Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 2:51 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:32 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 4:10 am

How does a scientist know to expect the universe to be rational and comprehensible? If he's an Atheist, he should expect it to be chaotic and unpredictable...

I'm sure our early ancestors did find their world chaotic and unpredictable, but over time they would have inevitably noticed patterns in nature, and being the inquisitive creatures that humans are, they would have looked for the reasons.

But that explanation swallows a whole lot, without even noticing. If Atheism were right, then there SHOULD have been no "reasons" things happen. Things should have been what Atheists believe they are -- the random products of accident --

You've got this the wrong way round. If your explanation for the natural world is God, what reason do you have to look any further?

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:But if scientific investigation was inspired by God, science would be dealing with stuff like how to make a human being from a handful of clay, or how to make the waters of the sea part to form a convenient path, or how to spontaneously turn water into a crisp, fruity, white wine that goes nicely with loaves and fish.

You're confusing the miraculous with the merely material. For material phenomena, there are explanations in material phenomena: but for miraculous events, by definition, the only possible right explanation is, "God intervened to make it happen on this one occasion."

Exactly. There is no point in referring to God when it comes to investigating the only phenomena we are able to experience. If we want to know more about the real world, we go to science. If it's the miracles we are interested in, we go to Sunday school.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:

IC wrote:and has intended that his chief creature, man, should be able to "decode" and use this order.

If that's what you believe, why do you suppose the Bible is rather short on scientific technique?

It's got a lot more about science than you may know. But that's not the answer. The proper answer is that the Bible is not a textbook: it was not written that way, and its purpose was not to provide mankind with the mere means to manipulate material reality (which is what science is essentially for). The Biblical purpose is to put all that mankind is and does into the right, meaningful narrative context, so we would understand "the story we're in," and be able to play our roles appropriately. That's something about which science, being uninvolved with morality or meaning, cannot tell us about.

But all your information about God, and what he wants and expects of you, comes from the Bible, so if he doesn't tell you about science in the Bible, how are you supposed to know he wants you to be a scientist?

So the Biblical narrative is designed not merely to dally with low-stakes things like human engineering problems, but rather with the overarching metanarrative of our meaning and purpose. It gives us clarity not about how we can "get things done," which is not its purpose,

Yes, I agree, God and the Bible have no role to play in science.

but rather clarity about what sorts of things are right to do, and what sorts of people we ought to be,

So if you want to be told what sort of person to be, read the Bible, but that's not likely to inspire you to become a scientist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 2:40 pm

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:18 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 6:51 am
Yeah, actually. There is. Look at your cats...no two the same. But all the same species.

Very routine.

Evidently you can't tell the difference between the cosmetic contrasts between members of the same species that you're referring to, meaning their outward appearance and the type of evolutionary variations which can modify a whole species.

Hey, that's the distinction I already drew, between "interspecies" and "intraspecies." So I'm not the one who doesn't know it.

So make clear which version of variation your talking about. Since evolution is most often mentioned what does that have to do with no two cats looking the same compared to variations engendered by speciation? Remember the Darwin quote which mentions the means by which species are created? Unless there's a cloning process, no two members within a species look the same; humans are still humans, cats are still cats. No matter how much we'd like to create humans with cat whiskers it ain't gonna happen.

I know it's impossible for you to grasp as it contradicts the bible BUT it's evolution that's responsible for the Greatest Show on Earth; not Adam and Eve as the original mating pair.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 4:32 pm If your explanation for the natural world is God, what reason do you have to look any further?

Well, I'm trying to point that out, and I don't know how much more clear I can make it. But I'll try.

If we are the accidental products of time and chance, as Materialism, Evolutionism or Atheism will insist, then there is no reason for us to expect any order in nature. There is no reason for us to expect any natural laws, or reasonableness in such a universe, and equally importantly, no reason for us to think our brains are tuned to finding the truth about any such things. Why would we ever expect a random universe to produce such non-random correspondences between reason and reality?

But if God created us, and if we understand Him to be a God who is both law-giving and rational, as well as self-revealing and interested in our welfare and our understanding the world, then it makes perfect sense for us to suppose that if we went looking, we would find natural laws, regularities, rational explanations, and so on, and that we humans would be mentally created to be capable of understanding and interpreting them.

