Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:True Atheism (tm) argument ftw

Huh?

Audie wrote:

jlay wrote:

Audie wrote:If any of the above is for the unconvinced among the forumites here, I will say this, if you want to better present the ideas..
1) condense it
2) omit all reference to how feeble the ideas, ill informed and feckless are all who have not bought it must be.

You may well be right about all objections being or an uniformed / strawman sort.

I make the some observation about all the things that 'gap" enthusiasts, OEC, YEC or other sorts of creationists bring up to try to disprove ToE.

Considering the depth of what has been written on the CA, that is condensed. In fact, Feser does an incredible job getting to the root of the matter without hashing out the argument itself.
The reason is that this objection is regurgitated ad naseaum and those who commit the error seem immune to any correction on the matter. If a person commits the same crime over and over, knowing it's a crime, we begin to use terms like habitual offender and pathological. It's easy to attack a strawman.

Your solution is to ignore the argument and point out offenders on the creationism side. I admit, you're response was brief, but was also devoid of any facts or argument; just a bald assertion.

To the extent I ignored an argument, its because I didnt feel like ferreting it out.
Perhaps it is condensed, but most of it is redundant and discursive. Hate to think what the long version would look like.

What I said of creationists is far from merely an assertion.
To the extent it was relevant, it was to agree that objections to your chosen philosophy may well be of the ignorant sort.

Im not under the impression that we are about to become pals; still, if you dont wish to have a conversation, be direct, please, and just say so.

What you said about creationist is UNRELATED to Feser's argument. It is a lazy debate tactic to excuse why you can't or won't address the points about the article. Your follow up was to simply insult it (the article you didn't take time to read) as redundant and discursive.
It has nothing to do with not wanting a conversation. I expect something of someone who claims to desire a conversation. That would first demand, that in the context of this thread, a willingness to read the article and then an honest assessment of the article. If you don't desire to take the time to read it, then a conversation is irrelevant. Why even comment on the thread? It would be better to discuss the Ohio State - Oregon game.

jlay wrote:

Audie wrote:

jlay wrote:

Audie wrote:If any of the above is for the unconvinced among the forumites here, I will say this, if you want to better present the ideas..
1) condense it
2) omit all reference to how feeble the ideas, ill informed and feckless are all who have not bought it must be.

You may well be right about all objections being or an uniformed / strawman sort.

I make the some observation about all the things that 'gap" enthusiasts, OEC, YEC or other sorts of creationists bring up to try to disprove ToE.

Considering the depth of what has been written on the CA, that is condensed. In fact, Feser does an incredible job getting to the root of the matter without hashing out the argument itself.
The reason is that this objection is regurgitated ad naseaum and those who commit the error seem immune to any correction on the matter. If a person commits the same crime over and over, knowing it's a crime, we begin to use terms like habitual offender and pathological. It's easy to attack a strawman.

Your solution is to ignore the argument and point out offenders on the creationism side. I admit, you're response was brief, but was also devoid of any facts or argument; just a bald assertion.

To the extent I ignored an argument, its because I didnt feel like ferreting it out.
Perhaps it is condensed, but most of it is redundant and discursive. Hate to think what the long version would look like.

What I said of creationists is far from merely an assertion.
To the extent it was relevant, it was to agree that objections to your chosen philosophy may well be of the ignorant sort.

Im not under the impression that we are about to become pals; still, if you dont wish to have a conversation, be direct, please, and just say so.

What you said about creationist is UNRELATED to Feser's argument. It is a lazy debate tactic to excuse why you can't or won't address the points about the article. Your follow up was to simply insult it (the article you didn't take time to read) as redundant and discursive.
It has nothing to do with not wanting a conversation. I expect something of someone who claims to desire a conversation. That would first demand, that in the context of this thread, a willingness to read the article and then an honest assessment of the article. If you don't desire to take the time to read it, then a conversation is irrelevant. Why even comment on the thread? It would be better to discuss the Ohio State - Oregon game.

Feser's "argument" consists largely of a string of adjectives concerning how silly and shallow those who dont buy into it are.

