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

« Alan Chambers’s View Is Clear | Main | Challenge: Isn’t Selling Organs for Research a Good Thing? »

October 05, 2015

Comments

scbrownlhrm

I see you are dead set on repeating the same stupid lie over and over again - hoping that mindless and endless repetition will eventually turn the lie into truth.
However, no matter how often you repeat the lie - I am merely quoting your own definition VERBATIM without omitting any relevant context.

So, here we go again with round #10:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water under standard conditions has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water through the combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead repeat your obvious lie about me redefining the concept you introduced although I am quoting you verbatim and am not omitting any relevant context - and then we´ll go straight to round #11.

Andy,

I answered all three questions.

Did you miss it?

I can't help it if your quote of one sentence is the end of your desire to read all my other sentences. That you don't acknowledge my many other sentences is evidence that you're just not interested in what I've actually argued.

Andy,

Relevant context would be those many other sentences which you're leaving out.

I'd claim you're leaving out context but I feel certain that you would claim that it was a lie.

The many other sentences are there if you care about scooping in all that "relevant context" you seem to think isn't there.


scbrownlhrm

So now you have completely given up on your earlier lie that I am misrepresenting you, and instead resort to two new lies:
1. That you have already answered my three simple yes-or-no questions.
2. That I am ignoring some crucial context from your other comments.
Both of those claims are obvious lies and I find it quite amusing that you evidently believe your Christian friends who might still follow this conversations to be complete and utter morons - because they would have to be just that in order to believe those lies.

So, here we go again with round #11:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water under standard conditions has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water through the combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead mindlessly repeat your 2 new lies mentioned above - and then we´ll go straight to round #12.

Andy,

You are ignoring all my sentences but one, which equates to very little context surfacing in your attempt to define my argument.


scbrownlhrm

Exactly as predicted, you mindlessly repeat your new lie about me allegedly omitting crucial context - obviously without quoting even just a single word of this alleged crucial context since you are just lying about this.

So, here we go again with round #12:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water under standard conditions has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water through the combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead mindlessly repeat your lie about me allegedly omitting crucial context - and then we´ll go straight to round #13.

Andy,

Why quote it?

It's all there.

scbrownlhrm

Exactly as predicted, you mindlessly repeat your new lie about me allegedly omitting crucial context - obviously without quoting even just a single word of this alleged crucial context since you are just lying about this.

So, here we go again with round #13:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water under standard conditions has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water through the combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead mindlessly repeat your lie about me allegedly omitting crucial context - and then we´ll go straight to round #14.

Andy,

Quote a single word of it?

But why would I bother?

scbrownlhrm

Exactly as predicted, you mindlessly repeat your new lie about me allegedly omitting crucial context - obviously without quoting even just a single word of this alleged crucial context since you are just lying about this.

So, here we go again with round #14:

1. Do you actually believe what you said earlier: "causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with" - yes or no?
2. Do you agree that water under standard conditions has the property of being fluid - yes or no?
3. Do you agree that none of the causes of the creation of water through the combustion of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas has the property of being fluid - yes or no? (and if no - name the alleged causes that have the property of being fluid).

There is no way for you to answer these questions without admitting that you make things up as you go along and sometimes affirm and sometimes reject a principle like the "the principle of proportionate causality" based on whatever is convenient at the moment.
I predict that you will just cowardly refuse to answer them yet AGAIN and instead mindlessly repeat your lie about me allegedly omitting crucial context - and then we´ll go straight to round #15.

Andy,

We've already reviewed those, remember? It's yes and yes and yes on questions 1, 2, and 3, but what has any of that to do with "Wet" as I've defined "property" on multiple occasions in this thread?


Nothing at all.


You may want to "re-re-define" the word property back to what the actual context argues.

scbrownlhrm

Ah, so finally answers. And two new lies:
1. That you have provided those answers before.
2. That you have provided a definition of the word "property" before that renders my questions irrelevant.
Both claims are obvious lies and it is again extremely amusing that you consider the Christian audience of this blog to be stupid enough to believe those lies.

In any case, what has now become completely obvious is that you literally could not care less about truth and consistency - you redefine or even straight up lie whenever it is convenient to do so.
If I were a Christian, I would be embarrassed that someone so unbelievably dishonest and corrupt as you would be a "fellow brother in Christ", but since I am an Atheist - the dominant reaction towards your callous disregard for honesty and consistency is simply Schadenfreude.

scbrownlhrm

Perhaps you could provide the date and time of the post where you defined what you mean by "property" as well as copy/pasting the definition please.

