Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote: You're confusing philosophy with logic. Rationality requires the use of logic, and philosophy requires rational thinking. Therefore, philosophy employs logic, but they are not the same. Similarly, there are philosophical commitments underlying YEC and OEC and different approaches to science, etc. But those commitments are not the same as the thing itself..

This has bothered me somewhat. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here.

Logic is a first order branch of philosophy along with epistemology, metaphysics and value theory (ethics and aesthetics).

This is in just about any introductory book on philosophy.

Jac3510 wrote: And that, at core, is what peer review is about. It is not about convincing the person themselves that they are wrong, but rather the community considering the arguments and deciding whether or not they are properly employed and useful for further consideration.

Scientific peer review is not working out so well for YEC.

Anyway I am going to drop out for a while, I have too much going on here atm.

Cheers.

Here is a definition of terms that might help,

"Logic" - what makes sense to mortals.

"Reasoning" - how mortals try to make sense.

"Philosophy" - the study of other mortals sense.

"Rational" - mortals thinking logically.

"Peer reviewed" - a group consensus of mortals.

"Theology" - the study of mortals sense of religion.

"Religion" - a system of beliefs for mortals.

"Science" - a system of study for mortals.

"Evidence" - what mortals believe is real.

"Belief" - what mortals think.

"Thinking" - what mortals can do.

"Education" - what mortals are told.

"Theory" - what mortals guess.

"Evolution" - what mortals guess is happening.

"Creation" - what mortals can't do.

"Faith" - how mortals can understand what is true.

"Revelation" - what God reveals to mortals.

"Naturalism" - what nature reveals to mortals.

"Humanism" - the worship of mortal standards above God's.

"Black holes" - Damage in mortals.

Glad you said "might" help.
Doesn't help.

Squible wrote:Jac,

I have read plenty and I am not confused in the slightest. Do you honestly think I am that naïve? I have read enormous amounts on these topics over the years.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.

I am not referring to the "field of" philosophy itself as such. I am talking about philosophy in general or that which has derived from "the field/s of philosophy" itself, as such it is in this sense I am taking issue with.

In that we use philosophy to get to X. There is no escaping this.

I am full well aware of philosophy of logic which studies the nature and scope of logic, philosophy of science, philosophy of "whatever else" and so on. I also understand demarcations. So please, do not assume I am uneducated on these matters.

I disagree with you that they are only scientific or theological questions. I see it as scientific, theological and philosophical.

In addition, Craig and the argument he employs for infinites could be correct, if it is the case then that puts you in a rather awkward position.

"Naïve"? "Honestly think"? That got personal really fast. What, do you think "honestly think" that I'm naïve enough to make such a basic self-refuting argument?

See how easy that is?

So if we're done with rhetoric, on to the substance of your post(s).

I was going to do something of a line by line and lay out my reasoning a bit more clearly, but I just don't have the energy right now. Here's the short form--your argument is, strictly speaking, a non-sequitur. You are saying that because philosophical commitments inform a particular idea that the idea itself is a philosophical question; and from that, I presume you are saying that to deny the question is a philosophical question is to deny the underlying philosophical commitments. I would just invite you to try to formalize that into an actual syllogism. You'll see it plainly doesn't follow. The only way to make it follow is to reread "philosophical commitments" with "philosophy itself," such that you are talking about rationality as a whole. But that is not what philosophy is. In fact, in your post, you directly equate philosophy with logic (in your parenthetical remark). Philosophy, properly understood, is the study of being qua being. It makes use of things like logic, but logic is not philosophy.

But to illustrate my point more clearly, since illustrations are quicker and easier, let's just leave it at this: E=MC^2, Washington being the first POTUS, and the number of letters in the word "cat" are not philosophical questions. They are scientific, historical, and grammatical, respectively. Of course, all of those questions have underlying philosophical commitments, but that doesn't make the question philosophical. The discipline used to treat a problem is born out of the nature of the problem itself, not out of the nature of its constituent parts. The validity of the philosophical commitments underlying those questions is, of course, a philosophical question; but the questions themselves are not. And so it is with YEC. YEC is not a philosophical question, although its underlying philosophical commitments are. That is, philosophy is useless when addressing the question of YEC itself. Also with OEC. Also with the age of the universe, and so on. Those questions are theological and scientific.