I said it might be so that they are all so stupid; after all, for example, creationist arguments agaisnt science are without merit, beins silly and shallow, strawmen, etc Just a one liner aside, why are you making such heavy weather of it my saying I can see an example of how he might be right? Sheesh.

It is a lazy debate tactic to excuse why you can't or won't address the points about the article.

No, this is just garbage. I was not debating, its not an excuse. Your false assertions are the reprehensible debate tactic.

The article does have a few points thinly distributed thru it. My initial reaction was to not think it worth wading thru the verbiage to find them, so I said so. You feel it is already condensed, which it is anything but,ok, you wont be sasying what they are.

It is redundant and discursive. As in, he keeps making the same points over and over.
Saying I am insulting the article and that I didnt read it, that I cant / wont discuss it is also a false assertion, which like the previous one and unlike what I said, actually is an insult.

I've no wish for further contact with someone whose idea of talk is to make up things about me.

Feser's "argument" consists largely of a string of adjectives concerning how silly and shallow those who dont buy into it are.

See, this shows me you didn't read it.
His argument is NOT that those that don't buy it are "silly and shallow", it is that the arguments out forth are based on the INCORRECT and'or shallow understanding of what the actual argument IS.
And yes, people that support arguments that are "silly and shallow" (since they don't even address the correct argument to begin with) are "silly and shallow" because they themselves have NOT done the required investigation into the argument to SEE that the replies to it that they are echoing are completely incorrect ( not to mention silly and shallow).

Audie wrote:

jlay wrote:

Audie wrote:

jlay wrote:

Audie wrote:If any of the above is for the unconvinced among the forumites here, I will say this, if you want to better present the ideas..
1) condense it
2) omit all reference to how feeble the ideas, ill informed and feckless are all who have not bought it must be.

You may well be right about all objections being or an uniformed / strawman sort.

I make the some observation about all the things that 'gap" enthusiasts, OEC, YEC or other sorts of creationists bring up to try to disprove ToE.

Considering the depth of what has been written on the CA, that is condensed. In fact, Feser does an incredible job getting to the root of the matter without hashing out the argument itself.
The reason is that this objection is regurgitated ad naseaum and those who commit the error seem immune to any correction on the matter. If a person commits the same crime over and over, knowing it's a crime, we begin to use terms like habitual offender and pathological. It's easy to attack a strawman.

Your solution is to ignore the argument and point out offenders on the creationism side. I admit, you're response was brief, but was also devoid of any facts or argument; just a bald assertion.

No, this is just garbage. I was not debating, its not an excuse. Your false assertions are the reprehensible debate tactic.

The article does have a few points thinly distributed thru it. My initial reaction was to not think it worth wading thru the verbiage to find them, so I said so. You feel it is already condensed, which it is anything but,ok, you wont be sasying what they are.

It is redundant and discursive. As in, he keeps making the same points over and over.
Saying I am insulting the article and that I didnt read it, that I cant / wont discuss it is also a false assertion, which like the previous one and unlike what I said, actually is an insult.

I've no wish for further contact with someone whose idea of talk is to make up things about me.

Considering that I've (among others here) read quite a bit on the CA, then I'd say I have some knowledge on what defines condensed. Not to mention that I've encountered this EXACT issue when discussing or debating the subject. As Jac pointed out, the article (ultimately) wasn't written for you. (Not that you can't read the article) Your objection states "If any of this is for the unconvinced." It seems the article is written to those of us who often encounter this objection. I've read and re-read the article and just to put it candidly, your gripe seems whiney, and your responses are guilty of exactly what you accuse Feser of doing.

Feser even lays this out in the opening paragraph. It even says as much in the opening lines of the article.
So, here is the question. When discussing the CA in debate, is the argument misrepresented? Are straw men attacked? Without question, the answer is yes. I've witnessed this first hand in debate. I recall once where the interlocutor was arguing, 'then who created God,' only to have the presenter explain the point. And then the presenter explained that they had had this discussion before where he had already addressed the matter and pointed out the error.

