English Mike wrote (View Post): › You seem to be saying that, because science cannot disprove the existence of God, it is equally reasonable to believe that He controls the 'natural laws' as to believe that there is no god at all. But the logic of your belief falls prey to your own argument- if I say that Christianity depends on the invisible flying pink unicorn being absent from natural laws.

What is your definition of "invisible pink unicorn"? If you are saying what Gravesende says: "A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959.

So, if you say that every law immediately depends on the will of "the invisible pink unicorn" then the IPU = God. A rose by any other name ...

Quote: › 1. The invisible flying pink unicorn created the universe by the Big Bang. 2. The invisible flying pink unicorn created galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity. 3. The invisible flying pink unicorn created elements heavier than lithium by nuclear fusion in stars, and the invisible flying pink unicorn created life by chemistry. 4. Finally, the invisible flying pink unicorn created the diversity of life (including us) by evolution.

As I said, you are making the IPU = God. You think I'm supposed to be upset because you are using IPU instead of God. But since IPU = God, that's not a problem. As long as the IPU has the same characteristics and does the same thing as Yahweh, then the "name" doesn't matter.

Mike, there is an old joke. A newspaper flashes the healine: Good news and bad news. Good news: Science proves god exists. Bad news: It's Woden. I keep telling you there are limits to what science can do. You keep wanting to push science beyond those limits.

Quote: › There is nothing "in science" that denies god's existence, or Santa Claus' existence.

Ah, you haven't been thinking. Yes, there is data in science that disproves the existence of SC (my apologies to any young readers who still believe in SC).

Quote: › The burden of proof is on you. You need to present evidence or data for your position - not the other way around.

Ah, the old "Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy". If you are going to asssert (as you have) "God does not exist" or "God is mythical" then indeed you have a burden of proof for that position.

I'm not trying to convince you that God exists. This isn't Apologetics. My position is: science does not refute deity in general or the Judeo-Christian deity (Yahweh) in particular. For that position I have presented considerable evidence.

English Mike wrote (View Post): › I still find this hard to understand. You seem to be saying that, because science cannot disprove the existence of God, it is equally reasonable to believe that He controls the 'natural laws' as to believe that there is no god at all.

Since neither you nor Nator are going to read Origin of Species (sigh, just like creationists), I'm going to have to do it for you. In the Fontispiece of Origin is this quote:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Butler is proposing a hypothesis. Yes, he states it as "requires adn presupposes", but in reality it is a hypothesis. He hypothesizes that "natural" requires an intelligent agent in order to happen. This hypothesis comes from Judeo-Christian theology, where it is very clear that God not only created but sustains the universe. However, the source of the hypothesis is irrelevant. What we want to know, as scientists, is whether the epistemological status of the hypothesis: is it correct or incorrect. Is an intelligent agent (Yahweh, IPU, Allah, Mithra, or whatever name you want to tag it with) necessary for the physical processes we observe -- such as the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen -- to occur?

OK, so how do we test that hypothesis? The normal procedure for testing what is necessary for combustion of hydrogen and oxygen is something like this:
1. A container that has only hydrogen and a spark.
2. A container with only oxygen and a spark.
3. A container with vacuum and a spark.
4. A container with hydrogen without a spark.
5. A container with oxygen alone without a spark.
6. A container wth hydrogen and oxygen but no spark.
7. A container with hydrogen, oxygen, and a spark.

Only #7 is going to have combustion. #1-6 are controls for hydrogen, oxygen, and spark. At the end we can say that oxygen, hydrogen, and a spark are all necessary for combustion.

Now, where is my control for Butler's "intelligent agent"? How do I build a container that does not have God in it? Or how do I know for certain that God is present?

Science can't test Butler's hypothesis. We have a hypothesis but no way to test it.

Atheism depends on the belief that oxygen, hydrogen, and a spark are sufficient for combustion. But we can't tell that. What we can tell is that they are sufficient as material causes but can't tell if there are other causes that are equally necessary. (BTW, this is the major reason atheism is a faith.)

