feel, bear a mark of design from a creator. (I kept stressing this aspect of physicalness because you seemed to even reject that point.) While I understand completely that I am only offering an inferential argument, sometimes I think you do not. To disagree with the design concept one must enter the world of probability and explain why it is an improbable inference (as Dawkins attempts later in his book). You state that there is no objective evidence for design and that is correct- but that does not entail that design is not true as we would not expect to find any anyway as it is an inference based argument. To simply state that there is no empirically testable evidence of design misses the point.

Finally, is philosophy drunk people talking about life? Obviously you haven't taken many classes when you make this claim. That’s a very intelligent reply btw- I criticize your logical positivism and you simply respond that philosophy  cannot do anything and is only appropriate for bar room conversations.  If you had more education in philosophy, I sincerely think you would argue with a more refined epistemology. As I have stated numerous times before, your positivism (scientism, hard empiricism, etc- however you want to label it) was disregarded by the 1920s-1930s. It is not argued anymore in the field of philosophy of science. If you want me to give you the names of books that deal with philosophy of science I can if it will help you.  Obviously not even Dawkins employs it at this particular point when trying to test the God hypothesis.
Critical realism was established in the wake of positivism's death by scientists working in the empirical sciences in an effort to offer a more satisfactory solution. I really think you should consider it as it appears much more credible. I can post several links to amazon if you want to see some of the more important books in the movement. (BTW, many people at Dawkins' own Oxford are critical realists. Bhasker taught there for a long time.)

Miracle
This is not a red herring- if I remember right I was responding to your charge that miracles break the laws of nature. I was simply explaining that they do not. Once again you attempt to jump in late and take me out of context.
Are there many phenomenon that are unexplainable? Certainly. However, entailed in your argument is : 1) a strong view of naturalism a priori and 2) a misunderstanding of how Christian theology normally determines what is a miracle and what is not. We are not talking about simply hard to explain phenomena in nature but rather things such as Christ's resurrection from the dead, etc. I think one can make a pretty easy case that such a thing can be credibly, causally linked back to God (and no-- it is not merely that such a thing is impossible, therefore God did). This all hinges upon the truthfulness of the resurrection of course, which we have been discussing elsewhere- so there is no need to write back that the resurrection is not true on this post. I am here simply using it as an example of a miracle that one can convincingly demonstrate is God caused.

[JDBLACK]

JD,
This is always funny to me- you leave right when things get interesting and then about a month later come back and try to somehow offer an argument by taking me out of context. If you want to continue the discussion, then please feel free to do so. If not, then please do not take me out of context. Let's have a healthy, stimulating discussion instead.

Kindly state where I too you out of context, please.

[JDBLACK]

Origin Science-
I have not just 'interjected' origin science into the discussion. We have been discussing origin science for a while on this thread. We have been discussing this topic: Is the teleological argument true?- does life bear marks of complexity due to a complex designer or is that claim false? You rejected ID on the grounds of your empirical only system and on my last post I was stating that this is not the best argument against it. Understand what we have been discussing here: is there an intelligent mind behind life? That is an origin science question.  The entire discussion is concerning itself with origin science. You can't debate ID, etc. without discussing origin science as it is an attempt to offer an explanation of human origins. You reject the conclusion ID draws (your right as a person) and that is why we are having this discussion, a discussion centered on origins.

This is baloney.  I have never offered a discussion on the origin of life on earth except to state a few current hypotheses.  I have not attempted to debate the subject or to state the science on it.  Like a good science-denying creationist, you interject a subject where it is unwarranted in an effort to keep the goalposts moving.

I do not reject ID on my "empirical grounds".  That's preposterous.  I reject it because it is not a scientific concept at all, but a religious one.  There is no scientific evidence to support it and there likely couldn't be because it is a claim to the supernatural.  Science has no way of dealing with the supernatural because it would not conform to the known laws of nature.  ID is an interesting theological concept, but not a scientific concept at all.  It is worthwhile to discuss it over a beer or two, but in the classroom or laboratory, it is about as useful as a hole in your head.

Philosophical Arguments-
I'll try to not take your attack on philosophy personally   Needless to say, I think it would do you well if you took some courses in the discipline as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy does and does not do.  I can't convince you probably (as you appear to enjoy arguing against everything I say) but it does make you look rather ignorant of the field.