I have to admit I've been following the thread and I didnt see where you answered "yes and yes and yes" until your last post at 09:37 today.

So it would be good to recap on how you have defined property also ;)

Thanks, Mike

Andy, Mike,

Property as you've (Andy... etc...) used it isn't anywhere close to the way I've used it in reference to QM, to elimination, to particle, to elemental constitutions, to the Big Bang, to sodium channels, and to all known phenomena.


That all covers multiple comments.


Feel free to read them all again.


The first "Yes" was the earlier comment affirming that I agree with #1 in *my* equating your quote of mine to *my* actual definition of the principle of proportionate causality and noting that it didn't have anything to do with the concept.

The second and third "Yes's" were affirmed in several comments describing the difference between the use of the word property (bookcases, water, sodium channel, neuron, etc....) as real, or valid but unrelated to the principle of proportionate causality and property. Thus taking the pains to differentiate that key difference.

Several times.

Did you really take me to mean bookcases don't exist? Really?

"Bookcase" is a property of all physical systems in all known phenomena? Really?

Your intellect couldn't "pick up" on such obvious distinctions?

Really?

scbrownlhrm

So your answers to Mike´s questions are:
1. You never actually defined property in any way that would render my questions invalid, but now try to lie about it by saying "just read all my comments again, it´s in there somewhere I swear!!1!" and hoping that Christian readers are stupid enough to believe this.

2. You did not in fact answer my questions before 09:37 today as Mike pointed out (after me asking you FOURTEEN times), and now you try to lie about it by saying that you already answered them before - you just can´t point to any comment where you in fact did answer them, but you certainly did, one just have to have faith that you did.

Andy,

On your first complaint, my repeated use of, and qualifications of, the word property do render your use invalid relative to my argument. That is also why your question #1 earlier was answered all along. Ignoring the context of all my other sentences doesn't change the fact that the (repeated) distinctions are there to answer your earlier 3 questions. I can't help it if you won't read someone's entire collection of statements.

On your second complaint, the questions have been answered from the beginning, as just described, and your insistence that the term property not be used as I've used it is evidence of your genuine disingenuousness.


It's like this:

Me: The definition of Property is not wet.

You: Isn't it true that the property of wet is in X?

You: repeat that same question 15 times.

Me: I already answered that question simply by the many, many sentences which have, well, already qualified the term property.

So, again, that you don't want to read any sentence but the one you keep quoting isn't me "failing to answer".


It's you failing to read more sentences than one.


scbrownlhrm

"Me: The definition of Property is not wet."
- OMFG :-D
So I guess your "definition" of, say, "intelligence" is something like "erm... its not a steak!!"

scbrownlhrm

If you want to use a definition of the word "property" which is non dictionary or not regular then please define your terms. It shouldnt be up to me to try and piece together clues to try and tell what your definition is.

Thanks, Mike

Andy,

Wet isn't a fundamental property of physical systems in all of our known phenomena. There ARE universal properties which impinge upon ALL chemical reactions. However that is a different discussion when it comes to *kind* or to *category*. Categorically speaking there is no such entity, property, to the fundamental composition of reality that is the property of Wet.


It's like this:

Me: The definition of Property is not wet.

You: Isn't it true that the property of wet is in X?

You: repeat that same question 15 times.

Me: I already answered that question simply by the many, many sentences which have, well, already qualified the term property.

So, again, that you don't want to read any sentence but the one you keep quoting isn't me "failing to answer".


It's you failing to read more sentences than one.

"Bookcase" isn't a fundamental property of physical systems in all of our known phenomena. There ARE universal properties which impinge upon ALL chemical reactions. However that is a different discussion when it comes to *kind* or to *category*. Categorically speaking there is no such entity, property, to the fundamental composition of reality that is the property of "Bookcase".


The distinction is easy enough to pick up on, but, having offered yet further qualifying statements, and still being called a liar, despite pushing it all the way back to QM and other circumscribed lines, my duty to keep dancing to the tune of "Liar!" simply hasn't been shown to be valid.


Universal and fundamental properties of what reality "is" is a fairly common topic. In fact, it's the driving topic in a wide array of discussions.


Neither Wet nor Bookcase qualify as "property" therein. Per both the Christian and the Non-Theist.


Whereas, the Christian argues that Mind, Person, (and Etc.) *do* qualify as "property" therein.