So which situation turned out to be the case? Well, obviously, the second. But why would we even think it was reasonable to expect that, if we were living in a random universe? And if our brains were evolved to be oriented to survival, not to truth or rationality, then why should we trust them?

So science becomes and unreasonable thing to believe in, as do our own brains, if something like Materialism or Atheism were true.

There is no point in referring to God when it comes to investigating the only phenomena we are able to experience.

Well, we don't know that, do we? I mean, if you and I are experiencing certain things, how do we know -- prior to actually having investigated -- that phenomenon X or Y has nothing to do with God? Don't we owe ourselves to investigate all hypotheses?

And what about historical phenomena? Are we to dismiss all history, just because it's not something the influence of which you or I has figured into our present experience? That would be anti-educational, for sure...And what about the experiences other people have had? Are we to dismiss all of those, merely because we didn't get the chance to experience them ourselves? So any information from others is out-of-bounds?

You can see that this gets irrational fast.

If we want to know more about the real world, we go to science.

Well, about the material world and its regularities, absolutely. However, what do we do about non-material realities? I'm thinking of things like concepts, or mind, or intellection, or selfhood, relationality, reason, beauty, meaning, values or morality...science really tells us nothing about these sorts of things. So what do we do? Do we pretend all these things are not real? Or do we pretend that immaterial and abstract values are actually made up of matter? Do we try to reduce them to some sort of "brain state," an illusion?

If there is nothing to know that our current science does not tell us, then our current science is all we need to listen to. But that's assumptive, isn't it? And it's not reflective of how we live, nor of the limitations of what science actually is.

But all your information about God, and what he wants and expects of you, comes from the Bible, so if he doesn't tell you about science in the Bible, how are you supposed to know he wants you to be a scientist?

The Bible does not claim to speak about everything we can ever do. Much of our lives are left open to our own judgment. We're free-will beings, after all; and we're creative, inventive and innovative, just as God intended us to be. We sometimes put those qualities to bad use, it's true; but they were intended as good things. So God does not need to issue to us exhaustive commandments on every possible area of life. The Bible is primarily concerned with helping us organize our existential world -- the world of meaning, morals, purpose and teleology, not in macular degeneration treatments, or giving us a list of phone numbers, or teaching us how to calculate pi.

...but rather clarity about what sorts of things are right to do, and what sorts of people we ought to be,

So if you want to be told what sort of person to be, read the Bible, but that's not likely to inspire you to become a scientist.

If you understand the first point above, then you know that reading the Bible is exactly what inspired people like Bacon. He invented the scientific method, it's true; but he was also an enthusiastic theologian. Read his essay "On Truth," and you'll see it beyond all shadow of doubt (it's online).

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 5:59 pm Since evolution is most often mentioned what does that have to do with no two cats looking the same compared to variations engendered by speciation?

That's the point.

Darwin only observed intraspecies variation. He had no data whatsoever for interspecies evolution. He just made all that up, as a theory.

No matter how much we'd like to create humans with cat whiskers it ain't gonna happen.

Darwin thought it can and will happen -- if whiskers turned out to be survival-adaptive, of course. But you're quite right to sense how silly his idea was. Cats don't become humans. And he thought apes would. But we know now they don't. Even those Evolutionists who continue to believe that humans evolved now argue the only "common ancestor" was way back, perhaps back in the primordial soup, at the level of bacteria. And they also don't know.

So he was pulling all that out of thin air.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 6:32 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 4:32 pm If your explanation for the natural world is God, what reason do you have to look any further?

Well, I'm trying to point that out, and I don't know how much more clear I can make it. But I'll try.

I think your difficulty lies in the absurdity of what you are trying to point out, rather than in my inability to grasp it.

If we are the accidental products of time and chance, as Materialism, Evolutionism or Atheism will insist,

I'm not aware that evolutionary theory or anything in atheism insists anything of the sort. Evolution is a process that utilises randomness, which is by no means the same thing as an accidental chain of events. And atheism is just the absence of God and religion, but imposes no restriction on thinking in any other respect.

then there is no reason for us to expect any order in nature. There is no reason for us to expect any natural laws,

We observe "order" in nature, and we cannot avoid being aware of natural laws, so we expect them every waking minute of our lives.

and equally importantly, no reason for us to think our brains are tuned to finding the truth about any such things.

