 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
ekspiulo
Ferret
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 123
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 12:39 am Post subject: Everyone can be wrong about a supernatural creator |
 |
|
Many times people debate who is right about the nature of one or more supposed Intelligent Designers (after accepting that there are any sensible arguments for such Designers' existence). Consider the idea that they are all wrong. Debating which is more equal to the number four, a button or love, if you will.
"Nothing necessitates that humankind has previously or is able to accurately apprehend the nature of a supernatural entity by reason or revelation." This is Kennedy's Axiom of Deities.
The idea of intelligent design is that life must have been created by some intelligent supernatural entities. They are appropriately subject to Kennedy's axiom of deities. Accordingly, the arguments which comprise intelligent design can not be used to infer the existence of any specific supernatural intelligent designer, such as the god of the Bible.
Absent such arguments, I propose there is no evidence for the god of the Bible especially as compared with other things which also fit the needs of intelligent design.
Whether or not intelligent design is a load of crap is for other threads.
_________________
"The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job." - Sam Harris |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LuckyStrike
Sea Monkey
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Valdosta, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:10 pm Post subject: Re: ekspiulo |
|
|
| ekspiulo wrote: | | "Nothing necessitates that humankind has previously or is able to accurately apprehend the nature of a supernatural entity by reason or revelation." This is Kennedy's Axiom of Deities. |
This statement is logically self-defeating. The definition of "supernatural" depends upon contrasting the "supernatural" with the "natural." This means that an intellectual rejection of supernatural concepts depends upon the individual's presuppositions about the natural, such as in presupposing Naturalism or Materialism.
What does this mean? It means that the philosophical presuppositions surrounding this statement, not the statement itself, is the central issue here.
| ekspiulo wrote: | | They are appropriately subject to Kennedy's axiom of deities. |
This statement applies only if one accepts the presuppositions that Kennedy's axiom is based upon. Kennedy's axiom is a conclusion masquerading as a raw observation.
| ekspiulo wrote: | | Accordingly, the arguments which comprise intelligent design can not be used to infer the existence of any specific supernatural intelligent designer, such as the god of the Bible. |
As your statement implies, the operative issue here is how one interprets the available physical evidence, not simply observing physical evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nakhash
House Cat
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The problem with the supernatural is that it necessarily cannot exist. In order for something to have observable effect on the material world, it must necessarily be material. No matter how hard you try, you cannot compose an acceptible argument for dualism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuckyStrike
Sea Monkey
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Valdosta, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:59 pm Post subject: Re: nakhash |
|
|
| nakhash wrote: | | The problem with the supernatural is that it necessarily cannot exist. |
No. Nothing necessitates that the supernatural cannot exist unless you appeal to the philosophical presuppositions of Naturalism or Materialism.
| nakhash wrote: | | In order for something to have observable effect on the material world, it must necessarily be material. |
This is non-sequitur reasoning. Nothing necessitates that only material objects can have an observable effect on other material objects. You are implicitly attempting to use the limitations of Science as a basis to reject the supernatural or metaphysical, which is an argument from ignorance logical fallacy.
What about miracles, or events that violate known physical "laws," biological processes, or physical limitations in general? The only reply that secular humanists can offer is the assumption that naturalistic explanations of such events will be discovered in the future.
| nakhash wrote: | | No matter how hard you try, you cannot compose an acceptible argument for dualism. |
Dualism "1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes" (ref.)
I assume that you are using the above definition of "dualism," while applying it to the general distinction between the material and the immaterial, not Gnostic philosophy. If this is the case, then I will accept the usage of this terminology.
 That aside, it seems that you are appealing to your personal beliefs, not sound intellectual examination, to make the above statement.
_________________
1 Peter 3:15 [NIV]
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unschoolmom
Kitten
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 141
Location: Nova Scotia
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:17 am Post subject: Re: Everyone can be wrong about a supernatural creator |
|
|
| ekspiulo wrote: | | The idea of intelligent design is that life must have been created by some intelligent supernatural entities. |
It's a bit more then that. I believe in a creator, I don't believe ID. ID sets itself up against evolution by insisting that everything was painstakingly designed by a God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:42 am Post subject: Re: nakhash |
|
|
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | What about miracles, or events that violate known physical "laws," biological processes, or physical limitations in general? |
Ah, God-of-the-Gaps. When we can't explain it, then it is a miracle. When we later can explain it, then it was just physics after all. God-of-the-Gaps results in an ever-shrinking God.
I am wondering how many past "miracles" have been shown to have a "natural" explanation since their occurence.