The principle of proportionate causality is the same whether in Theism or Materialism. The key (the categorical ) differences are of *means* and of *ends*.

scbrownlhrm

Ah, I see, so now you say that your earlier claim:
"causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with"
- was in fact complete BS. And you now want to redefine it to:
"causes just cannot infuse their effects with a
"fundamental property of physical systems in all of our known phenomena - universal properties which impinge upon ALL chemical reactions" which is not implicit in the cause to begin with"

And one example for such a "fundamental property of all physical systems" that "impinges upon ALL chemical reactions" is "Person".
Which is why "Person" is a property of all "physical systems" - like pineapples, windows, coffee machines and dung heaps.

Yup, sounds like Christian metaphysics 101!

By all means, continue - this is hilarious :-)

"The distinction is easy enough to pick up on"

Then it should be simple enough for you to explain it. If I was a little harsher I could accuse you of trying to dodge the issue by introducing new terms and further sophistry.

Here's the difficulty:

You said (at October 09, 2015 at 01:04 PM):

"Love. Logic. Mind. Person. Reason. Intention. It's all the same here. All such properties end in elimination because - as everybody knows - causes just cannot infuse their effects with a property which is not implicit in the cause to begin with. The property of logic isn't "magically different" and able to claim some sort of "immunity" from the way reality works."

So it seems you are saying "Love. Logic. Mind. Person. Reason. Intention." are properties..... but properties of what?

Because then - which is what really confuses the issue - you say (October 13, 2015 at 12:40 PM):

""Bookcase" isn't a fundamental property of physical systems in all of our known phenomena. There ARE universal properties which impinge upon ALL chemical reactions."

So which properties are you on about now? Still "LOve. Logic etc etc etc" - or something else?

I quoted Einstein previously - "'If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself".

My money is on you not having the first clue what you are on about. Because its rambling, confused and full of unwarranted and obfuscating long words.

Is this the state of Christian thinking? Is the God hypothesis really this obscure - so deeply hidden - that it takes a PhD in Sophistry to explain it?

Answer to OP - "No - first supply evidence God exists beyond hackneyed arguments like TAG, KCA etc which only the most credulous buy into". Next?

Mike,

"Is this the state of Christian thinking?"
- I think scbrownlhrm´s comments are essentially what you would get if you take some books or blog posts by "sophisticated theologians" like Edward Feser or David Bentley Hart, and rearrange the words in them randomly ;-)

Andy,

Why would you think Person is a property of all physical systems given the Christian's metaphysical paradigm?

The Christian doesn't affirm that.

Science doesn't affirm that.

An outright Idealism might affirm that, or not, but that topic hasn't been brought up.

Mike,

That you thought I *just might be* asserting that Mind is a fundamental or universal or actual property of Materialism is really hard to believe given your obvious skill in these threads.

Did you really need that clarified?

Really?

scbrownlhrm

What are the "[properties] of all physical systems given the Christian's metaphysical paradigm"????

You did say "Whereas, the Christian argues that Mind, Person, (and Etc.) *do* qualify as "property" therein." (October 13, 2015 at 12:40 PM) just as you said:

"Love. Logic. Mind. Person. Reason. Intention. It's all the same here. All such properties......." (October 09, 2015 at 01:04 PM)

so its pretty obvious why Andy would think you have defined person as a property.

Do I really need to spell this out any more?

"That you thought I *just might be* asserting that Mind is a fundamental or universal or actual property of Materialism is really hard to believe given your obvious skill in these threads"

Wut?

I was trying to clarify what the deuce you meant by "property"

I have no idea why you are dragging materialism into this. Again.

Just for the record, Im not a materialist. Thanks.

scbrownlhrm quote #1:
"Wet isn't a fundamental property of physical systems in all of our known phenomena. There ARE universal properties which impinge upon ALL chemical reactions."

scbrownlhrm quote #2:
"Whereas, the Christian argues that Mind, Person, (and Etc.) *do* qualify as "property" therein."

scbrownlhrm quote #3:
"Why would you think Person is a property of all physical systems given the Christian's metaphysical paradigm?
The Christian doesn't affirm that."


This guy really cannot write more than one sentence without completely contradicting himself - I love it, by all means, do go on, this is so hilarious :-)

Mike,

You left out other sentences:

"Universal and fundamental properties of what reality "is" is a fairly common topic. In fact, it's the driving topic in a wide array of discussions.

Neither Wet nor Bookcase qualify as "property" therein. Per both the Christian and the Non-Theist.

Whereas, the Christian argues that Mind, Person, (and Etc.) *do* qualify as "property" therein."