I'm educated enough to know what philosophy can and can't do, and it cannot present new information.

Let's review your argument here for a second- once again you are inserting the assumption that empiricism is the only way to gain knowledge.  I have never stated that empirical tests are not helpful, however I emphatically state that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved empirically. You continually seem to state that God does not exist because He has not been empirically proven, but I think you are have a confusion of categories here. The reality is that God is not physical and therefore it is impossible to either prove or disprove his existence through physical tests.  To try to ask a non-physical object to be proven by an empirical means is a fallacy. At best,  through empiricism only one cannot state with certainty if God exists or not and you end up in agnosticism.

Drat, you are waaaaay off course here.  I state nothing of the like.  Just get your story straight before you jump on someone.  I never state that god does not exist because it cannot be proved by empiricism.  In fact, the opposite is true.  IF god exists, then empirical evidence would never explain it.  But because there is no evidence of any kind that I recognize, then I'm not convinced a god exists.  God could act in completely illogical ways, yet the universe displays nothing like that.  To me, god seems to be an idea and nothing more.  And agnosticism is fine; I have no problem with that.  So I can't prove it?  I'm still allowed to have my opinion, am I not?

Where does that leave us though, as agnosticism is not very fruitful? Well let us take Richard Dawkins for example. Dawkins admits upfront that God cannot be empirically tested. However, Dawkins then admits that this does not automatically prove or disprove God's existence! What does Dawkins do? He enters the world of probability and metaphysics to test 'the God hypothesis.' Obviously I disagree with the Dawkinsian conclusion, but he did make the right philosophical step. You keep claiming that God isn't real because there is no empirical evidence and that argument simply appears foolish (logical positivism at its worst). If you want to dismantle God's existence you must follow what other respectable scientists and philosophers do (including Dawkins)- examine the metaphysical arguments and gauge by probability. If you want to debate if God exists, then we should move to examining the arguments for the existence of God as Dawkins is willing to do.

This seems to be more of an argument between you and Dawkins.  Please, feel free to contact him and have at it.  I'm really not interested in getting any of that stuff on me.  IOW, leave me out of this argument.

Another example: ID is simply an inferential argument that the physical bears mark of a creator. Can ID be tested empirically? Of course not, it is an inferential argument. When I refer to physical evidence for ID, I am referring to the physical elements on this earth that, I feel, bear a mark of design from a creator. (I kept stressing this aspect of physicalness because you seemed to even reject that point.) While I understand completely that I am only offering an inferential argument, sometimes I think you do not. To disagree with the design concept one must enter the world of probability and explain why it is an improbable inference (as Dawkins attempts later in his book). You state that there is no objective evidence for design and that is correct- but that does not entail that design is not true as we would not expect to find any anyway as it is an inference based argument. To simply state that there is no empirically testable evidence of design misses the point.

ID is not even inferential, it's peridolia at best, delusion at worst.  And it's bad, bad, bad pseudo science.  But again, you are arguing with Dawkins, not me.  Not my problem.

Finally, is philosophy drunk people talking about life? Obviously you haven't taken many classes when you make this claim. That’s a very intelligent reply btw- I criticize your logical positivism and you simply respond that philosophy  cannot do anything and is only appropriate for bar room conversations.  If you had more education in philosophy, I sincerely think you would argue with a more refined epistemology. As I have stated numerous times before, your positivism (scientism, hard empiricism, etc- however you want to label it) was disregarded by the 1920s-1930s. It is not argued anymore in the field of philosophy of science. If you want me to give you the names of books that deal with philosophy of science I can if it will help you.  Obviously not even Dawkins employs it at this particular point when trying to test the God hypothesis.

I've had more experience in it than you think.  Please stop making arrogant assumptions of your intellectual superiority.  It makes you sound like an A double S.  This is usually the reason I detest such discussions.  One party or another usually pulls the superiority bag out of the closet.  Congratulations!  You get the prize!

Critical realism was established in the wake of positivism's death by scientists working in the empirical sciences in an effort to offer a more satisfactory solution. I really think you should consider it as it appears much more credible. I can post several links to amazon if you want to see some of the more important books in the movement. (BTW, many people at Dawkins' own Oxford are critical realists. Bhasker taught there for a long time.)