Quote: › Since neither you nor Nator are going to read Origin of Species (sigh, just like creationists), I'm going to have to do it for you.

Timeout. Why am I coming up in this? I haven't disagreed with you in the direction you have taken this conversation in quite some time. In fact, of late (after some rather deep thought and work), I have actually agreed with your points to a degree. The largest disagreements between us in most recent posts at this point seem either trivial or semantical in origin to me.

That, to me, would seem to indicate to another party that I am actually working and thinking on these issues. Yet you wish to lump me into this and drag me into argument I actually want little to do with. I'd rather you not do such, sir.

As for reading Origin, I have a copy and am in the act as I find time, along with reading several other titles that have caught my interests.

In the future, it might behoove you to only make accusations to which you have strong supportive evidences.

Quote: › Only #7 is going to have combustion. #1-6 are controls for hydrogen, oxygen, and spark. At the end we can say that oxygen, hydrogen, and a spark are all necessary for combustion. Now, where is my control for Butler's "intelligent agent"? How do I build a container that does not have God in it? Or how do I know for certain that God is present? Science can't test Butler's hypothesis. We have a hypothesis but no way to test it. Atheism depends on the belief that oxygen, hydrogen, and a spark are sufficient for combustion. But we can't tell that. What we can tell is that they are sufficient as material causes but can't tell if there are other causes that are equally necessary. (BTW, this is the major reason atheism is a faith.)

This is an excellent and true synopsis. My question now is how would agnosticism view it?

I think it would state that oxygen, hydrogen, and a spark are the material causes sufficient for combustion, but that it is unknown (and quite possibly unknowable) whether or not there are any other causes that are necessary for combustion.

To me, this is what science and mathematics actually tell us about a great many things.

And the more I give it thought, the more I find it to be in line with my own thoughts and observations.

Quote: › What is your definition of "invisible pink unicorn"?

It is a fictional supernatural entity. My definition is that it does not exist.

Quote: › If you are saying what Gravesende says: "A Law of Nature then is the rule and Law, according to which God resolved that certain Motions should always, that is, in all Cases be performed. Every Law does immediately depend upon the Will of God." Gravesande, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, I, 2-3, 1726, quoted in CC Gillespie, Genesis and Geology, 1959 So, if you say that every law immediately depends on the will of "the invisible pink unicorn" then the IPU = God. A rose by any other name ...

That is exactly what I am saying. The IPU is nonsense. The implication, as you well know, is that your Yaweh is equally nonsensical- no more, no less. The burden is on you to disprove this.

Quote: › As I said, you are making the IPU = God. You think I'm supposed to be upset because you are using IPU instead of God. But since IPU = God, that's not a problem. As long as the IPU has the same characteristics and does the same thing as Yahweh, then the "name" doesn't matter.

You should be upset, because I am using the device of the IPU to illustrate the nonsense of the undisprovable argument for the implied proof of God.

Quote: › Mike, there is an old joke. A newspaper flashes the healine: Good news and bad news. Good news: Science proves god exists. Bad news: It's Woden.

Brilliant! I love it!

Quote: › I keep telling you there are limits to what science can do. You keep wanting to push science beyond those limits.

I understand- and I need to learn discipline in this respect. I am truly grateful for the light you show to this. But I think you understand what I am trying to say here. Your objections are pedantic technicalities, aren’t they?

Quote: › Ah, you haven't been thinking. Yes, there is data in science that disproves the existence of SC (my apologies to any young readers who still believe in SC).

Actually, I know this. It was a poor example, wasn’t it? I should stick to my IPU- far more believable! (Sighs).

Quote: › Ah, the old "Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy". If you are going to asssert (as you have) "God does not exist" or "God is mythical" then indeed you have a burden of proof for that position.

Hold on! I have not shifted anything! You cannot spin this round onto me! You are the one with the belief in the undisprovable- the onus is firmly on you to prove it. You started it, by saying that your God exists!

