Is Your Skeptometer Consistent ?

Originally posted by twhitehead

I have in the past challenged you on various claims where you found something convincing, but when asked whether you would accept the exact same evidence in a different context you were unable to reply in the affirmative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't recall that situation.

Would you be equally impressed by testimony from a convert to Islam? If not, why not?

I might be impressed much.
Go get one for me and I'll compare the two and tell you why I was or was not impressed.

I could, however, post debates between Christians and non-Christians in which I think the unbeliever made such good points as to actually possibly have "won" the debate, at least on a major point.


Is God Needed For Morality ?
Shelly Kagin verses William Lane Craig. 01

(There are four parts I think, Below is the concluding part I think )

YouTube

YouTube

Could you do the same ?

IE. Refer to a debate between a Theist and Atheist which you thought the Theist made possibly winning arguments ?

Originally posted by JS357

JS357 comment on his analogy about the ancient sculpture of Venus De Milo with the missing arms, if you saw that part.

He said that it would be unreasonable to dismiss the sculpture of Venus De Milo as having been formed naturally because the arms were missing. It is more likely that its was designed but for some reason the arms were missing.

He said some who locate a problem in the mechanics of the creation throw out the whole concept of it having been created by God on one point like absent arms on the statue of Vensus De Milo.

It is at 33:20 - 35:01. What would you comment ?

Originally posted by sonship
Some atheists are calling for such explanations of atheism would go away. IE. "I need not give any defense for my viewpoint."

The attempt of the atheist to:

1.) Make no assertions so as have nothing to prove.
2.) Take comfort that it is impossible to prove a negative - ie. that something doesn't exist.
3.) A lack of belief isn't a belief, g ...[text shortened]... t Will Not Die! - William Lane Craig, PhD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W4GDXBNwbs[/b]

"I think that is so totally a defensive (passive -aggressive) posture which seeks to place all burden upon the theist. "

I place no burden on theists to prove anything.

Originally posted by JS357
"I think that is so totally a defensive (passive -aggressive) posture which seeks to place all burden upon the theist. "

I place no burden on theists to prove anything.

I believe atheist do place the burden of proof on the theists. They certainly don't seek the proof of God. They only seek ways to explain away God.

Originally posted by sonship
JS357 comment on his analogy about the ancient sculpture of Venus De Milo with the missing arms, if you saw that part.

He said that it would be unreasonable to dismiss the sculpture of Venus De Milo as having been formed naturally because the arms were missing. It is more likely that its was designed but for some reason the arms were missing.

H ...[text shortened]... statue of Vensus De Milo.

It is at [b]33:20 - 35:01. What would you comment ?[/b]

The design argument or at least the watchmaker variation of it has a strong initial appeal. But I think it is a mistake on the part of the theist to put design into contrast with random chance (the Boing 747 variant). The design argument works better when it is acknowledged that things sometime happen in the natural world in an ordered way. The chemistry of crystal formation is an example, and the chemistry of biological life is, well, chemistry. A better contrast to deal with the thinking non-theist is, where did these orderly natural processes come from?

We accept intelligent design (ID) when sensing complexity, order, and intentionality in a found object. We all accept this for watches, statues, and 747's (and crime scenes). Why do we, some of us, not accept ID for every such object we come upon, such as a mouse or a galaxy or a snowflake? Or is it, that some people fail to sense complexity, order and intentionality in such objects, and so they don't have the initial stimulus that precedes the impulse to accept ID?

What ID promoters don't deal with is that a claim of ID behind a found object would bring the "designer" into the sphere of the natural sciences. It would not be supernatural, it would just have a broader grasp of how to do things in the natural world. Any claim made about the designer would be subject to scrutiny, first to see if the claim can even be studied using the tools of science and if so, what the application of these tools hows to be the case. Any claim that is not studiable would be dismissed without prejudice, that is, without judging its truth or falsity.

This is something I think you do not understand, or accept, if you do understand. Dismissing a concept as not being susceptible to scientific study is NOT to deny it. Unfortunately, many atheists and theists alike, act like these are one and the same.

If this is the kind of discussion you are looking for, I am up for it, although I will be away for a week starting on Wednesday.