So, again, on the universal and fundamental properties of reality, you actually thought that the Christian "just might be" equating the immaterial and the material as housing the SAME properties therein and NOT differentiating them - and saying they occupy the SAME bottom of reality, that Person is a property of material?

You actually were UNAWARE that the ultimate terminus of explanation for the Theist and Non-Theist are universally and fundamentally (metaphysically) different, distinct, in *kind* or in *category*?


I don't believe that. I mean, I'm just saying, you're ahead of me in these topics.


I grant that I can be more methodical in these statements, but when one's audience is one or two very adept and skilled folks (you and Andy are clearly not new to these topics), one tailors his comments to "getting to the point" and moving on.


Andy,

You misquoted me.

Here's what I said:


"Universal and fundamental properties of what reality "is" is a fairly common topic. In fact, it's the driving topic in a wide array of discussions.

Neither Wet nor Bookcase qualify as "property" therein. Per both the Christian and the Non-Theist.

Whereas, the Christian argues that Mind, Person, (and Etc.) *do* qualify as "property" therein."

(See my last comment to Mike)

Andy,

You should avoid slicing quotes together in bits and pieces that don't belong together.


Context and other sentences need to be included when you attempt to define another's argument.

scbrownlhrm

Im simply trying to understand what you are getting at.

"You should avoid slicing quotes together in bits and pieces that don't belong together."

Actually scbrownlhrm, you should be consistent. Because at the moment - just like the Holly Babble, you are inconsistent and a bit incoherent.

Take this:

"So, again, on the universal and fundamental properties of reality, you actually thought that the Christian "just might be" equating the immaterial and the material as housing the SAME properties therein and NOT differentiating them - and saying they occupy the SAME bottom of reality, that Person is a property of material?"

One more time because you aint getting it and Im being very clear - I am trying to understand how you are defining "property"

Because why you think Love is a "Universal and fundamental properties of what reality "is"" - is beyond me.

Mike,


You don't know why a Christian asserts that love is a universal and fundamental property of reality?


(Hmm..... I don't believe you....)


It's obvious: God is, and, God is love, and, God is the Christian's ultimate terminus of explanation for the created order. Don't mistake that sentence to mean that the created order is love is God is Person (etc.). Obviously though you already know that. Full blown Idealism seems to collapse into that sort of non-reality for the physical world, and Pantheism seems to claim that the tree is god, and so on, but the Christian doesn't. But, again, you obviously already know that about Christianity so we don't need to write 500 words on it.


Right?


Of course: God is not material, nor physical.


*BOTH* Non-Theism and Theism can be addressed with the following question:


Universal and fundamental properties of what reality "is" is a fairly common topic. In fact, it's the driving topic in a wide array of discussions.


Neither Wet nor Bookcase qualify as "property" therein. Per both the Christian and the Non-Theist.


I've not met anyone who asserts that "Wet" or that "bookcase" is a universal and fundamental property of reality (theist or non-theist).


Whereas, the Christian argues that Mind, Person, (and Etc.) *do* qualify as "property" therein (that universal / fundamental / etc.). Are you tempted again to take that to mean that the Christian equates the material order and the immaterial order? That Mind and Person are material objects - full stop? Well, obviously you already know that isn't the case for the Christian.


The Non-Theist will find some other universal and fundamental property of reality other than God.


And that's fine because it's not "either / or" on who actually gets to ask the question.


Everybody is asking that question.


It's a great question.

@ Mike & Andy...let me first say that it's hard for me to stay up on these discussions sometimes/often, due to the fact that I work with my hands and out in the field 12-14 hours most days and I'm not always able to be online while out. Dont take this the wrong way, it is not my intention to be cryptic or lacking when I do respond it is just a matter of time management.

Mike asks pretty respectfully for citation of Andy redefining and question begging, Andy in his usual hyperbolic tone cries "liar" when I follow up. Honestly, it is really six year old territory...right from the beginning it is all over this thread sorting through the temper tantrum like bellowing of Andy might obsfucate it some, but when Andy lectures Daniel it was most obvious so lets look at a sample there so you have your citing.

Here is Andy responding to Daniel Oct 12th 9:15am:

"You presuppose that one can draw reliable conclusions from observations/facts empirically."
" - Nope. I do not presuppose that, I rather conclude it based on the regularities I can observe in the world around me.
then: at 10:03 Daniel gets another dose
"Don't you see here, Andy, that this is a presupposition? You say that you conclude things based on the regularities you observe - this is itself something you take to heart and believe in. It is in fact a presupposition."
- No, it is not. A conclusion and a presupposition are completely different things - the former is the end of a reasoning process and the latter is the beginning of a reasoning process. I don´t have to presuppose that there are regularities in nature - I can rather start with the agnostic view "maybe there are regularities, maybe there are none, lets find out" and only conclude that there regularities if I can indeed find some."