Absolutely no interest in this stuff.

Miracle
This is not a red herring- if I remember right I was responding to your charge that miracles break the laws of nature. I was simply explaining that they do not. Once again you attempt to jump in late and take me out of context.

If I did so, explain how, don't just make the charge and expect me to accept it.

Are there many phenomenon that are unexplainable? Certainly. However, entailed in your argument is : 1) a strong view of naturalism a priori and 2) a misunderstanding of how Christian theology normally determines what is a miracle and what is not. We are not talking about simply hard to explain phenomena in nature but rather things such as Christ's resurrection from the dead, etc. I think one can make a pretty easy case that such a thing can be credibly, causally linked back to God (and no-- it is not merely that such a thing is impossible, therefore God did). This all hinges upon the truthfulness of the resurrection of course, which we have been discussing elsewhere- so there is no need to write back that the resurrection is not true on this post. I am here simply using it as an example of a miracle that one can convincingly demonstrate is God caused.

1.  I and science have a strong view of naturalism for a reason; it has done a fantastic job of explaining every known phenomenon that we've applied it to thus far.  So, it makes logical sense to continue to use a successful modality and not just make baseless jabs at it being "a priori".  One might jut as well say we assume "a priori" that sex causes pregnancy.

2.  I do not misunderstand how Christianity determines what a miracle is.  For one thing, there is no singular, all inclusive "Christianity".  This idea is a fallacy of epic proportions.  I could show you Christians who believe that a lightning strike hitting their how, yet not killing anyone was a "miracle".  Just saw it on TV yesterday in fact.  Is that your definition of a miracle?  Probably not.  Point is, there is no singular definition.  Every religious and superstitious person has their own.  Every Christian modality has different ones.  To argue that there is one definitive and objective definition for "miracle" is hilarious.  Don't make me laugh so hard.  People generally invoke miracles when they believe something unusual has happened, even though it is within the normal bounds of statistical probability and natural causes.  That is the simple, layman understanding.  More far reaching arguments, like a resurrection 2000 years ago, would actually be good evidence of miracles if only there was any real evidence that such events occurred. 

[drat16]

Hey JD-

I have never offered a discussion on the origin of life on earth except to state a few current hypotheses.  I have not attempted to debate the subject or to state the science on it.

ID's truthfulness (or non-truthfulness) is a debate within the area of origin science. That was my point - when we discuss ID's merit we are weighing an argument proposed in the field origin science. One cannot support or attack ID without moving into the field of origin science. The mere fact that we debated ID shows that we were having a discussion in the field of origin science.

I never state that god does not exist because it cannot be proved by empiricism.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you here so let me explain what I see you to be saying.  I was reacting to this statement:

"I've never discounted or rejected the notion that philosophical arguments for a creator are valid and very compelling.  They are.  However, at the end of the conversation, you are still left with only hot air, which is all philosophy is, really, two guys getting drunk and talking about things they have no evidence to support.  If you want to really KNOW something, you have to stop talking and actually do something."

 
'One simply must enter into metaphysical discussion on metaphysical issues' is what I was positing. Your assertion that metaphysical discussion is not good enough, and that one needs to 'do something' appears to demonstrate- at minimum- an unhealthy bias for the empirical only approach.  'Do something,' such as experimentation or whatever, seems to be the only accepted formula in your system. Basically, you seem to be saying that while the metaphysical arguments for God are compelling, you reject them because they are philosophical and do not 'do something.' My point was simply that this sort of evidence is more or less the only evidence we should expect to have of a supernatural being and that one cannot reject this out right simply because it cannot 'do something,' i.e.,it  is not empirically tested or experimented on. God is not empirical, so why even ask for empirical evidence upon which you can 'do something?'
I only cited Dawkins because he actually does it right in this case.  I simply wanted you to see an atheist who was willing to consider the metaphysical arguments and not reject them outright because they are not empirical and do not 'do something.' 

I've had more experience in it than you think.  Please stop making arrogant assumptions of your intellectual superiority.