[i]Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe atheist do place the burden of proof on the theists. They certainly don't seek the proof of God. They only seek ways to explain away God.

I can't deny that it is true of some (or many,or most) atheists will try to place the burden on the theists, but I've been trying to avoid doing it for some time. It's an understandable position to take, in everyday life it's the one that makes a claim that is expected to support it. But I'm not asking you to prove anything.

Originally posted by JS357
Please recognize that there are more kinds of non-theists than just the argumentative kind.

Why should I? If that point comes down to an argument, I've won already. 😵

Originally posted by JS357
I place no burden on theists to prove anything.

Surely this only works when you engage theists who are not proselytizing. If their agenda in talking to you is proselytism, and you accept that that is what they seek in their interaction with you, do you still ~ for the purposes of the resulting discourse ~ not place a burden on them to substantiate their claims about your reality?

Originally posted by JS357

The design argument or at least the watchmaker variation of it has a strong initial appeal. But I think it is a mistake on the part of the theist to put design into contrast with random chance (the Boing 747 variant). The design argument works better when it is acknowledged that things sometime happen in the natural world in an ordered way. The chemistry of crystal formation is an example, and the chemistry of biological life is, well, chemistry. A better contrast to deal with the thinking non-theist is, where did these orderly natural processes come from?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So one can acknowledge the apparent ordering in the formation of a crystal and still marvel at the DNA molecule.

Wheras the crystal shape seems for now to be only aesthetic, the complexity of the DNA molecule is highly functional. That is until we notice that the crystal shape has some vital purpose in creation for being that shape.

We notice the complexity in snowflakes too. But as of yet it seems purely aesthetic or artistic. No vital function is yet known to be related to those shapes. But the structure of a DNA molecule is far more than aesthetic but practical and functional for other systems to be able to form equally functionally.


We accept intelligent design (ID) when sensing complexity, order, and intentionality in a found object. We all accept this for watches, statues, and 747's (and crime scenes). Why do we, some of us, not accept ID for every such object we come upon, such as a mouse or a galaxy or a snowflake?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think what is being communicated to us humans is aimed at different levels of sophestication.

A child can appreciate the symmetry of a snowflake.
A more mature adult can appreciate the same in a DNA molecule.

I think the Creator must gear this revelation of His intelligence to ALL levels of human maturity. He cares for ALL levels.

If God only wanted to communicate His wisdom and knowledge to the highly educated, that would be too elitist of Him. So I think of Design in the snowflake as like Design kindergarten level but that of a DNA molecule Design for the substantially older and more sophisticated human being.

Doesn't that make sense ? Would not a proper loving love all his children equally on their varied levels of maturity ?


Or is it, that some people fail to sense complexity, order and intentionality in such objects, and so they don't have the initial stimulus that precedes the impulse to accept ID?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not fail to notice crystals are formed in a manner which seems to reveal purposeful design. So also I see this in snowflakes.

For the purpose of seeing ID on the grandest level, I personally make more of an issue of something like the DNA molecule or the Fine Callibration of the constants governing the operation of the universe for our living in it.

What ID promoters don't deal with is that a claim of ID behind a found object would bring the "designer" into the sphere of the natural sciences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see too much of a problem here. An author of a story transcends the story. Yet he can also penetrate into it causing the characters to do or say certain things.

I think God both transcends all time, space, energy, and matter. Yet God's causing them to come into existence and somehow ordering them occurs too.

The inquisitive have the happy task of reading out of nature the logic the Creator has put into it. I think technology is the reading OUT of nature the design that the Creator has put IN the universe.

I may not understand your concept exactly. But I don't see ID as trapping the designer IN the world so intelligently designed.

It would not be supernatural, it would just have a broader grasp of how to do things in the natural world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

The ORIGIN of the universe has to be supernatural.
Finding the ORIGIN in the universe within the universe is like someone could be his own mother.

You see, however you slice and dice the universe, whittling it down to its smallest possible quantum value, the reason for its origin MUST be located outside of it.

However you cut the creation in pieces down to some indivisible entity, the origin of that think must be outside of itself.

Any claim made about the designer would be subject to scrutiny,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think ID stands up to the scrutiny pretty well.