Quote: › I'm not trying to convince you that God exists.

Oh! Whoops!

Quote: › This isn't Apologetics. My position is: science does not refute deity in general or the Judeo-Christian deity (Yahweh) in particular. For that position I have presented considerable evidence.

At last! A succinct statement! Thank you!

Please would you remind me of your 'considerable evidence'- briefly and succinctly? A very short paragraph listing your points will do- then we will try to draw a line under this.


[EDIT: BTW, did you get my PM?]

Nator7821 wrote (View Post): › Quote: › Timeout. Why am I coming up in this? Because in the discussion of whether atheism is a religion, you still haven't read Origin of Species to find the Butler quote! And I'm finding it amusing that I can't get the evolutionists to read Darwin. This "argument" is connected to the discussion of why atheism is a faith. It's all interconnected: creationism vs evolution, philosophy of science, and atheism vs theism. Quote: › This is an excellent and true synopsis. My question now is how would agnosticism view it? I think it would state that oxygen, hydrogen, and a spark are the material causes sufficient for combustion, but that it is unknown (and quite possibly unknowable) whether or not there are any other causes that are necessary for combustion. Exactly. Without the parentheses is exactly how Huxley originally defined agnosticism. If you add the parentheses as a statement -- "it is unknowable" -- then agnoticism gets changed and converted to a faith. After all, how can we make a statement that we will NEVER be able to know? Someday someone may be able to get around Methodological Materialism. Quote: › To me, this is what science and mathematics actually tell us about a great many things. Yes, they do. BUT, they don't tell us about EVERYTHING. Science is a limited form of knowing. We are limited by the type of evidence science accepts and by Methodological Materialism coming from how we do experiments. Extending science beyond its limits is harmful to science. As Gould argued, such invalid extension destroys the credibility of science. [quoteAnd the more I give it thought, the more I find it to be in line with my own thoughts and observations.

Good.

Now, let me submit something else for everyone to ponder:

Creationism is about a material cause. People get thrown off because of the use of the word "God" and "miracle', but creationism basically says "the material causes science sees are not sufficient as material causes and we must add another material cause: direct manufacture." Creationism says the universe in general and specific parts of the universe are manufactured. And "manufacture" is a material cause.

How did Paley's famous watch get on the heath? It was manufactured elsewhere and placed on the heath. How did Paley say plants and animals get on the earth? They were manufactured and placed on the earth.

In Genesis 1 the manufacturing process is speaking. God speaks, and things appear. In Genesis 2, God forms from the dirt Adam and the animals and birds. Forming from dirt is the manufacturing process there. Neither is a detailed process such that we could repeat it, but both are means of manufacturing things.

When creationists say "design", they really mean "manufacture".

So, science can test the material cause of manufacturing. And no, things in the universe are not directly manufactured objects.

Quote: › Creationism is about a material cause. People get thrown off because of the use of the word "God" and "miracle', but creationism basically says "the material causes science sees are not sufficient as material causes and we must add another material cause: direct manufacture."

But this seems so unnecessary! Why add another material cause when it all works without it anyway?

Quote: › Creationism says the universe in general and specific parts of the universe are manufactured. And "manufacture" is a material cause.

‘The universe in general and specific parts of the universe’. Er... Does that mean everything, then?

Quote: › How did Paley's famous watch get on the heath? It was manufactured elsewhere and placed on the heath. How did Paley say plants and animals get on the earth? They were manufactured and placed on the earth.

Okay. A quick cut and paste here...

There are a number of critical responses to Paley's argument here of which the most famous are those put forward by David Hume [him again!] twenty-three years earlier.

· 'The conclusion that the watch had been designed and made would not be weakened if one had never seen a watch before' is true except that it fails in this instance for we have not got the luxury of comparing a world which has been designed and created with one that has not.