As for the events that violate physical laws etc., can you give some examples?
| Quote: | | The only reply that secular humanists can offer is the assumption that naturalistic explanations of such events will be discovered in the future. |
Well, first you have to show they actually occured.
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuckyStrike
Sea Monkey
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Valdosta, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:18 am Post subject: Re: SDMD |
|
|
| SDMD wrote: | | Ah, God-of-the-Gaps. When we can't explain it, then it is a miracle. When we later can explain it, then it was just physics after all. |
Hold on a second. What constitutes "an explanation"?
_________________
1 Peter 3:15 [NIV]
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6364
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
why are all people who are created from the same biological material, all have different personalities?
where does that differentiating aspect come from?
just askin...
lone
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuckyStrike
Sea Monkey
Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Posts: 10
Location: Valdosta, GA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 9:28 am Post subject: Re: lone-traveler |
|
|
| lone-traveler wrote: | why are all people who are created from the same biological material, all have different personalities?
where does that differentiating aspect come from?
just askin...
lone |
Good point. Secular humanists cannot "prove" that all aspects of individual personality are the result of biological processes, except by appealing to naturalistic or materialistic presuppositions. This becomes readily apparent when one begins to speak about concepts such as "consciousness," "awareness" or "perception," and the spectrum of reactive experiences, such as "love."
_________________
1 Peter 3:15 [NIV]
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SDMD
Show Poodle
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: lone-traveler |
|
|
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | lone-traveler wrote: | why are all people who are created from the same biological material, all have different personalities?
where does that differentiating aspect come from?
just askin...
lone |
Good point. Secular humanists cannot "prove" that all aspects of individual personality are the result of biological processes, except by appealing to naturalistic or materialistic presuppositions. |
What do you mean with 'secular humanists"? You are mnot one of those who are so ignorant that they believe this is a "God vs Evolution" kind of silliness, are you? I have not seen anybody trying to proof what you claimed.
| Quote: | | This becomes readily apparent when one begins to speak about concepts such as "consciousness," "awareness" or "perception," and the spectrum of reactive experiences, such as "love." |
But.. ? Has anybody ever claimed to have the proof for these things?
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6364
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SDMD,
I was wondering, how does evolution explain it?
[size=9](don't bite be nice)[/size]
just askin
Lone
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6287
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's an element of genetics to it, no doubt, but primarily it's based on what a person experiences growing up.
No two people grow up identically.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lone-traveler
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 6364
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's what I'm askin..
Why don't people grow up identically. We're all born the same. We all live on one planet. And we all die.
What made one person react differently from one circumstance than another?
Why do some fight and some flee? Why don't they all react the same?
Same question with animals, plants, etc.. each one has an individual personality/aspect to it. If they all come from the same thing, why are they all different?
_________________
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6287
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We don't grow up identically because 1. We are not born the same. 2. We all live differently. 3. We all die differently.
We are different because we all experience different things.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nakhash
House Cat
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: nakhash |
|
|
| LuckyStrike wrote: | | No. Nothing necessitates that the supernatural cannot exist unless you appeal to the philosophical presuppositions of Naturalism or Materialism. |
Any form of epistemological model that stands up to philosophical scrutiny is difficult to differentiate from Materialism in practice.
| Quote: | | This is non-sequitur reasoning. Nothing necessitates that only material objects can have an observable effect on other material objects. You are implicitly attempting to use the limitations of Science as a basis to reject the supernatural or metaphysical, which is an argument from ignorance logical fallacy. |
I'm basing this more on Spinoza's "substance can only limit like substance"' argument he puts forth in The Ethics, but you could just as easily see this as an extension of Newton's Third Law of Motion,
| Quote: | | What about miracles, or events that violate known physical "laws," biological processes, or physical limitations in general? The only reply that secular humanists can offer is the assumption that naturalistic explanations of such events will be discovered in the future. |
Satisfaction with ignorance is not a rational replacement for a philosophical argument. Your appeal violates the "absence of proof is not equivalent to proof of absence" appeal you are otherwise making by calling materialist explanations for phenomena into question.
| Quote: | I assume that you are using the above definition of "dualism," while applying it to the general distinction between the material and the immaterial, not Gnostic philosophy. If this is the case, then I will accept the usage of this terminology.
That aside, it seems that you are appealing to your personal beliefs, not sound intellectual examination, to make the above statement.[/color] |
No, this is a philosophical argument, and a sound one.
If you disagree, make a logical argument, based on first principles, for dualism, and then also provide a logical argument that unlike substances can interact, and that this interaction can occur in a unidirectional manner.
But it's impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