I can honestly say that whenever my curiosity has got the better of me, and I am prompted to investigate, I have never stopped beforehand to consider whether my brain is tuned for the task. Why would you say such an incredibly odd thing.

Why would we ever expect a random universe to produce such non-random correspondences between reason and reality?

How would we know whether the universe is random or not without first investigating it? We see things that raise questions in us, and we cannot help looking for answers; it's a core part of human nature. It's got nothing to do with whether we believe in God, it is purely human nature.

But if God created us, and if we understand Him to be a God who is both law-giving and rational, as well as self-revealing and interested in our welfare and our understanding the world, then it makes perfect sense for us to suppose that if we went looking, we would find natural laws,

We infer the presence of natural laws because we constantly observe their effect. I don't believe in your described God, yet I am well able to recognise the existence of natural laws, and so is everyone. There isn't an ounce of rationality in what you are saying. You are just plucking this stuff out of thin air.

So which situation turned out to be the case? Well, obviously, the second. But why would we even think it was reasonable to expect that, if we were living in a random universe? And if our brains were evolved to be oriented to survival, not to truth or rationality, then why should we trust them?

Given the bizarreness of your reasoning, I think the present trustworthiness of your own brain should be your immediate concern. No offence meant, of course.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:If we want to know more about the real world, we go to science.

Well, about the material world and its regularities, absolutely. However, what do we do about non-material realities? I'm thinking of things like concepts, or mind, or intellection, or selfhood, relationality, reason, beauty, meaning, values or morality...science really tells us nothing about these sorts of things. So what do we do?

I, like many others, am well able to consider those things without throwing God into the mix.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:But all your information about God, and what he wants and expects of you, comes from the Bible, so if he doesn't tell you about science in the Bible, how are you supposed to know he wants you to be a scientist?

The Bible does not claim to speak about everything we can ever do. Much of our lives are left open to our own judgment.

But you said God wants us to understand the natural world, and encouraged us to seek out science in order to investigate it. Well how do you know that's what God wants if it doesn't say so in the Bible?

after all; and we're creative, inventive and innovative, just as God intended us to be.

Yes, we are those things, just as evolution shaped us to be.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:So if you want to be told what sort of person to be, read the Bible, but that's not likely to inspire you to become a scientist.

If you understand the first point above, then you know that reading the Bible is exactly what inspired people like Bacon. He invented the scientific method,

So what sort of things does it say in the Bible that would have inspired Bacon to be scientific?

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 7:57 pm We observe "order" in nature, and we cannot avoid being aware of natural laws, so we expect them every waking minute of our lives.

Right. So we observe that the Atheist explanation of our existence is almost certain to be false, with astronomical odds against it.

So how is it that people look at that order, and say, "Well, I see no evidence for God"? Anybody who is awake to the simple reality you've just articulated should be impressed by the existence of order, rationality, natural laws, and themselves as present to observe and understand it. Materialism is in no way a credible explanation for that.

and equally importantly, no reason for us to think our brains are tuned to finding the truth about any such things.

I can honestly say that whenever my curiosity has got the better of me, and I am prompted to investigate, I have never stopped beforehand to consider whether my brain is tuned for the task. Why would you say such an incredibly odd thing.

Again, even just intuitively, it shows how absurd Atheism really is. We trust our brains -- and we should -- but Atheism has no explanation of how such things were ever possible, except their blind-faith belief that although randomness never produces order, that this time, it did...and did again, billions of times and billions of ways, until...surprise, surprise, a rational, scientific, law-governed world popped into existence, along with the observers required to know it did.

Why would we ever expect a random universe to produce such non-random correspondences between reason and reality?

How would we know whether the universe is random or not without first investigating it?

More importantly, how did WE get here to be curious about that?

I don't believe in your described God, yet I am well able to recognise the existence of natural laws, and so is everyone. There isn't an ounce of rationality in what you are saying.

That's the biggest illogical conclusion ever: Order exists, natural laws exist, and everyone exists, therefore I don't believe in God." That's a triumph of illogic, to argue from some of the best evidence for, and to arrive at against.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:But all your information about God, and what he wants and expects of you, comes from the Bible, so if he doesn't tell you about science in the Bible, how are you supposed to know he wants you to be a scientist?

