tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post4004394754360192612..comments2023-10-26T03:12:48.945-07:00Comments on Dorkman's Blog: The Case for a Creator: Chapter TwoDorkmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-3092564543477775462008-09-05T20:31:00.000-07:002008-09-05T20:31:00.000-07:00What strikes me most about the author is that he s...What strikes me most about the author is that he seems to be looking for some sort of ultimate authority, be it God or "science" playing god.<BR/><BR/>Quotes like "In selecting these experts, I sought doctorate-level professors who have unquestioned expertise" indicate that he really doesn't grasp the scientific method. In fact, it's only science if it's questionable.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06796108348665378158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-77373072491626157172008-08-30T18:43:00.000-07:002008-08-30T18:43:00.000-07:00Couldn't agree with you more, Mike. Everything so ...Couldn't agree with you more, Mike. Everything so far has been absolutely on the money, especially regarding your (and my) stand-point on morality and the way some Christians approach aethists.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04862333803647947281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-38529762134667211482008-08-28T08:42:00.000-07:002008-08-28T08:42:00.000-07:00Fantastic!Some atheists I've talked to try to argu...Fantastic!<BR/><BR/>Some atheists I've talked to try to argue against God's existence from the premise of methodological naturalism and its subsidiary, causal closure. Since both deny the existence of God, using them to argue that God does not exist sounds like circular reasoning.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for having an open mind.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-62189818992466587402008-08-27T21:35:00.000-07:002008-08-27T21:35:00.000-07:00And when I was a Christian, I did believe that the...And when I was a Christian, I did believe that there could be events that could not be explained by naturalistic means. Then I found out the perfectly natural explanations for many of them. Which actually positions me well to respond to many of the objections Christians could raise to naturalism -- they are precisely the objections I would have raised myself, before I knew better.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-34569277059379991812008-08-27T21:33:00.000-07:002008-08-27T21:33:00.000-07:00Drew: I don't believe you're quite using the word ...Drew: I don't believe you're quite using the word "paradigm" properly, but I get your meaning. <BR/><BR/>To your first question, the answer is "yes, but." Yes, I think that it is <I>possible</I> for observed phenomena to have a source that would be considered supernatural; BUT if that were the case, and the so-called supernatural source were able to be scientifically measured and validated, then that source is, in fact, a perfectly natural source that has merely been hitherto undiscovered or unmeasurable. For the sake of clarity, I will continue to refer to currently unmeasured (and unproven) agencies as being "supernatural." This includes God, demons, and even alien life, being thus far scientifically unproven. <BR/><BR/>Going back to your first comment: <BR/><BR/><I>You're open to the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent God.<BR/><BR/>However, this entity's actions can never be the best possible explanation for any physical event, at any time, or any place, ever.<BR/><BR/>So this entity can potentially exist, but absolutely, positively cannot do anything.</I><BR/><BR/>Scientifically, as I think I clarified already, the actions of a God cannot be the <I>first</I> hypothesis made for any physical event. To speak of science "pointing to God," you can't start out assuming that God exists, because if that God is omnipotent, then OBVIOUSLY any phenomenon can be explained that way, and that is the death of scientific inquiry and critical thinking. <BR/><BR/>No, the most feasible non-God hypotheses must first be investigated, and only if they prove inadequate can it be considered evidence of a "supernatural" agent. Even then, the answer is not necessarily "God," and definitely not immediately "Christian God." Even if we do determine -- for example -- that something must have created life on Earth, it could just as easily be aliens as a deity. <BR/><BR/>Again, extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence. <BR/><BR/>And to your last question: You are correct, that I have yet to come across, in practice or in any reading I have done, a natural occurrence that requires the theoretical intervention of a supernatural agency -- something that violates the observed laws of nature.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-11337431072851436072008-08-27T17:50:00.000-07:002008-08-27T17:50:00.000-07:00Also, when you were a Christian, did you at that t...Also, when you were a Christian, did you at that time believe there were natural events best explained by supernatural explanations?