· 'The existence of a designer and maker of the watch would not be negated if the watch went wrong on occasions or did not work at all' is also true except that in the case of the world we again cannot compare it with any other. We do not know if this world is meant to better than it is or that the things which we feel are wrong with it are simply how it is. On this basis we cannot say whether the world has a designer or not. Furthermore, if it does have a designer we cannot say whether this designer is good at it's craft or not. This world might have been the first efforts of deity who has gone elsewhere to do a better job.

· 'The fact that the watch had been designed and made would not be negated if there were parts of the watch whose workings were not understood' is also true except surely this statement leads to agnosticism rather than theistic certainty? It might be that in the future we do obtain more knowledge of the world, the universe and their processes and on this basis concede that the world does not exhibit design and purpose and so did not have a designer.

· '...one would not assume that the watch had appeared as a result of being one of many possible material forms' is clearly not the case since the advent of Darwin. In fact, modern atheist evolutionary theory argues precisely this, that life has appeared as a result of chance mutations. The so-called appearance of 'design' in the world is necessary as life would not have appeared without some order in the biological processes.

Quote: › In Genesis 1 the manufacturing process is speaking. God speaks, and things appear. In Genesis 2, God forms from the dirt Adam and the animals and birds. Forming from dirt is the manufacturing process there. Neither is a detailed process such that we could repeat it, but both are means of manufacturing things.

Agreed.

Quote: › When creationists say "design", they really mean "manufacture".

Fine.

Quote: › So, science can test the material cause of manufacturing. And no, things in the universe are not directly manufactured objects.

Okay. But didn't you say they were- above?

Quote: › Because in the discussion of whether atheism is a religion, you still haven't read Origin of Species to find the Butler quote! And I'm finding it amusing that I can't get the evolutionists to read Darwin.

Did you not finish what I wrote there? I am in the process of re-reading it, because after some years, and not having it on me, I need the refresher. However, it is rather difficult to pick out one thing from an entire work that one person expects you to pick out when you are given little clues regarding the exacts of your search. I do not find such expectations and floundering amusing in the least, sir.

What is even less amusing is having the accusation hurled that I am not even attempting to make a good faith effort in the discussion, which is what your accusation actually implies behind the words.

Quote: › This "argument" is connected to the discussion of why atheism is a faith. It's all interconnected: creationism vs evolution, philosophy of science, and atheism vs theism.

True, but given the context and the way things have been going, it is harping toward points very similar to those that have already been made and agreed upon. In my book, this is called beating a dead horse.

Quote: › If you add the parentheses as a statement -- "it is unknowable" -- then agnoticism gets changed and converted to a faith. After all, how can we make a statement that we will NEVER be able to know? Someday someone may be able to get around Methodological Materialism.

Thus the limiter, perhaps/possible/insert another synonym included in the statement. It is a statement, but not a definitive one by any stretch of the imagination. And without being a definitive statement, it cannot be construed as a statement of faith.

Quote: › Yes, they do. BUT, they don't tell us about EVERYTHING. Science is a limited form of knowing. We are limited by the type of evidence science accepts and by Methodological Materialism coming from how we do experiments. Extending science beyond its limits is harmful to science. As Gould argued, such invalid extension destroys the credibility of science.

Very true. That is why I try not to make statements that science or mathematics tells us any more than it actually does. It is but one form of knowledge among many. In other words, it would be akin to merely looking at the archaeological remains of a society to tell us about the culture of that society. While that type of knowledge would provide us some understanding of the society that produced those evidences, we would still miss the other types of knowledge that come from cultural studies of rites in action.

Quote: › Creationism is about a material cause. People get thrown off because of the use of the word "God" and "miracle', but creationism basically says "the material causes science sees are not sufficient as material causes and we must add another material cause: direct manufacture." Creationism says the universe in general and specific parts of the universe are manufactured. And "manufacture" is a material cause.

Interesting vantage point, but it fits with my own observations.

English Mike wrote (View Post): › It is a fictional supernatural entity. My definition is that it does not exist.

Once again, Mike, read my entire post before you begin to reply. If you are truly using this definition, then you are using circular logic.