Regarding Craig, he is among those who (wrongly in my view) thinks that philosophy CAN address the question of whether or not the universe came into existence a finite time ago. Now, even if he is right, that only applies to the fact of the universe's temporal finiteness. It does not apply to how long ago that happened. But, as it happens, his arguments fail. If you want to see why, I would refer you to Summa Contra Gentiles I.13.

And with that, my time is up. Wife is calling me. Bottom line--no, I don't think you are naïve. I think you made a common enough mistake in equating logic with philosophy. And so I recommended a book that discusses this question is significant detail. The relationship between philosophy and the various sciences is widely misunderstood today, and that because the nature of philosophy itself is widely misunderstood today. Today it is, thanks to analytical philosophy, broadly reduced to mere linguistics (and, as such, falls to what Veatch called the fallacy of inverted intentionality). And for that, we can thank Descartes. But now I'm getting way ahead of myself. If you want to discuss this further, I invite you to just state your case in a simple syllogism. Try it (and make use of the premise of mine you are trying to critique; namely, that YEC and related positions are not philosophical questions) and I think you'll find it is either a non-sequitur or else the only way to make it follow is to read "philosophy" to mean "logic."

All the best to you!

Jac,

It got personal Jac, because quite frankly I find you cocky and rather condescending. I found this in previous interactions, although I remained patient with you. I am usually patient online with people, but for some reason you lost this fast with me, this time. Personally I find you uncharitable and arrogant.
The uncharitableness is enough to get ones back up.

You have missed my point entirely as well, and it is probably too messy to recover. Jac, I have read plenty on demarcations, I said that previously, yet you felt the need to explain yourself again. For example I full well understand that Einstein held to verificiationism in order to prove his position including his theory of relativity. I clearly understand that his verificationism was used as a tool for his science.

I said in a post right after in response to K I may have taken things out of context in this thread with regard to where you were coming from.

I have a very clear understanding of what scientific, historical and philosophical claims and so on are. I often see scientists making philosophical claims dressed up as scientific ones.

Moreover, my argument is not what you stated, so the alleged non-sequiter has quickly become a straw man.

I get the feeling we are talking in different terms / perspective. Perhaps at the heart we may be saying the same thing.

I am looking at things from the big picture and on multiple levels.

Anyway I have had enough of this, I suggest we avoid further discussions for now. I suspect we are not seeing where we are both coming from.

This is how it looks when yec is derived from philosophy theology and / or logic

http://www.top-decile.com/images/cartoo ... ying30.jpg

Audie wrote:This is how it looks when yec is derived from philosophy theology and / or logic

http://www.top-decile.com/images/cartoo ... ying30.jpg

YEC's believe their view is based on scientific evidence. So it is more then that to them.

I disagree with their underlying assumptions, "science" and conclusions.

To me the scientific evidence alone demonstrates that we are in an old universe.

But alas this is a discussion for another day, I am not in the mood to get into this stuff with a YEC at the moment.

There are mood requirements, for sure.

Im sure we all know people with whom you can be friends, but not after getting into
that one.

Its not really the belief per se that intrigues me, but the mental processes involved in
getting there, or staying there.

It just doesnt seem like the kits should be down the drain.

Audie wrote:There are mood requirements, for sure.

Im sure we all know people with whom you can be friends, but not after getting into
that one.

Its not really the belief per se that intrigues me, but the mental processes involved in
getting there, or staying there.

It just doesnt seem like the kits should be down the drain.

I will say it has taught me to be charitable and fair. I have often been confounded by the YEC thinking however....

I have found with some of my YEC friends that there is really nothing you can say, so agree to disagree and move on.

Squible wrote:

Audie wrote:There are mood requirements, for sure.

Im sure we all know people with whom you can be friends, but not after getting into
that one.

Its not really the belief per se that intrigues me, but the mental processes involved in
getting there, or staying there.

It just doesnt seem like the kits should be down the drain.

I will say it has taught me to be charitable and fair. I have often been confounded by the YEC thinking however....

I have found with some of my YEC friends that there is really nothing you can say, so agree to disagree and move on.

Well you could agree on something...
When told that you accept a different gospel just nod and agree.
Then tell them you'll pray one day that they'll see the true Gospel too.

Squible wrote:Jac,

It got personal Jac, because quite frankly I find you cocky and rather condescending. I found this in previous interactions, although I remained patient with you. I am usually patient online with people, but for some reason you lost this fast with me, this time. Personally I find you uncharitable and arrogant.
The uncharitableness is enough to get ones back up.