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-66795394396347436072008-08-27T17:32:00.000-07:002008-08-27T17:32:00.000-07:00Here's what I man:There is a term used by logician...Here's what I man:<BR/><BR/>There is a term used by logicians: Inference to the Best Explanation. You hold a big stack of evidence in one hand, and a big stack of explanations in another hand. Like a teenage girl getting ready for her first day of Junior High, you're ready to find the best match, right?<BR/><BR/>Not so fast! There's too many explanations to analyze in one lifetime. So we'll just have to set some paradigms. Let's assume that I exist, that you exist, and that reading to the end of this post won't turn your brain into a bowl of oatmeal, topped with delicious maple brown sugar.<BR/><BR/>Your paradigm seems to be this, that a supernatural explanation is viable, so long as the probability of all natural explanations is sufficiently low (How low? I don't know!). However, you have not learned of any natural phenomena whose naturalistic explanations are so low that you have to resort to a supernatural cause.<BR/><BR/>Is this accurate?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-63178782889785456752008-08-27T15:17:00.000-07:002008-08-27T15:17:00.000-07:00Ok, since my "I like turtles" comment wasn't accep...Ok, since my "I like turtles" comment wasn't acceptable, I will be serious for a moment.<BR/><BR/>I'm with Dorkman. If God exists, he needs to reveal himself and end all debate beyond any question.<BR/><BR/>Asking people to just "have faith" is silly. I can ask you to believe that I am God, and just tell you to have "faith" and you would laugh in my face, and rightfully so.<BR/><BR/>However, at least you can see that I DO exist. I may not be a God, but I exist, that is fact. And yet, when you are asked to believe in a being that you DON'T EVEN KNOW EXISTS, AND to accept that he is the God of the universe, all on FAITH, is plain silly.<BR/><BR/>I consider myself an agnostic, and not an atheist, however, I am not going to waste my time on any religion unless they can supply me with hard evidence that they are right.Daniel Broadwayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17517758157226659699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-84076215091728636762008-08-27T15:06:00.000-07:002008-08-27T15:06:00.000-07:00I'm not sure what your question is. Could you clar...I'm not sure what your question is. Could you clarify what point you're trying to make? <BR/><BR/>Science looks for the natural, measurable causes of observed phenomena. Science does not deal in the supernatural, which is by definition immaterial or unmeasurable. Assuming from the get-go that God did something is an unscientific hypothesis as it is, by its nature, untestable. <BR/><BR/>Only once you have determined that a phenomenon cannot have occurred through any known natural, undirected physical means does the notion of intervention by a higher power start to come into play. <BR/><BR/>If God exists and interacts with humankind in any meaningful way, then his effects on this world should be measurable, and should not be something that could be easily mistaken for or attributed to perfectly natural processes.Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-51450943329195725072008-08-27T13:39:00.000-07:002008-08-27T13:39:00.000-07:00I'm not sure what you mean by exhausting all other...I'm not sure what you mean by exhausting all other possibilities.<BR/><BR/>Is there a certain probability level below which a possibility is considered exhausted?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-59040924782339683652008-08-27T11:26:00.000-07:002008-08-27T11:26:00.000-07:00Drew: for a deity to be a feasible -- let alone th...Drew: for a deity to be a feasible -- let alone the best -- explanation, all other avenues must first be exhausted. Anything less is bad science. <BR/><BR/>As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So if you want to claim that "God did it," it must be established that no possible natural mechanism exists. <BR/><BR/>Or, alternatively, God could go ahead and show himself and take the credit. That would settle everything pretty handily. <BR/><BR/>Katie: I think you'd be surprised, outside of liberal Christianity, of just how often the question arises. "If there's no God then why should we be good? Why not just act in our own best interests?" These are not the wackos asking. These are most of the Christians I come across regarding this debate. You and yours know better, which is great, but my experience bears out the quantifier "so many."Dorkmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927199693571387920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-7432089610936934102008-08-27T11:17:00.000-07:002008-08-27T11:17:00.000-07:00I'm getting more and more disillusioned by this gu...I'm getting more and more disillusioned by this guy's work. As a journalist he at least has a sloppy form in his fact finding, and worse an agenda in his writings. Its one thing if this were in a column or book that makes it clear he is talking about his own personal beliefs. But he presents this work as a factual piece of material, when it is striving to do what Christians have been guilt of before; attempting to forcefully convert non-believers.Rinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13333726011161520092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-82208728675743596052008-08-27T11:16:00.000-07:002008-08-27T11:16:00.000-07:00Therefore, a supernatural explanation cannot be th...Therefore, a supernatural explanation cannot be the best possible explanation for any physical event, in any time or any place, ever. <BR/><BR/>In other words, an omnipotent being may theoretically exist, but absolutely, positively, cannot do anything.