The Bible does not claim to speak about everything we can ever do. Much of our lives are left open to our own judgment.

But you said God wants us to understand the natural world, and encouraged us to seek out science in order to investigate it.

Please repeat the part where that was my way of wording it.

It never was. I didn't say God "encouraged" us. I said that if there were no God, there'd be no science. There'd be no rationality in the universe, no natural laws, no order, and no observers to know about it. But don't take my word for it. Here you go: https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/sy ... exist.html

So what sort of things does it say in the Bible that would have inspired Bacon to be scientific?

That God is the Creator. That He is a law-giver. That God is rational. That God is good, and desires to be known, and has made us to be able to know Him. All that, Bacon certainly believed. And it gave him (though not only him) every reason to expect to find regularities and laws in nature, and to think that a method for finding them would be practical.

Regularities obviously exist. They exist in such a way that some things can be predicted by the human mind. Whether a sentient being is an absolute necessity in order to "design" those regularities or not is certainly up for argument in either direction. The facts are, here we are, this is what we think, and here is the universe. Beyond that, there is mostly speculation and speculation shapes a person's disposition in many ways, some for the better and some for the worse.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:15 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 7:57 pm We observe "order" in nature, and we cannot avoid being aware of natural laws, so we expect them every waking minute of our lives.

Right. So we observe that the Atheist explanation of our existence is almost certain to be false, with astronomical odds against it.

I don't know what an "Atheist explanation" is, so I can't comment.

So how is it that people look at that order, and say, "Well, I see no evidence for God"?

My theory is that they say it because they don't see any evidence for God. That's why I say it, anyway.

Anybody who is awake to the simple reality you've just articulated should be impressed by the existence of order, rationality, natural laws, and themselves as present to observe and understand it. Materialism is in no way a credible explanation for that.

When we find provable explanations, we should consider that we have our answer. Where we have hitherto found no such explanation, we have to consider the matter unexplained.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:I can honestly say that whenever my curiosity has got the better of me, and I am prompted to investigate, I have never stopped beforehand to consider whether my brain is tuned for the task. Why would you say such an incredibly odd thing.

Again, even just intuitively, it shows how absurd Atheism really is. We trust our brains -- and we should -- but Atheism has no explanation of how such things were ever possible,

Atheism doesn't explain anything, it isn't meant to.

except their blind-faith belief that although randomness never produces order, that this time, it did...and did again, billions of times and billions of ways, until...surprise, surprise, a rational, scientific, law-governed world popped into existence, along with the observers required to know it did.

I am an atheist, and do not have blind faith in anything, but I can't, of course, speak for any other atheists. Do you have any documented evidence of atheists expressing this specific example of their blind faith?

IC wrote:

harbal wrote:I don't believe in your described God, yet I am well able to recognise the existence of natural laws, and so is everyone. There isn't an ounce of rationality in what you are saying.

That's the biggest illogical conclusion ever: Order exists, natural laws exist, and everyone exists, therefore I don't believe in God."

But that is not the reason I don't believe in God, and I didn't say it was. I merely implied it was not a valid reason to believe in God. The reason I don't believe in God, and specifically your God, is because it is a stupid notion.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:But you said God wants us to understand the natural world, and encouraged us to seek out science in order to investigate it.

Please repeat the part where that was my way of wording it.

That won't be necessary. If you are disassociating yourself from that assertion, I am more than happy to admit my error of understanding.

I said that if there were no God, there'd be no science. There'd be no rationality in the universe, no natural laws, no order, and no observers to know about it.

I accept that as being your opinion, but so what?

But don't take my word for it. Here you go: https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/sy ... exist.html

Although I can see the wisdom in your advice not to take your word, it quickly evaporates when you advise me to take the word of someone who comes with your recommendation.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:So what sort of things does it say in the Bible that would have inspired Bacon to be scientific?

That God is the Creator. That He is a law-giver. That God is rational. That God is good, and desires to be known, and has made us to be able to know Him. All that, Bacon certainly believed. And it gave him (though not only him) every reason to expect to find regularities and laws in nature, and to think that a method for finding them would be practical.