Yes I am not attempting to be arrogant here, but please understand how frustrating this is. You are frustrated with me in our evolution post as you feel I am simply citing ridiculous arguments, perhaps due to an ignorance of science (you think). You feel I am missing a step there and it causes you aggravation. Understand that this is how I am starting to feel in this discussion. You hold to this positivism (empirical only)  and you refuse to even examine alternatives, so how can I not be frustrated? The VAST majority of scientists today are critical realist (atheist or theist- it does not matter). The movement  is now the prevailing view in science. Don't take my word for it, I encourage you to study it for yourself and make your own conclusion. You simply continue to assert your positivism and then refuse to even express an openness to critical realism by saying- "Absolutely no interest in this stuff." I have (and am still willing) to honestly weigh all evidence for evolution but you will not even be open enough to learn what CR is. That's fundamentalism to me, the kind you so often despise in theists.
 Critical realism has no bearing on one's commitment to religion (one can be an atheist or theist) and it simply does not have the dead roads that positivism does. I'm humbly trying to help you become a better scientist here if nothing else - positivism is problematic, and CR is the prevailing view.  Please be willing to consider different philosophical positions that have no bearing on religion or supernaturalism.

What philosophy can do- JD I'm not attempting to insult you there so if I did then I apologize. However, my point is that  your statement of 'philosophy produces no new information' is terribly faulty and shows a strong misunderstanding.  Philosophy, in the fields of ontology, etc. certainly does offer new evidence and ideas to be considered.  When you say it does not you really misunderstand it completely. You like science and spend time with it while I decided to study philosophy. It is annoying for you to see (what you feel to be) apparent misunderstandings of science held in a fundamentalistic way, and it is no less annoying for me to see philosophy mishandled. I''m not insulting you, but I am annoyed so I apologize if it gets the best of me here.

What does philosophy do? Philosophy is more a second order discipline- it guides the scientist, theologian, historian, etc. Hence the disciplines of 'philosophy of history' or 'philosophy of science.' Do all scientists do philosophy inadvertently? Absolutely as all people have guiding presuppositions, even in the lab. While I grant that someone's philosophical outlook does not change the results of an empirical experiment, it certainly can influence the interpretation of those results. I know you will argue that empirical evidence is so objective that this could not be the case, but you would be wrong. The enlightenment project died (the thesis-that pure, objective knowledge is possible and is required) and the reason that most of the world's  scientists are critical realist is because they believe this. Pure, objective knowledge such as proposed in the enlightenment is not possible- --and no, I am not a postmodernist.

So does philosophy offer new information if it is a second order discipline ? Here the answer is an absolute yes. For example, the 'arguments' for the existence of God  help to show the credibility of the existence of God and the coherence of theism. That is evidence.   Is the existence of God provable? NO. However, proof is only available in mathematics and all other areas of life (including empirical sciences) deal with probability. The existence of God can be demonstrated to be very probable and that is why I am a theist. Waiting around for empirical proof for God or 100% certainty is simply faulty, and is not a legitimate requirement to be placed upon the object being considered.
Once again, probability is king.

Why is belief in God probable? Because contrary to your claim, there IS evidence for his existence. Some of it is objective- historical evidence, etc. and the arguments for God's existence. Some of is is more philosophical such as the idea of theism 'fitting' into the universe better than other schemes (we can talk about that if you want- that's a big one we have not touched on). Some of it is subjective- though not as valuable and I do not use it much, it is at least worth mentioning here. Unfortunately, most naturalist do not even weigh these evidences as they are not strictly 'empirical' they think. Yet this is a misunderstanding as: 1) as I stated before a non-empirical God would not be empirically testable and 2) historical evidence, for example, IS scientific, it is just from the field of the historical sciences and not from the lab.
I know I have made many claims in this post (and have inadvertently espoused some tenets of CR anyway), but I think you can see where I am coming from and perhaps this will move the discussion forward.

Finally-
1) Science and naturalism- science does not logically entail naturalism and to advocate that it does demonstrates my point that all scientists are philosophers inadvertently. It is correct for me to state that you hold to an a priori assumption of naturalism as there is nothing in science that lead you to naturalism. You cannot even prove through science why naturalism is correct- and that demonstrates my point that you hold to it for reasons other than science (if science lead to naturalism, you could scientifically demonstrate why naturalism only is correct). It is ironic, btw, that science began and came to power NOT in naturalism but in supernaturalism. I would actually argue that naturalism deters science and that would be interesting if you want to talk about it.
2)Yes a man raising from the dead would be evidence of miracles and I have at least attempted to offer you reasons as to why one can credibly hold to the resurrection. Unfortunately, questions were raised over all historical documents (even nonchristian ones) and we did not get started really. However, the bible does offer theists specific guidelines as to how one can determine what is a miracle caused by God and what is not. Moreover, most theological systems would have some stance on miracles and the differences can be examined and seen to be not as divergent as one might think. We can enter into this discussion if you want more clarification.