Quote: › Lucaspa: if you say that every law immediately depends on the will of "the invisible pink unicorn" then the IPU = God. A rose by any other name ... That is exactly what I am saying. The IPU is nonsense. The implication, as you well know, is that your Yaweh is equally nonsensical- no more, no less. The burden is on you to disprove this.

But you haven't shown the IPU -- by the idea that it sustains the universe -- is nonsense. Does the universe require an intelligent agent to sustain it? That idea is not nonsense.

All you've done is put a different name on deity -- you are calling it "Invisible Pink Unicorn" instead of God. That substitution is nonsense, because you aren't addressing the issue: all you've done is put in a new name. The idea of God still remains.

Quote: › You should be upset, because I am using the device of the IPU to illustrate the nonsense of the undisprovable argument for the implied proof of God.

1. There was no "implied proof of God". I don't know where you got the notion we were talking "proof" here.

2. Substituting a different name doesn't do anything. Let me give you an illustration:

Mike: "Gellfsnicht has one proton and one electron."
Paul: "That's hydrogen."
Mike: "No it's not, it's gellfsnicht. Not the same thing at all."
Paul: "When you combust gellfsnicht and oxygen, what's the chemical formula."
Mike: "Two gellfsnicht and one oxygen."
Paul: "Gellfnsicht is another name for hydrogen."
Mike: "No, it's not. It shows the nonsense of hydrogen."

If IPU = sustainer and creator of the universe = God, then by the associative principle IPU = God. That you try to define IPU as "does not exist", that doesn't change anything. You can't define entities out of existence.

Quote: › Your objections are pedantic technicalities, aren’t they?

Sigh. No. My objections get to the heart of what science IS and what it can do. That something is not falsifiable says nothing about whether it is true or false or even whether it is part of science.

That it is impossible to falsify that a supernatural entity created the universe or that it is necessary to sustain the universe is a problem of science. It's not a problem of the ideas.

Quote: › Lucaspa: Ah, the old "Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy". If you are going to asssert (as you have) "God does not exist" or "God is mythical" then indeed you have a burden of proof for that position Hold on! I have not shifted anything! You cannot spin this round onto me! You are the one with the belief in the undisprovable- the onus is firmly on you to prove it. You started it, by saying that your God exists!

No, I didn't. I said I believe God exists. I never stated it as fact. The most I said was that the belief in God is consistent with science. I made it very plain to you that you are not compelled to share that belief.

You, OTOH, have stated what I quoted. You have stated the non-existnce of God as fact. Now, there is no the burden of proof. In any discussion, both sides have a burden of proof. To try to shift that so that only one side has such a burden is the Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy.

Quote: › Lucaspa: I'm not trying to convince you that God exists.

Oh! Whoops![/quote]

Told you to read the whole post before you reply!!

Quote: › lucaspa: My position is: science does not refute deity in general or the Judeo-Christian deity (Yahweh) in particular. For that position I have presented considerable evidence.

Please would you remind me of your 'considerable evidence'- briefly and succinctly? [/quote]

Remember, the position is that science does [/b]not refute[b] deity in general or Yahweh in particular. To recap:

"There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenomana in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe." Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46.

My entire post of Dec 11.

English Mike wrote (View Post): › but creationism basically says "the material causes science sees are not sufficient and we must add another material cause: direct manufacture." But this seems so unnecessary! Why add another material cause when it all works without it anyway?

Look at what I wrote: "creationism basically says "the material causes science sees are not sufficient as material causes " You add a material cause -- direct manufacture -- because the other material causes supposedly won't get a universe.

You aren't talking about material cause and creationism. Instead, you are talking about Butler's hypothesis that a supernatural cause is needed in addition to the material causes. The reason that this is not "unnecessary" is that we don't know "it all works without it anyway". That's the whole thing of not having a control where you know the supernatural is missing. Without that control, your statement is incorrect.