So you are just arriving at an unjustified conclusion based on a few irrelevant generalities? I was hoping for something specific.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 9:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:15 pm So how is it that people look at that order, and say, "Well, I see no evidence for God"?

My theory is that they say it because they don't see any evidence for God. That's why I say it, anyway.

How odd. The evidence is there, and we both see it. We see the order, the reason, the laws, the regularities, and the observers. Why don't they recognize it as evidence? The answer, I think, is not in the absence of evidence but in the presence of obstinate will.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:I can honestly say that whenever my curiosity has got the better of me, and I am prompted to investigate, I have never stopped beforehand to consider whether my brain is tuned for the task. Why would you say such an incredibly odd thing.

Again, even just intuitively, it shows how absurd Atheism really is. We trust our brains -- and we should -- but Atheism has no explanation of how such things were ever possible,

Atheism doesn't explain anything, it isn't meant to.

And yet it's supposed to be able to tell us dogmatically that no God exists. Funny, that.

IC wrote:I said that if there were no God, there'd be no science. There'd be no rationality in the universe, no natural laws, no order, and no observers to know about it.

I accept that as being your opinion, but so what?

But don't take my word for it. Here you go: https://slate.com/technology/2013/08/sy ... exist.html

Although I can see the wisdom in your advice not to take your word, it quickly evaporates when you advise me to take the word of someone who comes with your recommendation.

So you'd prefer I didn't send you evidence of anything I say?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 10:33 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 9:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 8:15 pm So how is it that people look at that order, and say, "Well, I see no evidence for God"?

My theory is that they say it because they don't see any evidence for God. That's why I say it, anyway.

How odd. The evidence is there, and we both see it. We see the order, the reason, the laws, the regularities, and the observers. Why don't they recognize it as evidence? The answer, I think, is not in the absence of evidence but in the presence of obstinate will.

I don't know what specific "reason", laws and "regularities" you are thinking of, but if we can't explain how they came to be there, why is the automatic response to revert to God? Why can't we just leave the unexplained unexplained until we can explain it? Wouldn't that be the most rational course?

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Atheism doesn't explain anything, it isn't meant to.

And yet it's supposed to be able to tell us dogmatically that no God exists. Funny, that.

Supposed by who?

Atheism isn't a belief system, or a movement, it is just a state wherein one does not believe God, or gods, exist. That's all. An atheist might tell you, dogmatically or otherwise, that God does not exist, but he is only representing himself if he does. He isn't speaking on behalf of anyone else. I find it odd that simply not sharing a belief with a particular set of people warrants a title that ends in "ist".

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Although I can see the wisdom in your advice not to take your word, it quickly evaporates when you advise me to take the word of someone who comes with your recommendation.

So you'd prefer I didn't send you evidence of anything I say?

I don't have a preference about what you send me, but I can't help my preference for not trusting anything that you do send me. I hope you don't expect me to feel guilty for not being an idiot.

IC wrote: Well, it certainly puts the lie to the idea that Christianity was some sort of stifling force that made it hard for science to emerge. Far from it: without that primary "leap of faith" that expects (prior to any evidence, of course) that the universe will turn out to rational, mathematical, logical and interpretable by our reasoning powers, there's no likelihood science would ever have existed at all. And that assumption only comes from two beliefs key to Christianity and Judaism: namely, the belief in a single Creator who operates according to rational principles, and the belief that He intends us to know and understand our world. Neither of those two assumptions underwrites any form of paganism or polytheism or gnosticism, and it certainly doesn't underwrite Atheism, which expects the world to be nothing but the product of forces acting randomly, and human beings to be accidental productions of an indifferent process.

Typical I think of IC, and the ideas are more or less *inevitable* given his orientation, yet I have a strong sense that he still needs to be straightened out. He will accept none of this however . . .

It is true, nevertheless, that the European University is a Christian achievement. Of that there is no doubt. But it does not seem possible to say, and to be accurate, that the Church and churchmen, did not oppose scientific investigation. Given the stakes, it is inevitable that the Church attempt to impede strict science investigation and impose restraints. I suppose this was because churchmen sensed that were the intellect of man to break free from the controlling and directing influence of the Church that this would amount, in essence, to the intellect's penetration of the Devil's Kingdom. Quite similar, conceptually, to the notion that eating from the tree of knowledge would result in catastrophe.