You have missed my point entirely as well, and it is probably too messy to recover. Jac, I have read plenty on demarcations, I said that previously, yet you felt the need to explain yourself again. For example I full well understand that Einstein held to verificiationism in order to prove his position including his theory of relativity. I clearly understand that his verificationism was used as a tool for his science.

I said in a post right after in response to K I may have taken things out of context in this thread with regard to where you were coming from.

I have a very clear understanding of what scientific, historical and philosophical claims and so on are. I often see scientists making philosophical claims dressed up as scientific ones.

Moreover, my argument is not what you stated, so the alleged non-sequiter has quickly become a straw man.

I get the feeling we are talking in different terms / perspective. Perhaps at the heart we may be saying the same thing.

I am looking at things from the big picture and on multiple levels.

Anyway I have had enough of this, I suggest we avoid further discussions for now. I suspect we are not seeing where we are both coming from.

You are certainly free to avoid further discussion. You are not free to throw out a series of personal attacks and then claim that the conversation is over, and more importantly, you are not free to do so in public. If you have personal problems, you ought to take them up personally. Having publicly accused me of being "arrogant" and "condescending" and trying to "make a fool" out of you, all of which are assaults on my character is little more than public defamation. You ought to be ashamed. You also ought to be embarrassed. The very things you accuse me of (arrogance, condescension, trying to make a fool out of you) is exactly what you've done in this very thread, and all of this in the context of originally accusing me of a self-refuting argument (hello, irony).

Against all that, I just deny that I was trying to make a fool of you, and I certainly deny that I'm either arrogant or condescending. You made a bad argument. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying, but your first response to me accused me of offering being self-refuting in my thinking. I took a charitable interpretation of your words and offered a brief reply explaining what I presumed to be the error. And then you blow up. I pointed out with a bit of humor in attempt to lighten the mood your emotional response and then took the time to reexplain my position, and then you doubled down not on the argument you are making but on the personal nature of the attack.

Now, I don't know what has you so frustrated. My initial statement to Audie was in defense of your position--namely, that philosophy does not necessarily lead to YEC. Audie, then, can emphatically reject and even mock my position (and, I'll note, rather than offering at least a defense of my sincerity you and others joined in with that mockery--good show, siding with unbelievers against your brother in Christ), but she cannot use her rejection of my position (YEC) to condemn our common interests--philosophical reasoning and scriptural interpretation--much less your position itself (OEC).

Far from being arrogant and condescending, then, I've been in your corner. And after all THAT, you STILL haven't grappled with my own argument. Your citation of Einstein's verificationism proves to me that you haven't even understood what I'm saying. You're response just begs the question. But that is what happens when you are more interested in attacking than understanding.

Now, it's up to you how you want to go forward. I don't have any hard feelings. I don't appreciate the public attack, but that's neither nor there. You attacked in public. I've responded in public. And as far as I'm concerned, it's done. We can either go back to talking about the issues or if you have further problems I invite you to take them up with me privately. If you have a particular statement I've made that bothered you at sometime in the past, by all means, let me know. Such is only for my benefit. But that's best done privately. I think there's even Scripture on that point.

God bless

Sorry Jac, I did join in, but only because YEC is open game. You know that.

Not to diminish the importance of some foundational thoughts of disagreement.
But really, I think a mountain has been made over a mole hill here.

Perhaps it is more embedded ideas that are being stated in a matter of fact way in passing.
And that's what is generating a feeling of arrogance and condescension -- just the assumed facts as though one ought to know.
But, I do see much hair splitting. If a different approach was taken, then you'd perhaps find much agreement.
Instead some details were zoomed in on, things boiled over and your disagreement exploded more and more.

These ideas themselves need their own thread for discussion.
E.g., one main one I identified which being Craig's Kalam perhaps and whether or not such is justified philosophy.
But, otherwise just move on. Audie's just a fire starter. Good scapegoat

Actually, I think we're in full agreement, K. You know me well enough to know that I don't care two bits if people mock YEC. I think you also know that where I take exception is when people start in with misrepresentations and personal attacks (and so our debates over Ham's treatment around here). My response was born simply out a) the fact that I had to respond to a public personal attack, and that context strikes me as important; and b) the fact that this particular discussion was started by an unbeliever. Fights among family are one thing. Throwing each other under the bus to non-Christians strikes me as terribly inappropriate.

But, again, mountains and molehills, broad agreement, I completely agree. That's why I was surprised that it became personal at all, much less that it became so personal so quickly.