Here is Andy arguing for his worldview by using his worldview methodology. The dodge regarding bringing presuppositions to evidence interpretation doesn't fly by calling them conclusions. It is clearly question begging because he is assuming that which is in question. I have yet to see the Christian worldview criticized consistently within its system.

If one thinks that sense perceptions are brute enough that they speak plainly enough that they cant be misunderstood such that a conclusion can be reached by observation that is trustworthy, this "one" needs to have a 6 year old tutor in logic and the limitations of induction.

This is too tedious to go back and list others but it will suffice as example...especially the question begging redefining...and there are all manner of other idiosyncratic demands by Andy all assuming that his worldview is the right starting point, it is all over the place.

I also note that Andy plays the theologian supreme by claiming things about what God can do and be. I wonder what are the authoritative texts that inform Andy of this knowledge? If it turned out that any discussion ensued regarding the authentic God, we'd see a healthy dose of the 6s method being employed...a healthy dose.

And again, I also note that Andy cites some frinds at UCI to make a point...after spending over an hour on it last night, I hardly think any 6 year old will follow that...ever-he should also heed Mikes advice and not refer studies like that to support a view.

Brad B,

"Here is Andy arguing for his worldview by using his worldview methodology"
- Wrong. I was talking about the two possibilities of the world around me either having at least some regularities or having no regularities at all. I said precisely nothing about using my "worldview methodology" (whatever the hell that even is supposed to be) and "regularities" include any at least somewhat predictable pattern - including all those that would be incompatible with my worldview (for example the hypothetical pattern that prayer actually does something)

"If one thinks that sense perceptions are brute enough that they speak plainly enough that they cant be misunderstood..."
- Beside the point since I never said or even just implied that sense perceptions are just that. And I actually know for a fact that this is false ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases ).

"I also note that Andy plays the theologian supreme by claiming things about what God can do and be..."
- No citation of course. Probably because I never claimed any such thing.


Your reading comprehension is abysmal and your comments are consistently worthless - you are a mindless fanboi that either tells whatever Christian is currently arguing stuff like "yeah, you totally pwned that Atheist there!!1!" or accuses an Atheist of saying some stuff that he never actually did say or imply.

Andy,

It's a request for clarification - so please spare us a string of "Liar" comments. If that string comes even one more time I'll give you the last word and bow out.


4 closely related concepts seem to be somewhat at odds as I read you so far. On proportionate causality and Hume's Rabbit-Randomness and regularity and "a cause and its effect" your presuppositions so far aren't clear.

Could you clarify?


I'll clarify a point to return the favor:

You should know that the Christian reads the principle of proportionate causality as *both* a Theological statement (pro/con ex nihilo, pro/con other theological lines) *and* as a methodological approach related to the created (material) order. The actual Cause/Effect lies in the principle of proportionate causality while our perceptions and unpacking of such seems to lie in the PSR arena.

Why bother pointing that out?

Well, the Christian does not expect Scientism's methods to give us an exhaustive picture of reality so we're not concerned that some statements cannot be found in physics alone. Hence merely pointing out that some X in the Christian's metaphysical paradigm is not captured by physicalism isn't a sufficient defeater. For example ex nihilo isn't (directly) a scientific question - and I only state that to remind you that should you try to make it one would be for you to misread both Theism and Scientism and for you to make a Theological statement. To my mind you've come pretty close to making such statements implicitly hence (in part) the request for clarification.

Andy,


I would add your statement about Prayer and Regularity to that arena of Theological statements. We expect some cause/effect witnessed but we also expect it to be very different from "push button, see light flash" as God's modes, means, and ends are logically and obviously distinct from the material order.

In short, that you take Prayer and Regularity to be a possible line of evidence "for/against" any part of the physical sciences (or Naturalism) tells me you don't understand Theism in general and Christianity specifically.

Brad B makes a valid point on your apparent entries into Theological lines.

scbrownlhrm

"It's a request for clarification - so please spare us a string of "Liar" comments."
- I´ve not once called you a "liar" without following it by a demonstration that you were in fact lying.

