Neither of you are seeing the point - science cannot explain the order of nature. Given the order of nature, then science can explain many things, but it doesn't explain the order. It can't, for example, see 'before the singularity'. So natural theology can argue that the Big Bang developed in just the way it did, because God made it so; you may choose not to believe that, but science can't help make your case. It's out of scope. — Wayfarer

I understand your criticism, and it is no more a valid criticism of science than criticising mathematics for not having any input on the latest fashion trends.

...you realise me and S are not the same person right? I didnt say you were mischaracterising my position...
Anyway, you denied that you committing a fallacy and then just repeated the fallacy. This is the structure of you argument from ignorance:
Science doesnt know the answer, so I am perfectly justified in my belief that god did it. (Or whatever)
This is a fallacy, you are not justified in making up an answer just because science doesn't know the answer. The correct answer is “I do not know”, even though it might not be particularly satisfying.

you denied that you committing a fallacy and then just repeated the fallacy. T — DingoJones

It's not 'an argument from ignorance', it's an argument from a matter of principle. As a matter of principle, science has nothing to say on 'first causes', or whatever, because that is not how science proceeds. This is a philosophy forum, and this is Philosophy 101.

A lot of popular atheism says that science 'proves' or 'shows' that God doesn't exist, but it's no more true than an ID exponent saying that it 'proves' that God does exist. Both are incorrect, for very similar reasons, which is, not understanding the nature of the question.

It's not 'an argument from ignorance', it's an argument from a matter of principle. — Wayfarer

It's a daft argument: the equivalent in text form of shouting in anger at a lamppost for not playing fetch.

I did an undergraduate unit in A J Ayer, Language Truth and Logic. And you're singing from that hymnsheet, even if you don't understand that you are. — Wayfarer

:wink:

Well Jeep you certainly recognized Ayer's influence on my position what... a decade ago? Unfortunately the positivist guiding principle is untenable/self-defeating. There is still much to be admired about the positivist outlook, certain aspects of it at least...

Just because we've been mistaken about some things, it doesn't follow that we've been mistaken about everything. Just because we cannot see everything as it is, it doesn't follow that we see nothing as it is. We are both objects in the world and subjects taking account of it and ourselves, etc...

It's not 'an argument from ignorance', it's an argument from a matter of principle. As a matter of principle, science has nothing to say on 'first causes', or whatever, because that is not how science proceeds. This is a philosophy forum, and this is Philosophy 101. — Wayfarer

Do you know what a fallacy is? You have made a fallacy here, and have failed a third time to understand that you did...

A lot of popular atheism says that science 'proves' or 'shows' that God doesn't exist, but it's no more true than an ID exponent saying that it 'proves' that God does exist. Both are incorrect, for very similar reasons, which is, not understanding the nature of the question. — Wayfarer

I would appreciate it if you didnt apply other peoples arguments to me...I dont really care what some other dummies you talked to had to say. This is me and you talking, not you and them.

It's a daft argument: — S

This coming from one who has no argument... mind you. Sitting high up in the stands heaving personal ridicule and criticism at those doing the work is the safest place for some. Such people do not have what it takes to garner the kind of respect that warrants much attention from those who actually get into the ring. Yellow Napes and African Greys are prettier.

I cannot keep track, do you have a personal beef with S? I observe he has provided arguments, good ones that have not been refuted. I can see for myself that what you just accused of S is not true. Either you do not understand those arguments or you have some personal reason to ignore them and pretend he has said nothing of substance...

Quote them please.

Im not going to do that. Maybe I wasnt clear...I was asking if you thought you didn't understand the arguments or if you thought you might be ignoring them because you do not like S...

Do you know what a fallacy is? You have made a fallacy here, and have failed a third time to understand that you did... — DingoJones

No, you've *claimed* I'm arguing from a fallacy, and I have *refuted* your claim. it's not 'an argument from ignorance' - I'm saying, science can't, in principle, determine if there is a 'first cause' or higher intelligence. It's simply not equipped to discover that, it's out of scope for scientific method.

Here's a pretty good quick summary of what modern scientific method comprises:

Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.

Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.”

Now, there's nothing in that method which could ever possibly tell you what, if anything, is 'before' or 'above' or 'outside' the Universe. Science requires there to already be a world within which it operates. And to say that is not to accuse science of being ignorant - it's a pretty straightforward fact.

The idea that science 'proves' or 'shows' anything about a 'first cause', is effective only against literalistic interpretations of religious mythology. But if religious mythologies are understood as symbolic or allegorical, then the facts of science have nothing much to do with it.

Im not going to do that. Maybe I wasnt clear...I was asking if you thought you didn't understand the arguments or if you thought you might be ignoring them because you do not like S... — DingoJones

You were clear enough. You were and still are - quite simply - mistaken. I was clear as well, and I'm not. There has been no argument given by S. I don't know S. What I do know is that S substitutes ridicule and rhetoric for philosophical argument. I'm not making it up, rather, I'm pointing it out. Look for yourself. If you find one, then copy and paste it here. Easy enough right?

Do it.

I can find loads of personal insult and rhetoric offered in lieu of argument, as can anyone else who so chooses to look.

What you say is true. What I have learned from these debates is that speculative philosophy is impossible to defend. However, there is still wisdom in religious texts if you are open to receiving it.

there is still wisdom in religious texts if you are open to receiving it. — Noah Te Stroete

Indeed. Sometimes hard to pick out of all the other stuff, but there's some good stuff in lots of places, as long as one is willing to separate it from the other stuff.