Was the Church and Jewish and Christian ideology necessary to determine that the cosmos was decipherable rationally, that it could be analyzed through mathematical models? Come now. That is plainly false. These predicates had been established long before. But if the question is: OK, but why did not some other culture begin the processes of inquiry that led to the exaltation of *science method* and, as a result, to a scientific revolution -- I am frankly uncertain that this question has been answered by anyone. The influence of Christian men was obviously crucial however. But I have a strong feeling that one must turn to questions of *will*: that is, people turned to new methods of grasping and moulding the world, and turned away from merely involving themselves in grand theoretical models (like the Schoolmen). But the rigor of the Scholastic methods must certainly have contributed their part, no?

[Without thus-and-such] "there's no likelihood science would ever have existed at all."

That, certainly, is a stretch. Again, those who read you Immanuel know that you are a Christian Zealot and that despite all evidence you believe a dozen unbelievable things. And naturally your zealousness extends to making unsupportable statements which amount to *Jesus Christ initiated the scientific revolution*. That is, in fact, what you believe. And you also believe that without Jesus Christ the world and its people will be *lost* and everything discovered and valuable will also be lost. This is a primary Christian tenet: If you abandon Jesus Christ He will abandon you (let you fall into darkness and dismay).

Here, you reveal the essential, operative predicate:

namely, the belief in a single Creator who operates according to rational principles

Always the Preacher, always dealing in apologetics, it does not surprise me that you say this and would, it seems, associate it with Christian rationalism when Greek rationalism would work just as well. And indeed a rationalism that was largely *atheistic* in that particular Greek sense.

and the belief that He intends us to know and understand our world

If that is so, He must be seen as having therefore undermined children's belief in silly, nonsense fables and mythologies! It is a reasoning man, dealing with reasonable and articulated premises, that determines that the *Christian Story* of Bible literalism is not true, but false. Sorry, Old Boy!

Now, we know things about our world that do not favor a blind, irrational, religious stance nor *faith in Scripture*.

Neither of those two assumptions underwrites any form of paganism or polytheism or gnosticism, and it certainly doesn't underwrite Atheism, which expects the world to be nothing but the product of forces acting randomly, and human beings to be accidental productions of an indifferent process.

Since Aristotle, among others, was a pagan, and he believed in a Prime Mover, your statement is undermined. While I understand the point you want to make, and the viewpoint you are wedded to, I simply do not think it is correct. It is a faith-assertion that contains a faith-derived a priori conclusion.

You are again stuck on the idea -- a problem idea I admit -- that it is very hard to explain an unfolded Universe of such alarming Order if one can only conceive of what you mean by *random forces*. It does follow that a random, chaotic Universe will only continue in that vein.

But how one defines the underlying order, the ordering which inevitably comes about, might help in defining an abstract divinity that, somehow, stands behind everything. But it does not explain the Christian god-concept! As I have said a few times, the *god* that we'd be forced to define if the Universe is the model, would be an utterly weird god. Your trick is to say *No! God is absolutely perfect! What happened is that man's disobedience contaminated the entire Creation! It is man's fault!"

You see? You cannot really *see* the Universe as it really is. As it was, as it will be tomorrow, and will continue to be so for all eternity. And the *god* that created that world -- is in so many senses incommensurate with the handiwork of that god.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 6:32 pm If we are the accidental products of time and chance, as Materialism, Evolutionism or Atheism will insist, then there is no reason for us to expect any order in nature. There is no reason for us to expect any natural laws, or reasonableness in such a universe, and equally importantly, no reason for us to think our brains are tuned to finding the truth about any such things. Why would we ever expect a random universe to produce such non-random correspondences between reason and reality?

But if God created us, and if we understand Him to be a God who is both law-giving and rational, as well as self-revealing and interested in our welfare and our understanding the world, then it makes perfect sense for us to suppose that if we went looking, we would find natural laws, regularities, rational explanations, and so on, and that we humans would be mentally created to be capable of understanding and interpreting them.

So which situation turned out to be the case? Well, obviously, the second. But why would we even think it was reasonable to expect that, if we were living in a random universe? And if our brains were evolved to be oriented to survival, not to truth or rationality, then why should we trust them?

Your basic, and continual errors, can be parsed out of this statement.