[JDBLACK]

The only discussion I had with ID is to point out that it is not a scientific concept, but a religious one.

'One simply must enter into metaphysical discussion on metaphysical issues' is what I was positing. Your assertion that metaphysical discussion is not good enough, and that one needs to 'do something' appears to demonstrate- at minimum- an unhealthy bias for the empirical only approach.  'Do something,' such as experimentation or whatever, seems to be the only accepted formula in your system. Basically, you seem to be saying that while the metaphysical arguments for God are compelling, you reject them because they are philosophical and do not 'do something.'

Wrong again.  I just said that a good argument doesn’t prove anything.  You still have to walk away and decide on something other than facts and data.  If it’s “god” we’re talking about, that’s fine because there are no facts and data anyway.  But if you want to apply it to anything else, particularly things that might be useful, such as scientific concepts, then you eventually have to do something and stop talking about it or you get nowhere.  You often mix your arguments so much, I can’t tell what it is you are talking about.  So please don't misrepresent this or spin it in any way.

I only cited Dawkins because he actually does it right in this case.  I simply wanted you to see an atheist who was willing to consider the metaphysical arguments and not reject them outright because they are not empirical and do not 'do something.' 

I KNOW what Dawkins thinks about the metaphysics!  Don’t you think I would have some knowledge of him?  Geesh, give me some credit.  Any intelligent person would agree that philosphy is interesting and userful as an argument, but it's not the same as information.

Yes I am not attempting to be arrogant here, but please understand how frustrating this is. You are frustrated with me in our evolution post as you feel I am simply citing ridiculous arguments, perhaps due to an ignorance of science (you think). You feel I am missing a step there and it causes you aggravation. Understand that this is how I am starting to feel in this discussion. You hold to this positivism (empirical only)  and you refuse to even examine alternatives, so how can I not be frustrated? The VAST majority of scientists today are critical realist (atheist or theist- it does not matter). The movement  is now the prevailing view in science. Don't take my word for it, I encourage you to study it for yourself and make your own conclusion. You simply continue to assert your positivism and then refuse to even express an openness to critical realism by saying- "Absolutely no interest in this stuff." I have (and am still willing) to honestly weigh all evidence for evolution but you will not even be open enough to learn what CR is. That's fundamentalism to me, the kind you so often despise in theists.
 Critical realism has no bearing on one's commitment to religion (one can be an atheist or theist) and it simply does not have the dead roads that positivism does. I'm humbly trying to help you become a better scientist here if nothing else - positivism is problematic, and CR is the prevailing view.  Please be willing to consider different philosophical positions that have no bearing on religion or supernaturalism.

You know, you wander so much I don’t even know what it is you are talking about any more.  This is why I hate philosophy.  You generally get caught up in a meaningless argument and one person or another begins to act superior.  You are doing just that.  You are putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say.  All I’ve ever said about philosophy is that it makes great arguments for this or for that (god or satan, life after death, whatever), but it CANNOT be used to provide new information about the physical world.  That’s it; that’s all I’ve stated.  You carry on as if I’ve said more than that.  I haven’t.

What philosophy can do- JD I'm not attempting to insult you there so if I did then I apologize. However, my point is that  your statement of 'philosophy produces no new information' is terribly faulty and shows a strong misunderstanding.  Philosophy, in the fields of ontology, etc. certainly does offer new evidence and ideas to be considered. 

Ok, show me.  Don't respond to any of the other comments on this post, just show me hat new evidence philosophy provides in any scientific field?  Not ideas.  Ideas are just the human imagination.  What new information has philosophy provided?

What does philosophy do? Philosophy is more a second order discipline- it guides the scientist, theologian, historian, etc. Hence the disciplines of 'philosophy of history' or 'philosophy of science.' Do all scientists do philosophy inadvertently? Absolutely as all people have guiding presuppositions, even in the lab. While I grant that someone's philosophical outlook does not change the results of an empirical experiment, it certainly can influence the interpretation of those results. I know you will argue that empirical evidence is so objective that this could not be the case, but you would be wrong.