No, you've *claimed* I'm arguing from a fallacy, and I have *refuted* your claim. it's not 'an argument from ignorance' — Wayfarer

I beg your pardon, but you certainly have not refuted my claim. You have merely declared it not to be the case. Also, you wandered off down some divergent path that im tempted to call non- sequitur. Im not engaging with your little argument about first cause, Im engaging you about the logical fallacy you have made which I have described.

You are getting confused by your dislike for his posting style/personality. He actually has arguments in between the bits you focus on.
Anyway, I get why you haven't noticed them now. They are there though, so you should stop acting like he isnt making them.

Show one. Just one.

I already told you Im not going to do that. Did you miss that? Im really not going to do it. If you are interested in correcting your erroneous conclusion about S not making arguments then you do the work. If you are comfortable with being wrong about it, then don’t.

Sure... I'll run right out and prove that S has offered no argument here. How do I do that again?

:brow:

Look Dingo, you're the one who said I'm wrong, and that he has... That's your burden to bear, not mine. Bear it.

I cannot prove that he has not. Anyone can look for themselves and see that much. The thread bears witness to that.

I already told you Im not going to do that. Did you miss that? Im really not going to do it. — DingoJones

So, you aren't willing to bear the burden of your claims?

:brow:

Tradition has it that when one voluntarily enters into a debate, s/he and/or they volunteer to justify their claims. You've a burden a bear here.

. You have merely declared it not to be the case. — DingoJones

With justification, because it isn't!

I understand your criticism, and it is no more a valid criticism of science than criticising mathematics for not having any input on the latest fashion trends. — S

Would you say fashion trends are therefore incompatible with mathematics?

I understand your criticism, and it is no more a valid criticism of science than criticising mathematics for not having any input on the latest fashion trends.
— S

Would you say fashion trends are therefore incompatible with mathematics? — AJJ

:100:

It was an example of a religion — S

Right. Which is why your argument was an overgeneralization. There are myriad religions, many of which do not share the characteristics of Christianity which you find so troubling.Which you would know if you had done any serious studies in comparative religion. Which I have.

I have to say, you have repeatedly taken an aggressive and dismissive posture and tone which I, personally, find offensive, and which I think debases the spirit of philosophy in general. I won't be dignifying any further response of yours. You are persona non grata.

In the case of a god or gods, there is a very complex bunch of issues to have infinite shades of opinion on, if one thinks one is allowed by the religious authorities concerned, or if one permits oneself to go over their heads.

Assent is either assent or dissent.

I like John Henry Newman's phrase, "assent to degrees of inference" for this reason.

While there might be an objective level to the "existence" (in some form) of a god, e.g the statue is actually standing in our building and there is a body of writings about it, nonetheless this does not in any way negate the essentially personal level including the freedom for any of us to treat it as impersonal, or deserving to be ignored by us, if we choose.

Hence the work of inference is the job of each of us individually, and the degrees of inference on many points is the job of each of us as individuals. Then the yes-no assent process is also the job of each of us as individuals, once we are clear what we want to or can assent to or not.

Hence I think "god must be atheist" is making a point about assent, and janus and noah are making a point about inference.

I cannot keep track, do you have a personal beef with S? I observe he has provided arguments, good ones that have not been refuted. I can see for myself that what you just accused of S is not true. Either you do not understand those arguments or you have some personal reason to ignore them and pretend he has said nothing of substance... — DingoJones

It does amuse me when people make that accusation against me, on a public forum, in the middle of a debate we've been having. Janus did it too.

And yes, he does have a personal beef with me. It probably stems from the fact that when he says something stupid, I will have the gal to tell him.

I'm saying, science can't, in principle, determine if there is a 'first cause' or higher intelligence. It's simply not equipped to discover that, it's out of scope for scientific method. — Wayfarer

And you apparently have no response to my criticism of that argument, which I'm guessing you'll have convinced yourself is dismissible for some superficial reason.

He's not the brightest bulb in the pack, so part of his mistake might be a failure to realise that arguments and ridicule are not mutually exclusive. For instance, my short yet effective argument against Wayfarer's attempt at criticising science is both.

But there are still clear arguments I've made which contain no ridicule at all, so that still wouldn't explain this apparent delusion he has.

Religions tend to be about certain levels of meaning in things and in life. Fundamentalism doesn't help any religion work well, in my observation. If there was a true god then scriptures would turn out to be true at some level probably in an unfashionable and neglected way.

Certain kinds of religion have become assumed to be loaded down with baggage by certain people, bringing risks of genetic fallacy when we think about them, if we're careless, or swayed emotively against or for, inappropriately.

Some kinds of scepticism also get loaded down with baggage.

While S J Gould mentions "non-overlapping magisteria" I prefer to speak of "non-conflicting magisteria" for reasons as above. In my case I insist this supports freedom to maintain the atheistic kind of agnosticism, just as much as a more religious outlook.

Given that both religion and science are infinitely huge, let alone life, the universe and everything, it wouldn't be logical to get doctrinaire about any supposed wholesale, absolute clashes. Conflicts are generated by faulty reasoning and faulty relating between individuals (including some who misuse authority).

Would you say fashion trends are therefore incompatible with mathematics? — AJJ

If they lead to contradiction with mathematics, then in that respect, yes. But it's hard to see how fashion trends could lead one to believe, say, that one plus one equals three, so the analogy doesn't work in every respect.