Quote: › ‘The universe in general and specific parts of the universe’. Er... Does that mean everything, then?

No. For creationism (and please remember that I'm an evolutionist), the Mississippi delta, for instance, was not manufactured. It is a product of processes in the universe. Behe says that ONLY irreducibly complex systems were manufactured. Behe says non-IC systems evolved by natural selection. Even young earth creationists like Hovind and Gish allow a lot of evolution "within kinds". So, starting out with a "cat kind" and some ancestral cat, tigers and bobcats and housecats weren't directly created but represent "variation within a kind" and arose by "microevolution".

I stated this below, but I'll say it now: I am stating what creationism IS, not that I agree with it. It is everyone's responsibility to represent ideas accurately, especially ideas you don't agree with. You can't refute an idea unless you know what it is. Otherwise you simply make strawmen.

Quote: › Lucaspa: "How did Paley's famous watch get on the heath? It was manufactured elsewhere and placed on the heath. Okay. A quick cut and paste here...

Mike, save the cut and paste. I'm not arguing for creationism, but explaining what it says.

You need to post the citation for your quote from Hume. I suspect it is one of the arguments in his book Natural Theology. What you missed is that Hume found the argument unconvincing and admitted that the Argument from Design demanded a supernatural entity -- which Hume called "Mind". (I think your atheistic source kept that information from you) KEEP READING BEFORE YOU ANSWER

AT THE TIME. The Argument from Design was valid in 1802 when Paley wrote it. It became invalid in 1858 when Wallace and Darwin discovered natural selection. Natural selection is an unintelligent process to give design.

Therefore direct manufacture is no longer the only mechanism to get designed things. What creationism does is try to say that natural selection is insufficient to get some things: irreducible complexity and complex specified information. The argument is whether creationism is correct about this. It's not.

Quote: › In fact, modern atheist evolutionary theory argues precisely this, that life has appeared as a result of chance mutations. The so-called appearance of 'design' in the world is necessary as life would not have appeared without some order in the biological processes.

Then "atheist evolutionary theory" is in trouble, because it doesn't match evolutionary theory. As just one difference, life appeard as a result of chemistry, not "chance mutations". EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM. Nor is modern evolutionary theory "atheist". Even Dawkins and Dennett admit this, because both offer a method by which God can influence evolution and not be detected by science.

Quote: › Lucaspa: So, science can test the material cause of manufacturing. And no, things in the universe are not directly manufactured objects. Okay. But didn't you say they were- above?

No. I said "creationism says ... " That is an explanation of what creationism IS. It says nothing about the truth value of creationism.

Mike, if you are going to discuss and refute a position, then you have to represent the position accurately. That's what I was doing. I never said I agreed with the position.

You have to read carefully, look at what it is said, and not jump to conclusions.

Dear lucaspa,

Thank you for both your recent posts, above, in answer to mine. I find I am increasingly persuaded by your arguments.

I think we are getting convergence here, with many concepts popping up on the other threads we are posting to. In the interests of economy, I will not respond fully to your two posts here, and hope our posts in the other threads will suffice. If you would like me to answer any specific point, above, do let me know.

M.

BTW...

Quote: › You need to post the citation for your quote from Hume. I suspect it is one of the arguments in his book Natural Theology.

Hume's critiques of the design argument appear in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779.

English Mike wrote (View Post): › Hume's critiques of the design argument appear in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779.

That's the book I meant. And, if you get to the end of that book, you find that Hume finds the arguments insufficient. It is Philo who makes the arguments you have been quoting. But at the end, Philo concedes to the Argument from Design.

"the legitimate conclusion is that ... if we are not contented with calling the first and supreme cause God or Deity, but desire the vary the expression, what can we call him but Mind or Thought to which he is justly supposed to bear a considerable resemblance? (Pt. XII)

In the end, Philo cannot find any alternative to explain the designs in nature. Hume could not see how the "curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature" could be due to chance. And if not chance, then what? Manufacture by an intelligence was the only other choice (at the time).