There is another *descriptive model* that works just as well here as yours, which asserts that the biblical Yahwey created the world you describe, as recorded in Genesis.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 10:33 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 9:39 pm
My theory is that they say it because they don't see any evidence for God. That's why I say it, anyway.

How odd. The evidence is there, and we both see it. We see the order, the reason, the laws, the regularities, and the observers. Why don't they recognize it as evidence? The answer, I think, is not in the absence of evidence but in the presence of obstinate will.

I don't know what specific "reason", laws and "regularities" you are thinking of, but if we can't explain how they came to be there, why is the automatic response to revert to God?

Because here's something our experience tells us: when something is extremely complex, interrelated and contingent, the explanation "it was designed" is much better than the explanation "it was accidental." Chaos does not produce order. Order declines into chaos.

So what we are doing is called, "arguing to the best explanation." What's rational to do is to stand on the overwhelmingly more plausible hypothesis, rather that the one that is astronomically unlikely.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Atheism doesn't explain anything, it isn't meant to.

And yet it's supposed to be able to tell us dogmatically that no God exists. Funny, that.

Supposed by who?

Atheists, obviously. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett...and lots and lots of ordinary Atheists, too. Even you have reverted, without good reasons, to the claim that Theism is irrational. What's the basis for that conclusion?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:55 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 10:33 pm
How odd. The evidence is there, and we both see it. We see the order, the reason, the laws, the regularities, and the observers. Why don't they recognize it as evidence? The answer, I think, is not in the absence of evidence but in the presence of obstinate will.

I don't know what specific "reason", laws and "regularities" you are thinking of, but if we can't explain how they came to be there, why is the automatic response to revert to God?

Because here's something our experience tells us: when something is extremely complex, interrelated and contingent, the explanation "it was designed" is much better than the explanation "it was accidental." Chaos does not produce order. Order declines into chaos.

So what we are doing is called, "arguing to the best explanation." What's rational to do is to stand on the overwhelmingly more plausible hypothesis, rather that the one that is astronomically unlikely.

Absolutely no one knows how the laws of the universe came to be, nobody even has a clue, so any proposed explanation is pure speculation. We don't have an answer, but that that doesn't mean you can just make one up.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Supposed by who?

Atheists, obviously. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett...and lots and lots of ordinary Atheists, too.

Go on then, name the ordinary atheists as well. Four names won't cut it.

Even you have reverted, without good reasons, to the claim that Theism is irrational.

If I have said that, and I probably have, it was because theism is irrational; childishly irrational. I was merely stating a fact.


Let's be sensible. I know that will go against the grain, but please bear with me:

Suppose we say -and I most certainly don’t say this- that the universe must have been created by God. That doesn’t mean it was created by your God; the Bible God. It could be a God of some other religion, or a God we have never even heard of.

But you think that your God was the “first cause”, so that must mean that you consider a first cause possible. Why, then, could the laws of nature not be the first cause. We actually know they exist and that they govern the universe, and it is provable, whereas the existence of God is purely a matter of whether you happen to believe a particular story written in a particular set of texts, the veracity of which is completely uncheckable.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 11:44 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 03, 2024 6:32 pm If we are the accidental products of time and chance, as Materialism, Evolutionism or Atheism will insist, then there is no reason for us to expect any order in nature. There is no reason for us to expect any natural laws, or reasonableness in such a universe, and equally importantly, no reason for us to think our brains are tuned to finding the truth about any such things. Why would we ever expect a random universe to produce such non-random correspondences between reason and reality?

But if God created us, and if we understand Him to be a God who is both law-giving and rational, as well as self-revealing and interested in our welfare and our understanding the world, then it makes perfect sense for us to suppose that if we went looking, we would find natural laws, regularities, rational explanations, and so on, and that we humans would be mentally created to be capable of understanding and interpreting them.

So which situation turned out to be the case? Well, obviously, the second. But why would we even think it was reasonable to expect that, if we were living in a random universe? And if our brains were evolved to be oriented to survival, not to truth or rationality, then why should we trust them?

Your basic, and continual errors, can be parsed out of this statement.

There is another *descriptive model* that works just as well here as yours, which asserts that the biblical Yahwey created the world you describe, as recorded in Genesis.

Works just as well to accomplish what?