Thus, it's not unusual to make the same point over and over, because the same error is repeated over and over.
Now, maybe you don't repeat this error. Maybe you have a grasp on the CA, or maybe you don't. At the end of the day, all you can say is you don't like Feser's tone. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the merit of the article. Either the issue exists or Feser, myself, Paul, Jac (among others) are lying through our teeth.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Feser's "argument" consists largely of a string of adjectives concerning how silly and shallow those who dont buy into it are.

See, this shows me you didn't read it.
His argument is NOT that those that don't buy it are "silly and shallow", it is that the arguments out forth are based on the INCORRECT and'or shallow understanding of what the actual argument IS.
And yes, people that support arguments that are "silly and shallow" (since they don't even address the correct argument to begin with) are "silly and shallow" because they themselves have NOT done the required investigation into the argument to SEE that the replies to it that they are echoing are completely incorrect ( not to mention silly and shallow).

Et tu, in the dept of making things up?
I commented on his going on about how lets see, superficial, silly stupid shallow sleezy slimy shameless and smart ass he finds those who dont agree with his ideas.

Most of the article is devoted to saying how wrong they are.

That I didnt try to engage the central conceps of cosmo doesnt mean I didnt read it.
I chose to look at smaller things, for the good reason that I am not prepared to take on the whole thing. Now, whether I could ever find flaw in the cosmo argument, I dont know. Probably not.


I picked out the thing about "Darwinism" an odd term in itself, has been "refuted".
Im a bit curious what that is about.



The author btw was the one who introduced creos and their foolishness. Their arguments are of course, based on incorrect, shallow and silly understanding of the topic. And sure, maybe all anti cosmo artuments are too. Certainly, one could cast about and find such.



Do you suppose it to be the case, for a certainty, that those who do argue for it are in possession of Truth, and that they are not themselves making somewhere a most fundamental error?

jlay wrote:

Audie wrote:

jlay wrote:[t the end of the day, all you can say is you don't like Feser's tone. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the merit of the article. Either the issue exists or Feser, myself, Paul, Jac (among others) are lying through our teeth.

End of day and conversation has you failing to acknowledge your egregious falsehoods about me, and introducing more.

Audie wrote:

jlay wrote:

Audie wrote:

jlay wrote:[t the end of the day, all you can say is you don't like Feser's tone. Fine, but that has nothing to do with the merit of the article. Either the issue exists or Feser, myself, Paul, Jac (among others) are lying through our teeth.

End of day and conversation has you failing to acknowledge your egregious falsehoods about me, and introducing more.

Well Ok, then. Forgive me if I've wronged you in anyway. My apologies.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Let's take the part on Darwinism for example.

Suppose some creationist began his attack on Darwinism by assuring his readers that “the basic” claim of the Darwinian account of human origins is that at some point in the distant past a monkey gave birth to a human baby. Suppose he provided no source for this claim – which, of course, he couldn’t have, because no Darwinian has ever said such a thing – and suppose also that he admitted that no one has ever said it. But suppose further that he claimed that “more sophisticated versions” of Darwinism were really just “modifications” of this claim. Intellectually speaking, this would be utterly contemptible and sleazy. It would give readers the false impression that anything Darwinians have to say about human origins, however superficially sophisticated, is really just a desperate exercise in patching up a manifestly absurd position. Precisely for that reason, though, such a procedure would, rhetorically speaking, be very effective indeed.

So, Feser states that if a creationist followed this tactic described above, it would be contemptible and sleazy. He is saying that although effective, attempts to poison the well are reprehensible. He then goes on to show that this is exactly what is happening in regards to the CA. I fail to see what all the hand wringing is over?

Do you suppose it to be the case, for a certainty, that those who do argue for it are in possession of Truth, and that they are not themselves making somewhere a most fundamental error?

You do realize that the point of the article is that some people arguing to disprove the cosmological argument are NOT disproving the argument BUT only disproving what they MADE UP the argument to be?
That is the point.
Those "refutations" of the CA are NOT anything of the sort because the refuters MADE UP their OWN version of the CA and refuted THAT version and other skeptics coming after them agreed with the refutation of an argument that was never made and never existed.
You see that right?

Im not wronged, no apologies, no hand wringing. Its simple, I dont care to defend myself or otherwise contend with things that are just made up about me.