Of course if you're like Francis Crick you could suggest that Intelligent Aliens of some kind are responsible for biological life. As far as identifying the source of intelligence, that could be acceptable.

For some of us seeking the whole bigger truth, we think it is reasonable to say the evidence points to God.


first to see if the claim can even be studied using the tools of science and if so, what the application of these tools hows to be the case. Any claim that is not studiable would be dismissed without prejudice, that is, without judging its truth or falsity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its late. I'll think on that one latter.
Oh, thanks for your thoughts on that part of the video.

Originally posted by FMF
Surely this only works when you engage theists who are not proselytizing. If their agenda in talking to you is proselytism, and you accept that that is what they seek in their interaction with you, do you still ~ for the purposes of the resulting discourse ~ not place a burden on them to substantiate their claims about your reality?

A fair question. I've almost certainly done that, but haven't been motivated to, for quite a while. Maybe because I've seen nothing new on that front. Alert me if you see me do it.

Originally posted by sonship
[b] The design argument or at least the watchmaker variation of it has a strong initial appeal. But I think it is a mistake on the part of the theist to put design into contrast with random chance (the Boing 747 variant). The design argument works better when it is acknowledged that things sometime happen in the natural world in an ordered way. The chemistr ...[text shortened]... s late. I'll think on that one latter.
Oh, thanks for your thoughts on that part of the video.

"Of course if you're like Francis Crick you could suggest that Intelligent Aliens of some kind are responsible for biological life. As far as identifying the source of intelligence, that could be acceptable."

I would not suggest that, as it only kicks the can down the road.

"For some of us seeking the whole bigger truth, we think it is reasonable to say the evidence points to God."

The usual description of God especially on this forum packs far more content than "the entity that designed the universe."

Originally posted by KellyJay
They do not believe specific supernatural beings are involved, I agree and because of that
they believe they have some knowledge which can exclude them from the discussion. They
do think they know enough about the topic to exclude some things and seriously think
others could be part of the proper equation. This "enough knowledge" is something that
are positive beliefs that they can and do promote.

In the most general sense, atheism doesn't "exclude" supernatural beings, it is just an expression of a lack of belief in them.

Originally posted by JS357
"Of course if you're like Francis Crick you could suggest that Intelligent Aliens of some kind are responsible for biological life. As far as identifying the source of intelligence, that could be acceptable."

I would not suggest that, as it only kicks the can down the road.

"For some of us seeking the whole bigger truth, we think it is reasonable to say ...[text shortened]... od especially on this forum packs far more content than "the entity that designed the universe."

me: "Of course if you're like Francis Crick you could suggest that Intelligent Aliens of some kind are responsible for biological life. As far as identifying the source of intelligence, that could be acceptable."

JS: I would not suggest that, as it only kicks the can down the road.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should go tell Francis Crick that.

me: "For some of us seeking the whole bigger truth, we think it is reasonable to say the evidence points to God."

JS: The usual description of God especially on this forum packs far more content than "the entity that designed the universe."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's right.
But for Spirituality purposes its a good place to start.

Actually for TRUTH purposes its a good start.
Have you ever heard the saying ? "All truth is God's truth."

Many times our culture has a need to divide truth up into separate categories. But some consider the "holistic" big picture of things. And for that is a bothering sometimes, to people who want to neatly divide the total epistemological bottom line into separate categories.

IE. church here / state there
science here / religion there
family here / public education there
etc.

Originally posted by sonship

Atheism does not entail any position on the origins of the Universe, nor on "right and wrong" except to the degree that atheists do not believe specific supernatural beings are involved.

So Atheists claim no supernatural agents are involved in the origin of the universe ?

But that is a claim Atheists make. So it is self refuting to say Atheism makes no claims.

Its like me writing - "I cannot write a word of English."

BACK OF DA NET

Originally posted by JS357

Also, I recognize in myself and others, unequal skepticism. It shows up as confirmation bias; a tendency to pay more attention and give more credence to information that agrees with my position.

What does this make me?
-----------------------------------------

I think it makes you a bit more honest about yourself.
Congratulations.

Please recognize that there are more kinds of non-theists than just the argumentative kind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But neutrality is difficult to maintain totally throughout one's life. At some point you will react. The matter of God and Christ is something most have to decide upon and justify one way or another.