You like to put words in people’s mouth, don’t you?  I didn’t say those things and don’t subscribe to them.  Philosophy is a guide, possibly even a limitation or inspiration.  But that is not new information or evidence.  And it does not affect a scientist’s objectivity, unless the scientists is a bad scientist.  If I'm experimenting or investigating something, then no matter what my philosophical tendies are, I MUST be objective about the facts and data presented.  Philosophy and objectivity are not related when it comes to science.  Religion isn't objective anyway, so it doesn't matter.

The enlightenment project died (the thesis-that pure, objective knowledge is possible and is required) and the reason that most of the world's scientists are critical realist is because they believe this. Pure, objective knowledge such as proposed in the enlightenment is not possible- --and no, I am not a postmodernist.

I disagree that “enlightenment” was ever a “project”.  And no philosophy should affect one’s objectivity.  It might affect one’s approach to science or their goals regarding science.  Objectivity in science is as paramount today as it was 500 years ago.  Again, you are talking about science in a way that is completely flawed.  And please don't go cherry pick some quote from Gould to make you point.  I'm sick of that.  If you get a real scientist and ask him if he has to be objective to get real science done, he will say "yes".  I'm sure there are some cases where that statement could be turned on it's head and I just don't want to argue about it.

So does philosophy offer new information if it is a second order discipline ? Here the answer is an absolute yes. For example, the 'arguments' for the existence of God help to show the credibility of the existence of God and the coherence of theism. That is evidence.   

Baloney!  That’s not evidence, that’s an opinion.  If I say that onion rings are the best snack in the world, is that evidence that they are a good source of nourishment?  No!  And your statement is circular.  The argument for the existence of god is a good evidence that god exists.  That is laughable.  And you call yourself a philosopher?  You might make a good metaphysical argument for god, but it is still just that, an argument, an opinion.  No new facts or data have been presented. No empiricism, no science, just ideas.

Is the existence of God provable? NO. However, proof is only available in mathematics and all other areas of life (including empirical sciences) deal with probability. The existence of God can be demonstrated to be very probable and that is why I am a theist. Waiting around for empirical proof for God or 100% certainty is simply faulty, and is not a legitimate requirement to be placed upon the object being considered.
Once again, probability is king.

We agree on one thing, science deals with probability.  And you have just invalidated every single argument you have against evolutionary theory.  Evolutionary theory is a science and is completely tied to probability.  Science supports evolution with predictions and evidence and makes it astoundingly probable that evolution is true.  You also admit that there is no empirical, scientific evidence for god, so there can be no probability from empirical evidence.  Yet I’m still fine with someone believing nonetheless.  You can base your belief on philosophy, emotions, your imagination, anything you want.  In my mind they are all just as insubstantial.  It’s your belief.  You can’t prove it.  So I will believe what I want to believe based on the criteria I choose.  And I reject the criteria you define because I see it as meaningless.  So, this is not an argument.  Please stop treating it as one.  I’m not dissing your philosophy; I’m saying I see no reason to accept it for me.  You’ve shown me nothing new here, so I’m not unfamiliar with your argument.  I simply disagree with your perception of the validity of philosophy as evidence for god.  It is meaningless for me, but you can have it if you like.  Just stop trying to convince me of it because it is a waste of your time.  And please stop trying to convince me that philosophy somehow provides us with new information or evidence for science.  It does not.

Why is belief in God probable? Because contrary to your claim, there IS evidence for his existence. Some of it is objective- historical evidence, etc. and the arguments for God's existence.

And I have rejected your historical evidence as simply too weak and unreliable.  It might be convincing to you, but to me it is not.  So please stop trying to convince me that your perception of historical stories are valid evidence.  To me they are not.  And it is not a science, not objective, so you are representing an opinion, not a peer reviewed science.

Some of is is more philosophical such as the idea of theism 'fitting' into the universe better than other schemes (we can talk about that if you want- that's a big one we have not touched on). Some of it is subjective- though not as valuable and I do not use it much, it is at least worth mentioning here. Unfortunately, most naturalist do not even weigh these evidences as they are not strictly 'empirical' they think.