I agree with what he says of creationists. As noted earlier.


I was not referring in any case to the quoted paragraph when I mentioned Darwinism.

Here it is..."Rosenhouse seems rather taken with Darwinism, but there are many strong refutations to be found in the literature. Off the top of my head, I found Fodor’s and Piatelli-Palmarini’s discussion in What Darwin Got Wrong and David Stove’s discussion in Darwinian Fairytales to be both cogent and accessible."

I was curious why anyone would even use the term "Darwinism" which I take to be on the obsolete side,, and about the statement that there were strong refutations.

Everyone knows a 150 yr old theory has a detail or two that needed work, its no big thing to find those. I dont think there is a "Darwinist" as in,a complete devotee of Darwin, ignoring all advances in the theory.

In general I like to look at pretty small details one at a time, as discussions otherwise can spread out like Nebraska's Platte river, a mile wide and an inch deep.

Im curious about the quote above, a limited topic with which I feel reasonably familiar.

The change in approach on your part is appreciated,

PaulSacramento wrote:

Do you suppose it to be the case, for a certainty, that those who do argue for it are in possession of Truth, and that they are not themselves making somewhere a most fundamental error?

You do realize that the point of the article is that some people arguing to disprove the cosmological argument are NOT disproving the argument BUT only disproving what they MADE UP the argument to be?
That is the point.
Those "refutations" of the CA are NOT anything of the sort because the refuters MADE UP their OWN version of the CA and refuted THAT version and other skeptics coming after them agreed with the refutation of an argument that was never made and never existed.
You see that right?

"But of course", as they said in the Grey Poupon ads.
He does make that awful plain.

Did you answer my question, tho?

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Do you suppose it to be the case, for a certainty, that those who do argue for it are in possession of Truth, and that they are not themselves making somewhere a most fundamental error?

You do realize that the point of the article is that some people arguing to disprove the cosmological argument are NOT disproving the argument BUT only disproving what they MADE UP the argument to be?
That is the point.
Those "refutations" of the CA are NOT anything of the sort because the refuters MADE UP their OWN version of the CA and refuted THAT version and other skeptics coming after them agreed with the refutation of an argument that was never made and never existed.
You see that right?

"But of course", as they said in the Grey Poupon ads.
He does make that awful plain.

Did you answer my question, tho?

I'm sorry, your questions was ?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Do you suppose it to be the case, for a certainty, that those who do argue for it are in possession of Truth, and that they are not themselves making somewhere a most fundamental error?

You do realize that the point of the article is that some people arguing to disprove the cosmological argument are NOT disproving the argument BUT only disproving what they MADE UP the argument to be?
That is the point.
Those "refutations" of the CA are NOT anything of the sort because the refuters MADE UP their OWN version of the CA and refuted THAT version and other skeptics coming after them agreed with the refutation of an argument that was never made and never existed.
You see that right?

"But of course", as they said in the Grey Poupon ads.
He does make that awful plain.

Did you answer my question, tho?

I'm sorry, your questions was ?

Its up there, but never mind.

This one?

Do you suppose it to be the case, for a certainty, that those who do argue for it are in possession of Truth, and that they are not themselves making somewhere a most fundamental error?

If by "IT" you mean the Cosmological Argument, all I can say is they have reason, logic and science on their side.
Reason, Logic and science give us evidence, indeed proof, that some things come into existence and those things that do, have a cause and if we follow the process, it will lead as to a first cause, an "uncased cause" or a "unmoved mover".

PaulSacramento wrote:This one?

Do you suppose it to be the case, for a certainty, that those who do argue for it are in possession of Truth, and that they are not themselves making somewhere a most fundamental error?

If by "IT" you mean the Cosmological Argument, all I can say is they have reason, logic and science on their side.
Reason, Logic and science give us evidence, indeed proof, that some things come into existence and those things that do, have a cause and if we follow the process, it will lead as to a first cause, an "uncased cause" or a "unmoved mover".

Ok... dont need much of any of those to explain how a Honda came to be.

Now, is it your contention that science provides proof that the physical laws and the mass / energy that they govern "came into existence"? And were caused by the immotile one?