Tim Robbins wrote: » That's nonsense. The whole purpose of logic is to discover truth objectively. The best way to run a society is a subjective question - not an objective one.
If you said something like, the most efficient way to collect tax from self employed people well then that's not so objective and logic comes into play.
JimiTime wrote: » There was a time when your posts had a bit more to them than this type of carry on Tim. What happened??
Tim Robbins wrote: » I don't 100% hate it. Where this started was I pointed out a trend in humanity where the more intelligent and educated you were the less chance you'd be religious. This is supported by ample evidence and none of you have refuted this.
Tim Robbins wrote: » All you say is "yeah it might be true, but I don't care". Well then you probably don't really care about what's true and should really admit that?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I'd agree with you that children will at times favour agentival causes as explanations for natural phenomena. They also may readily determine that there is purpose in seemingly purposeless objects. Both of these seem to be largely uncontroversial claims, especially if one removes the oft used phrase "hardwired" and replace it with something like "propensity". However, unless you first presuppose materialistic reductionism, it is not obvious why a natural explanation for a particular phenomena would mean that we ought to stop believing in this phenomena, especially if it is claimed that these phenomena have supernatural origins. One might propose reductionist explanations for things like love, beauty, truth, the inherent value of life, morality etc. and still not see love, beauty, etc. as merely tricks of evolution or whatever materialistic "just so" story you care to come up with. To take someone else's analogy, offering physical explanations of why a Model T worked doesn't explain away it's creator, Henry Ford. Somebody like Justin Barrett (who just so happens to be a Christian as well a cognitive scientist of some sort) looks at the same cases and comes to different conclusions. This is because you are both drawing conclusions that are metaphysical/ ontological in nature. You departed from the science after your first sentence. Perhaps you didn't realise this. Click here for a talk entitled The Naturalness of Childhood Theism and here for a critique of Barrett from some atheist chap.
J C wrote: » As I recall, people who were ill and were prayed for, even when they didn't know it was happening, had significantly better out-turns.http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html Supernatural causes aren't claimed in many situations!!!! However, where supernatural cause is a definite possibility (the origins issue) conventional science doesn't allow a Divine foot inside the door ... and that is fair enough ... provided this isn't denied!!!:) I'd term it being consistent. ... chicken !!!:):eek: I agree that independently verified evidence is critical ... ... so if the physical evidence unambiguously points towards the existence of a God of effectively infinite creative capacity ... this should be accorded the scientific respect that it is due. ... and as God also helps those who help themselves ... it should never be a choice between prayer and medical care ... both should obviously be used.
muppeteer wrote: » Want to know how your computer works = naturalistic explanation
muppeteer wrote: » Want medicine to heal you = naturalistic explanation
J C wrote: ... origins of the CFSI found in living organisms - what is the explanation?
muppeteer wrote: » Want to know why a statue is moving = lets throw that naturalistic stuff out the window!
muppeteer wrote: » An explanation of why you believe the way you do can help you determine what is our bias and what is the external reality. Having a naturalistic explanation of what you are pre disposed to believe doesn't mean you have to reject all other explanations just because it is naturalistic.
muppeteer wrote: » I had a listen to the Barrett talk and he doesn't seem to deviate from the generally accepted view of childhood propensity to believe in gods. Where he does deviate I would have to agree with Grayling's comments in the other link but it's a small matter either way. He makes no argument for Christianity at all in the talk so I don't know how it fits into his religion. What makes these conclusions matter, whether or not you presuppose naturalism or not, is that they help fill a vacuum left by the lack of evidence for supernatural events. We have a world where there hasn't been a single verifiable supernatural event ever. Not one. All we have are anecdote, and ambiguous intuition to support the supernatural world view. Now just because we have a lack of evidence for the supernatural doesn't mean it's not true. (Now I would default to no evidence=not true but others, including yourself, may not) So we have to try and fill the void of evidence for you. I can point out the buckets of evidence for natural explanations in physics and biology and you can just say that your god created those and that the evidence doesn't preclude a god, which is again technically possible. What the research of Barrett and others helps us to do is explain why you find the idea of a god appealing and natural. It shows that what can be appealing and natural can have absolutely no relation to what is real and yet it is still appealing and natural to you(the princess example). It helps explain why you persist with the idea of a god which is only technically possible in the face of a deficit of evidence which would be unacceptable in any other part of your life. Naturalistic explanations predict and explain with such power that to abandon them in favour of anecdote only when they conflict with a particular bias seems to be wilfully ignorant. Want to know how your computer works = naturalistic explanation Want medicine to heal you = naturalistic explanation Want to know why a statue is moving = lets throw that naturalistic stuff out the window! An explanation of why you believe the way you do can help you determine what is our bias and what is the external reality. Having a naturalistic explanation of what you are pre disposed to believe doesn't mean you have to reject all other explanations just because it is naturalistic. It can't prove in itself that you should either stop or start believing in something, only that you had better be aware of your bias.