<BR/><BR/>Right?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-42566977329964397572008-08-27T10:07:00.000-07:002008-08-27T10:07:00.000-07:00Heh... well what kind of physical events are you r...Heh... well what kind of physical events are you refering to? If you're implying something like so-called "medical miracles"... people recovering from diseases or injuries that they shouldn't be able to recover from... for that I'd answer that the same spontaneous evolution that occurs in a species over time to adapt to its surroundings *also* includes us human beings.<BR/><BR/>Some of us humans have our DNA set up in such a way that one partcicular strain of one particular disease might be able to be fought off and recovered from... unlike the other 99.9999- % of the population. If you happen to be that one case that recovered when everyone else dies... it's called a "miracle"... but it doesn't automatically mean any god did it. It just means we have perhaps witnessed a micro-view of evolution take place.Fishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17882157645680232842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-78031280534392839322008-08-27T10:04:00.000-07:002008-08-27T10:04:00.000-07:00Drew - that just means that we haven't found an ex...Drew - that just means that we haven't found an explanation for it yet. Just because we didn't know why or how it rained when the world was newer didn't mean it was because God was crying. That was an explanation used because humans really like to explain things, even if the people don't have the smarts, the materials, the know-how, or the equipment to explain them but some great, fantastical, awesome God that we have no evidence for.<BR/><BR/>This guy sounds like a quack to me.<BR/><BR/>And I still manage to categorize myself as a Christian.<BR/><BR/>Speaking on that point, I am just as bothered by your point, Dorkman, that "so many of the religious" only have the idea of God keeping them from doing awful things as you do about atheists being categorized in the same fashion. I would say fairly that there are some crazy few that believe that. Most of us just try to be good because it's good. You notice the ones that are crazy because they get the media attention. I know that was an aside, I just wanted to address it.<BR/><BR/>Other than that, good post. I am sick and tired of the dichotemy that is set up by so many people: science VS. religion. How about both things can be and are mutually exclusive? But with that point, I think I'm preaching to the choir, if you'll pardon the expression.Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09859940513986062781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-21004005856995706792008-08-27T09:14:00.000-07:002008-08-27T09:14:00.000-07:00What if there isn't a feasible naturalistic explan...What if there isn't a feasible naturalistic explanation?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-24319536765818408452008-08-27T08:29:00.000-07:002008-08-27T08:29:00.000-07:00I'm gathering from he's saying that he does not be...I'm gathering from he's saying that he does not believe a god exists, but if it turns out he's wrong, so be it. But he's not going to use that miniscule chance that he might be wrong as an excuse to explain away things that happen on this planet. There's always more feasible explanations if you just bothered to look.Fishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17882157645680232842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-25443618094155143682008-08-27T06:41:00.000-07:002008-08-27T06:41:00.000-07:00So...You're open to the possibility of the existen...So...<BR/><BR/>You're open to the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent God.<BR/><BR/>However, this entity's actions can never be the best possible explanation for any physical event, at any time, or any place, ever.<BR/><BR/>So this entity can potentially exist, but absolutely, positively cannot do anything.<BR/><BR/>Is this accurate, or am I off my rocker, here?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07760732528070189410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11062023.post-39922233513763772952008-08-27T06:33:00.000-07:002008-08-27T06:33:00.000-07:00Very interesting. I think you really hit the nail...Very interesting. I think you really hit the nail on the head concerning Strobel's caricature of atheists. The "oh-boy-now-I-can-sin" shtik is pretty lame, although I suppose that the fourteen-year-old Strobel might have been pleased at the prospect of beating his meat without feeling guilty.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.com