September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Italy Update-Saturday | Main | Evangelism Formula? (Video) »

February 12, 2012

Comments

>> "Thats true Louis. It's just as silly as the idea of God writing a book."

i admit - for the first time on this blog

i lold

Josh,

I think you're pretending to be more baffled by this than you really are. There's no inconsistency, and as a learned person you're very well aware why.

Hi Jumper, you ask:

"Do either of you conclude that supernatural causes are involved when I drop a ball and it falls to earth? Why?"

I'm thinking that you have some point in asking this question this way, and will tell you what I think, but I want to know if you are going to attempt to justify knowledge or account for the preconditions for knowledge. As it is, or unless you are the first to do this, naturalists assume knowledge while standing on the shoulders of those who do have justification and then disrespect them. I am not inclined be your huckleberry without some form of serious questioning of presuppositions[I hold that requirement on myself also]. I hope you will allow yourself to be that vulernable.

The Bible tells us that God upholds all things, that nothing happens without His knowledge, and even the hairs on a head are numbered and that birds are fed at His disposition. Gravity is what we call the force that causes a ball to fall to earth. Gravity is a thing, thus upheld by God. So, the mediated cause of the ball falling is gravity, but ultimately by the immediate cause God.

Jumper,

I dont understand what you mean by the rational method so if you could describe it that would help me - apologies.

Thinking through a problem.

What I would say is that there must be, philosophically, a difference between reality ("it's essential nature") and the reality we see - i.e. observational reality.
If I am reading you right - and I'm not certain that I am - I would agree. But because there is only one reality, I would say that the difference is a real and objective difference.

Other than that I'm not sure what you are getting at with this statement. Please elaborate.

"My only hope is that you try to search out what you believe that you haven't put to the fire of skepticism and be honest. Even if it's scary."

It's more complicated than that, but it would be better to have coffee and chat than for me to continue.

I was reading this tonight from Vincent Cheung's Ultimate Questions 2010

"Some theologians agree that John's prologue at least hints at this epistemology. As Ronald Nash writes: After John describes Jesus as the cosmological Logos, he presents Him as the epistemological Logos. John declares that Christ was"the true light that enlightens every man" (John 1:9). In other words, the epistemological Logos is not only the mediator of divine special revelation (John 1:14), He is also the ground of all human knowledge. Several of the early church fathers also taught this view: "On the basis of John 1:9, Justin Martyr argued that every apprehension of truth (whether by believer or unbeliever) is made possible because men are related to the Logos." Every person depends on Christ for his knowledge and thinking. Believers admit it; unbelievers do not."

Brad B,

You wanted to know how evolution accounts for some thing - call it X.

A given model - call it M - accounts for something by predicting, implying, or raising the likelihood of X as opposed to not-X or being neutral.

RonH

Jumper

"a difference between reality ("it's essential nature") and the reality we see - i.e. observational reality."

Reality includes observation of things that you cannot see with your eyes. For example, can you see your thoughts with your eyes? Yet, you are aware of them and actually cannot be mistaken at any given moment about what you are thinking. You do observe your own thoughts, but it is not through the organs that materialism forces you to reduce your perception to...your eyes.

RonH

"He scoffs at one medium of communication because it's modern."

If I scoff at it, it is at the notion that it (YouTube) was around three thousand years ago. The message needed to get out then, not now and in a medium that would be around for that long. So, it seems to me that once again, God was using a medium that accomplished its task far better in long run. On the basis of this fact, YouTube is in fact an inferior medium for God's purpose and it is not because it is "Modern". It is because it has not been around long enough to make the kind of impact that the penned word has. Furthermore, you cannot squeeze all the books into the limits imposed on users with YouTube and for all these reasons, YouTube is inferior and no label of "Modern" makes it any more marketable to the discerning consumer who doesn't buy every bit of nonsense passing the lips of a salesman.

Louis Kuhelj,

Was your last really for me?

RonH

Sorry RonH

That was supposed to be a response for Josh. My bad.

Hi RonH, I still think that the word account is the issue. Induction by any other description or name is still a logical fallacy and just cannot be said to account for anything. Also, although you seem to be saying that the theory of evolution is consistent with what you see, therefore evolution accounts for X, it is also similarly invalid reasoning as well as being circular. If Evolution were a self attesting and internally coherent, the charge of circular reasoning would be baseless, but since evolution is neither, the charge stands that it cannot account / ground / justify anything.

So to reply to various posts:

Bennett

A poor use of language on my part, perhaps. To answer the question "what makes the object fall to earth", do we need to invoke the supernatural to answer the question?

BradB

"Gravity is a thing, thus upheld by God" So even if there is a natural explanation, you explain that natural explanation using the supernatural. And you know that is correct because scripture tells you so? And you know scripture is correct because....? Why? Do correct me where I'm wrong. Your knowledge rests on some foundation does it not? If you see God everywhere you will explain nothing.

Steve K (and Brad) - here's what Im getting at:

If you are investigating phenomena, you are doing science. If you are doing science, you have to assume methodological naturalism. The reason for that isn't because people doing science have all ganged up against god(s) or don't like gods or reject god(s). The entire point of basing science on methodological naturalism is to avoid the unnecessary implications of metaphysical terms like "truth" and "reality" - things which cannot be demonstrated by science due to its nature of inquiry. Science being the "truth" can be viewed as a reasonable statement only if you're using it in a basic logical sense, where a proposition can be said to be true if it is consistent with our other observations. Obviously this kind of "truth" is not one that is discovered, but rather constructed.
The power of the scientific method is that regardless of what kind of metaphysical reality ("it's essential nature") that is out there, it will still work. In other words, the "truth" that we uncover with science will be the same, no matter what the actual truth is.
After all - how can you tell the difference between a natural cause that we don't understand yet versus a supernatural one?