muppeteer wrote: » Your link is a paragon of impartiality, hallelujah I've seen the light:rolleyes:
muppeteer wrote: » Oh and I won't be goaded into that creationist train wreck, I'm just not that masochistic.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » It's a bold claim to state that there has been no verifiable supernatural event ever. How exactly do you know such a thing? It surely isn't through science because it deals only with the material world and we are talking about supernatural events. And why exactly should something be scientifically verifiable to be considered true? Many forms of knowledge that we hold dearly and take to be fundamentally true are not verifiable by science. Indeed, science itself is built upon axioms that are beyond the purview of science and simply have to be taken axiomatically. So we are again brought back to metaphysics. Which leads me to ask what type of supernatural event you think could be verified as such and how would you go about doing so?
philologos wrote: » I can't believe someone compared a computer to creation. It is not a good example for an atheist to use. A computer is designed, it is put together with an intention and a purpose. For Christians, this is true of Creation as well.
marienbad wrote: » Can you give some examples of verifiable supernatural events Fanny ?
muppeteer wrote: » Well I was mostly thinking of the understanding of electrons and semi conductors as being fully within the naturalistic understanding of the universe. You have in fact inadvertently made a perfect example of the flaw in your reasoning though. You have assumed a purpose and intent in a theory of how natural processes such as electrons are excited gets explained in naturalistic ways. You have jumped from how electrons behave in a computer to assuming that all electrons must be guided by design because a few of them are designed by humans. Huge assumption and huge flaw. There is no comparison being made between a computer and creation only that natural explanations can help understand phenomena in both.
philologos wrote: » Man built computers, and used components in the process of doing so, in the knowledge that it would serve a particular purpose. God according to Christianity created the world, and used scientific processes (which He created) in the process, in the knowledge that it would serve a particular purpose. I don't give God half enough thanks for being able to walk in this Creation. I certainly don't give God enough thanks for forgiving a sinner like me despite blaspheming against Him and His authority by my lifestyle. What about you? Why do you keep ignoring Him? Your interpretation doesn't preclude Christianity. Your interpretation assumes that natural phenomenon happen with no accord. Your interpretation assumes that these things can happen for no reason. That to me is absolutely bizarre.
muppeteer wrote: » Well I was mostly thinking of the understanding of electrons and semi conductors as being fully within the naturalistic understanding of the universe.
muppeteer wrote: » You have in fact inadvertently made a perfect example of the flaw in your reasoning though. You have assumed a purpose and intent in a theory of how natural processes such as electrons are excited gets explained in naturalistic ways. You have jumped from how electrons behave in a computer to assuming that all electrons must be guided by design because a few of them are designed by humans. Huge assumption and huge flaw. There is no comparison being made between a computer and creation only that natural explanations can help understand phenomena in both.
muppeteer wrote: » Why is it bizarre? Is the thought of a universe where you are not special so frightening to you?
muppeteer wrote: » The interpretation doesn't preclude any god, not a Christian god or a Norse god or any other. The interpretation has no need of unnecessary gods and their associated unnecessary extra assumptions.