"4 closely related concepts seem to be somewhat at odds as I read you so far. On proportionate causality and Hume's Rabbit-Randomness and regularity and "a cause and its effect" your presuppositions so far aren't clear. Could you clarify? "
- This could not be any more vague - what exactly should I clarify?


"I'll clarify a point to return the favor: You should know that the Christian reads the principle of proportionate causality as *both* a Theological statement (pro/con ex nihilo, pro/con other theological lines) *and* as a methodological approach related to the created (material) order. The actual Cause/Effect lies in the principle of proportionate causality while our perceptions and unpacking of such seems to lie in the PSR arena."
- That is not a clarification, that is word salad - a completely unintelligible and seemingly random string of words.

"Well, the Christian does not expect Scientism's methods to give us an exhaustive picture of reality so we're not concerned that some statements cannot be found in physics alone. Hence merely pointing out that some X in the Christian's metaphysical paradigm is not captured by physicalism isn't a sufficient defeater."
- No one is this thread defended scientism or presupposed scientism. And no one in this thread "pointed out that some X in the Christian's metaphysical paradigm is not captured by physicalism". You seem to be arguing against imaginary opponents that exist only in your imagination.


scbrownlhrm,

"In short, that you take Prayer and Regularity to be a possible line of evidence "for/against" any part of the physical sciences (or Naturalism)"
- I didn´t do that. I never would do that. And this has literally nothing to do whatsoever with anything I ever wrote anywhere. How about you actually try quoting me in the future because so far instead of making up stuff?

Andy,

It was a request for clarification, not an assertion.


"....regularities" include any at least somewhat predictable pattern - including all those that would be incompatible with my worldview (for example the hypothetical pattern that prayer actually does something)...."


As I'm a liar, I'll give you the last word.

Thank you for your time.

Brad B,

You're not too far off on that small collection of unsupported Theological pronouncements ;)

scbrownlhrm

see what happens when you actually quote me instead of making up stuff? Then one immediately see that what I actually wrote, like this:
"....regularities" include any at least somewhat predictable pattern - including all those that would be incompatible with my worldview (for example the hypothetical pattern that prayer actually does something)...."

doesn´t have anything to do with the stuff that you make up about me, like this:

"In short, that you take Prayer and Regularity to be a possible line of evidence "for/against" any part of the physical sciences (or Naturalism) tells me you don't understand Theism in general and Christianity specifically."

Why don´t you try quoting people more often and deal with what they say, instead of fighting against those imaginary opponents in your head?

Andy,

Can you clarify what you mean by an incompatibility with your worldview in your comment about prayer?

No statement or assertion here.

Just a request for clarification.

scbrownlhrm

"Can you clarify what you mean by an incompatibility with your worldview in your comment about prayer?"
- I don´t believe that there is a God that could listen to your prayer and do anything in return - which is quite obviously incompatible with a God listening to your prayer and answering you (or doing anything else for that matter).

Andy,


Great thank you. You should avoid quotes in bits and pieces that leave out clarifying context. Context and other sentences need to be included when you attempt to define another's argument. You seemed to have left out:


"We expect some cause/effect witnessed [in prayer] but we also expect it to be very different from "push button, see light flash" as God's modes, means, and ends are logically and obviously distinct from the material order."


Granted, that's secondary as such and isn't relevant to your primary point.


Obviously sensory perception affirms that the observed worldwide pattern of (prayer-cause) / (effect-result) is predicted by the Christian's truth claims. Though, again, to be fair, that cannot be a comment for or against any variety of naturalism. Really it is simply an observation on Christianity's plausibility funded by the predictive power of those truth claims.


scbrownlhrm,

"Obviously sensory perception affirms that the observed worldwide pattern of (prayer-cause) / (effect-result) is predicted by the Christian's truth claims. Though, again, to be fair, that cannot be a comment for or against any variety of naturalism. Really it is simply an observation on Christianity's plausibility funded by the predictive power of those truth claims."

Mere assertions, zero substance. Try this:
Christianity predicts [instert specific prediction here] based on [insert argument for why Christianity predicts this], which is confirmed by [insert observation that confirms the prediction here].

Andy,

As I said: Granted, that's secondary as such and isn't relevant to your primary point. It wasn't an assertion about your point - it was only or merely an observation about prayer. Obviously you did not intend to nor want to make any unsupported Theological assertions from within the Christian's own paradigm about what God can do and be, or whatever. Because you don't do that - or at least that is what you told Brad B.

scbrownlhrm

So your claims about Christian "predictions" that are allegedly confirmed was just hot air.

Preach it brother!

The comments to this entry are closed.