Again, I reject philosophy as evidence, but you are welcome to it.  The universe I know and understand is very definable by empirical science.  No supernatural elements are needed.  It works just fine and has no more undefined elements that any supernatural modality.

Yet this is a misunderstanding as: 1) as I stated before a non-empirical God would not be empirically testable and 2) historical evidence, for example, IS scientific, it is just from the field of the historical sciences and not from the lab.

Please stop calling historical stories and tales “scientific”.  No credible scientists will agree with you on this.  It just is not true.

I know I have made many claims in this post (and have inadvertently espoused some tenets of CR anyway), but I think you can see where I am coming from and perhaps this will move the discussion forward.

What I really want is for you to agree that we disagree on this stuff and stop trying to convince me that I’m wrong and you are right.

[JDBLACK]

1) Science and naturalism- science does not logically entail naturalism and to advocate that it does demonstrates my point that all scientists are philosophers inadvertently. It is correct for me to state that you hold to an a priori assumption of naturalism as there is nothing in science that lead you to naturalism. You cannot even prove through science why naturalism is correct- and that demonstrates my point that you hold to it for reasons other than science (if science lead to naturalism, you could scientifically demonstrate why naturalism only is correct). It is ironic, btw, that science began and came to power NOT in naturalism but in supernaturalism. I would actually argue that naturalism deters science and that would be interesting if you want to talk about it.

This is actually somewhat interesting, mostly because I think you are completely wrong and I’m curious how you came about such a foolish notion.  Can you explain why you believe this?  Can you go back to the beginning of the enlightenment perhaps, or the beginning of the rise of science as a useful method and explain how it is not the embodiment of naturalism?

And can you provide any explanation for your use of the term “science came to power”?  Such a phrase makes no sense to me.  Science is not a power so far as I know it.  Are you meaning this metaphorically?

2)Yes a man raising from the dead would be evidence of miracles and I have at least attempted to offer you reasons as to why one can credibly hold to the resurrection. Unfortunately, questions were raised over all historical documents (even nonchristian ones) and we did not get started really. However, the bible does offer theists specific guidelines as to how one can determine what is a miracle caused by God and what is not. Moreover, most theological systems would have some stance on miracles and the differences can be examined and seen to be not as divergent as one might think. We can enter into this discussion if you want more clarification.

You always sound so formal, drat.  Is this intentional?  “We can enter into this discussion…bla, bla…”  No thanks, though.  I don’t desire another round of you trying to convince me of something that is basically nonsense.  You can believe in whatever miracles you like; I’ll just stick to the term “prove it and I’ll believe it”.  I hear about crazy miracles all the time here in the South, so you can claim anything you want about the "standardization" of miracles.  It just isn't true.  For the simplest understanding of this, just aquiant yourself with the James Randi Foundation, the JREF, on the web.  They have a standing one million dollar prize for anyone who can perform any sort of supernatural or miraculous feat and have it verified by objective analysis.  It makes no logical sense why someone with the ability to do such a thing would not.  They could use the million dollars for any cause they choose.  Arguing that the prize is not real is not logical either because it has already been put to the test scores of times with no success, but you can find detailed information about the objectivity and fairness of these tests.  Arguing that the tests are not fiar is also illogical because each person is allowed to negatiate the test with the foundation.  Better hurry, though.  The prize is scheduled to end at the end of this year due to the plethora of silly challenges.  In short, they are tired of testing sillyness.  But any true miracle would and should be examined by the JREF.


One other thing I should have already stated about the philosophical argument for god.  As good an argument one can make from philosophy, it never fully capitulates Christianity, or any other specific religous modality for that matter.  All spiritual traditions rely on oral and/or written histories and can no more be proved accurate than fairy tales.  God could very well exist and someone may have a profound philosophical argument for it, but it is only an argument for "god", not for any specific religious tradition.  The two, philosophy and religious tradition, are not connected in any inherent way, only in the eyes of the believer.  This is why I do not reject the notion of god's existence, but I do reject the accuracy of Christianity and all other spiritual traditions as, at the very best, inaccurate representations of the supernatural creator we all refer to as "god".  And please do not repeat your past assertions of historical documents.  It makes no sense to keep repeating things that I do not consider valid in the hopes that you will win an argument by volume.