J C wrote: » ... but electrons and semiconductors don't naturally combine together in the specific complex functional ways that they are found in computers ... computers are Intelligently Designed!!!! ... but 'natural explanations' don't explain how either computers or life were created ... they only explain how they function. ... and that is the huge flaw in your argument.
muppeteer wrote: » Why is it bizarre? Is the thought of a universe where you are not special so frightening to you? The interpretation doesn't preclude any god, not a Christian god or a Norse god or any other. The interpretation has no need of unnecessary gods and their associated unnecessary extra assumptions.
muppeteer wrote: » I'm afraid you have asserted that that electrons were created without anything to back it up.
muppeteer wrote: » Knowing how things function allows us to see through complexity that gives the impression of design, to dispel the initially intuitive and easy answer that it looks designed so there must be a designer.
muppeteer wrote: » Natural explanations of how things function don't claim to know how they were created.
muppeteer wrote: » They only dispel your illusions of designed complexity.
lmaopml wrote: » At the root Muppeteer would you say that Atheists believe in chance ultimately? Or at the very least don't see why they shouldn't? Scientists (not particularly Atheists) have been on the road of discovery because it's a wise thing to do so, and now some think 'chance' is the best theory for the creation of the universe.
philologos wrote: » The thought of the universe without an intelligent cause is just odd, weird, and nonsensical to me. All those things more than frightening. The universe mightn't preclude a Norse god. But what I do know is that there is much more testimony to the God of the Bible than there is to any other, and what I do know is that there is eyewitness testimony showing Jesus coming into this world to pay the price for sin. What I do know also is that there is testimony outside of the Bible concerning Him, and what I do know also is that the Bible is affirmed not only in the lives of other people, but it's claims are substantiated in the world around us. Honestly that is enough for me. The question I have for you is, are you afraid of the possibility that Jesus might be Lord, and you ...... Sweet but pointless questions as the particular wants and needs of a god are irrelevant if the god is un-believable in the first place .......... longs for all to know Him.
philologos wrote: » The thought of the universe without an intelligent cause is just odd, weird, and nonsensical to me. All those things more than frightening. The universe mightn't preclude a Norse god. But what I do know is that there is much more testimony to the God of the Bible than there is to any other, and what I do know is that there is eyewitness testimony showing Jesus coming into this world to pay the price for sin. What I do know also is that there is testimony outside of the Bible concerning Him, and what I do know also is that the Bible is affirmed not only in the lives of other people, but it's claims are substantiated in the world around us. Honestly that is enough for me. The question I have for you is, are you afraid of the possibility that Jesus might be Lord, and you might be living a life of blasphemy against the God who created you? How can you be sure that you're right concerning Jesus? Have you spent time examining Him and examining His claims? How can I know that what you say about the Gospel, and what you say about Jesus have any authority of weight? Have you ever thought that perhaps the Gospel is true? Have you ever thought that perhaps the Bible is accurate when it says that we've all fallen short of God's glory and have fallen into sin (Romans 3:23)? Have you ever thought that you need genuine forgiveness for what you have done in God's creation? Perhaps God is right, and perhaps Jesus did come into the world to pay the penalty for sin once and for all if you'd only stop being so stubborn and repent and believe. Do you realise that the Christians who post here, genuinely want you to know Jesus, and genuinely want you to know about Him, and genuinely want you to receive eternal life in the Father's glory? Don't you realise that Christians aren't all that interested in boasting about how much better they are than others in the world? That's the reason why I don't care about what Tim says about Christians being stupid. Other than it being demonstrably false, he doesn't seem to realise that we're for the most part here and posting because we long for him and for many others to be saved. To repent and believe in Jesus as Lord, and to commit their lives to living and speaking for Him, and for the sake of the Gospel. There's more at stake than a superiority complex, or a bit of pseudo-intellectualism. There's the God of the universe at stake, and He longs for all to know Him.
PDN wrote: » I see. So compassion, justice, beauty etc are not truth?
And the fact you immediately jump to something as prosaic as tax collection demonstrates the limitations of your 'logic' much better than I ever could. Thank God that Marin Luther King and Mother Theresa were illogical enough not to think like accountants.
marienbad wrote: » Have you read the testimony to those others Gods ? How do you know yours is the correct one ?
muppeteer wrote: » Have you thought about why such a notion is alien to you? How can you know that the feeling of weirdness isn't just your natural propensity to believe in god like explanations carried forward into adulthood?
muppeteer wrote: » Each of your other points in support of your god have been dealt with before so I won't bother typing it all again. All I'll say is that the standard of your testimony is nowhere near the standard of evidence needed to jump to such wild conclusions. Can I ask why you find testimony good enough for God but I assume you would find testimony insufficient for me making a claim that I can fly?