Louis

"Reality includes observation of things that you cannot see with your eyes." Indirectly counts.

"For example, can you see your thoughts with your eyes?" Yes - Electroencephalography. See (all of) the above.

"you are aware of them and actually cannot be mistaken at any given moment about what you are thinking." Yes, people can delude them self. Would you like me cite the papers?

BradB

Why is inductive reasoning a logical fallacy? Are you going to stick your hand in the fire again to check that its hot? Or is induction useful? Yet again you amuse by typing on a phone/computer to communicate globally by attacking a philosophical premise upon which science is based. Yes its impossible to justify induction. But science makes no truth claims. So who cares? Ergo - your computer/phone works.

Hi jumper quite few truth claims coming from someone who maintains no truthis are being claimed. You are mistaken about my stance regarding science. I don't have to limit the scope of investigation to natural causes, and the only reason you do is because of the philosophical presuppositions you bring as you suppress the truth. Your hijacking of the realm of scientific discovery is being challenged, not the usefulness of what can be reasonably expected in its conclusions.

Btw, Induction is a logical fallacy, look it up. Even grounding knowledge in God doesn't rescue the scientific method from its logical challenge. Einstein honestly stated that [loose paraphrase] "all we have are approximations, we really know nothing at all", but Jumper wants to buck Albert and claim more than the disclipline can deliver.

Like I said, I'd be your huckleberry if you'll confront your unproved presuppositions, if not it will go on like it is.

Oh, and btw, grounding immediate causes in the biblical revelation is in no way illogical, your system cant do that, and you have the nerve to charge Christians as irrational or unreasonable?

BradB

I have made no truth claims. Point them out if I have.

Science makes no truth claims.

Inductive reasoning is not a logical fallacy. Its just logically unjustified. There's a difference.

"I don't have to limit the scope of investigation to natural causes" If you are doing science, you do.

"the only reason you do is because of the philosophical presuppositions you bring as you suppress the truth."
No - if you are saying science investigates the supernatural, then tell me how you would set up an experiment to differentiate between the natural and the supernatural. If you are after the truth, don't do science. 'Albert' says the same thing.

"you have the nerve to charge Christians as irrational or unreasonable?"
When did I say that?

"if you'll confront your unproved presuppositions, if not it will go on like it is."
And when are you going to confront yours? I know that science rests on axioms - I've said so before. Any system of obtaining knowledge does. Even your religion.

Hi Jumper, after reading through the recent responses, I have read into your posts things not there. I'll try to stay more focused and precise in what I want to convey, sorry for the confusion.

Most of what was said I stand by even if it was misdirected. Hopefully we can overcome my previous misfirings and not go so far and wide.

I'll go back to your original point, I'm sure some of this will come back up again.

You've asked

" then tell me how you would set up an experiment to differentiate between the natural and the supernatural"

First of all, I wouldn't set up an experiment if I wanted to actually know something. I have to ask you similarly: How would you know{?}, being that you've previously limited the scope of what can be investigated and also admitted that you cant know what is real. How did you come to believe that the natural is really even just natural in the first place? This is an unjustified assumption.

I previously told you that if logical necessity pointed to a suspension in the natural order, I'd infer a supernatural cause, this would also include reasoning from the impossibility of the contrary to infer epestimic justification for something not accounted for otherwise. Or, the biblical revelation providing necessary information that informs me of what IS, so I dont have to rely on induction or just plain faulty human reasoning.

Jumper,

It wasn't a poor use of language on your part, there are several kinds of cause, and they don't mutually exclude one another. When you ask whether I need to invoke a supernatural cause to explain why you dropped a ball and it fell, which kind of cause do you mean?

I'm talking about the phenomena of balls falling to earth when dropped. Do you need to use the supernatural to explain that phenomena? If so, why?
If you want to couch it in terms of cause that's fine, but that was the question I meant to ask.

Jumper,

Post-droppage, balls fall to earth due to the pull of gravity. Gravity is, by definition, a natural force.

So are you asking me whether I invoke the supernatural to explain a natural force? The question seems a little oddball.

Now, if you ask me whether I involve anything other than the 4 (or now three) identified quantum forces in that process, I'd say yes. After all, someone had to pick the ball up in the first place.

If you found someone dead with 18 puncture wounds to their chest and a blood knife beside them, would you ask the coroner to list it as "Natural causes"?

We may have a difference as to just what qualifies as "natural" (as opposed to, for example, artificial, or deliberate), and how you define the term "supernatural".

Jumper Thanks for responding.

""Reality includes observation of things that you cannot see with your eyes." Indirectly counts.
RECAP:
"For example, can you see your thoughts with your eyes?" Yes - Electroencephalography. See (all of) the above.

"you are aware of them and actually cannot be mistaken at any given moment about what you are thinking." Yes, people can delude them self. Would you like me cite the papers?"

There is no indirectly when it comes to relying on your five senses for observation. Materialistic naturalism plus empiricism denies alternative means of awareness of very real things such as thoughts that have no material ontology.

Electroencephalography has no access to your individual thoughts and assuming that those graphs represent them, is assuming your conclusion and you are clever enough to know what fallacy that is.

Furthermore, even deluded individuals cannot be mistaken about what they are thinking at any given moment, they are only mistaken about what they believe. So, your response on the issue of being mistaken about what you are thinking completely misses my point. I appreciate your attempt at trying to explain your position and am sympathetic with the difficulties and frustration that can bring when there are serious problems with it. It is because of these very serious problems that I remain unconvinced that they reflect reality.

The comments to this entry are closed.