Why naturalism is irrational (page 10)

rem

Hooberus,

>> Yes, creation theories involving God can be predictive (if written specifically and properly): For example: theories that hold that God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly are potentially able to generate predictions about what will be (and will not be found) in the living and fossil world.

Not unless your definition of god is an entity that always follows predefined rules in an algorithmic, robotic fashion. Ultimately you define god out of a personality or of any capacity for creativity - only then can such a theory be truly predictive. Otherwise you can just say god made an arbitrary decision if the predictions don't match up. Congratulations - you've just defined an unintelligent natural process just like Natural Selection.

rem

hooberus

Hooberus,

>> Yes, creation theories involving God can be predictive (if written specifically and properly): For example: theories that hold that God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly are potentially able to generate predictions about what will be (and will not be found) in the living and fossil world.

Not unless your definition of god is an entity that always follows predefined rules in an algorithmic, robotic fashion. Ultimately you define god out of a personality or of any capacity for creativity - only then can such a theory be truly predictive.

A theory such as "that God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly" (which is thus potentially able to generate predictions about what will be and will not be found in the living and fossil world), does not also require that God is also defined "out of a personality or any capacity for creativity" - It is simply a potentially falsifiable/predictive theory as to how creation occurred.

Otherwise you can just say god made an arbitrary decision if the predictions don't match up.

"if the predictions don't match up" then the previous theory could be said to be falsified. Of course believes in a creation could then move on and make secondary assumptions to preserve the claimed "fact" of creation (such as coming up with new hypothesis/theories - as even evolutionists are able to do), however this does not change the fact that that the previous theory was still predictive.

Congratulations - you've just defined an unintelligent natural process just like Natural Selection.

It should be noted that "Natural Selection" is highly plastic concept that is itself vulnerable to the charge of unpredictability. (see "The Biotic Message" by Walter ReMine) .

rem

>> A theory such as "that God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly" (which is thus potentially able to generate predictions about what will be and will not be found in the living and fossil world), does not also require that God is also defined "out of a personality or any capacity for creativity" - It is simply a potentially falsifiable/predictive theory as to how creation occurred.

There's the thing, Hooberus... you've just described exactly the opposite of a falsifiable theory. Basically the creation theory as you describe it is not falsifiable until you take God's intelligence away because it's impossible to have predictions. There's nothing to guarantee that you wont have some strange chimera of an animal *in principle* if you have an intelligent creator - it doesn't logically follow. That's why Evolutionary mechanisms are falsifiable - you can't just make up unfalsifiable exceptions to the rule to get out of sticky situations.

By the way, what *has* creation predicted and how has it helped increase our knowledge and understanding in various scientific disciplines? What tangible benefits has this theory brought to mankind?

rem

OldSoul

WHO we are can be so easily altered by changing the levels of a given neurotransmitter or throwing the neural machinery off balance, simply testifies to the fact that we are simply highly complex, bio-electric, neurochemically driven machines

kid-A,

Not meaning to pick at your post, but aren't you confusing WHO we are with HOW we react, that is, how we respond? And, maybe I'm slow, but how does mapping areas of the brain define what an emotion is? Let me demonstrate: A caveman see lightning strike. He sees fire from the sky. But it isn't fire. It must be of course, because when it strike the tree the tree starts to burn. But it isn't fire. Now, the caveman saw where it was from, described what it looked like, noted some effects and still arrived at a completely incorrect conclusion about what it was he was looking at. I point out again, you haven't told me what emotion is. At most, you have seen an area of the brain excite and possibly traced out some neurotransmitters that are involved at some point in the process. And you don't know what "respect" is except subjectively, despite the fMRI. Is that a fair statement? OldSoul

Cygnus

Hows and whys are not tangible constructs, but whatever paradigms they fall into can be studied via the scientific method. What are my states of being half-awake/half-asleep? Or my sleep paralysis? It's my brain playing tricks on me. It's not some demon, or spirit, or ghost, or my own soul. Same thing with near death experiences or UFO abductions.

Jesus, this is so easy to explain. "Super"naturalism does not exist. Everything is natural, even that which we don't understand. That's not reductionist thinking; that's just how it is.

If the Ghostbusters were real and could visit haunted buildings in New york and zap spirits into little boxes so we could study them, the spirits would be "real" and not supernatural anymore.

The only supernatural that could by definition exist exists outside of our scope of ability to comprehend it and study it. Therefore it's irrelevant. Which happens to be my position on God or whatever IDers want to call their first cause.

Cygnus

but how does mapping areas of the brain define what an emotion is?

'Round and 'round she goes, and where she'll stop, nobody knows. Edited at 4:48 EST: I'm out of posts as Simon reduced me from 75 to 25 again so I'll have to wait a day to make any more substantial comments.

OldSoul

Cygnus,

That is why I haven't used the term "supernatural." The SCIENTIST is the one focusing on effect of emotion and not stating what emotion is. I think that everything that is reality is natural. But I also think a paradigm (to borrow your very appropriate term) that restricts analysis to a study of physical reality is stepping beyond its boundaries to either accept or deny the existence of reality that transcends physical.

Science can neither prove nor disprove anything beyond physical reality, because it cannot investigate beyond its own paradigm, the Scientific Method. The method cannot be used to investigate the nature of subjective reality, and any claims made along the lines of dismissing subjective reality as "X" can never be established to be correct because there is no means whereby to falsify subjective reality. You are welcome to your fervently held baseless beliefs along those lines, however. In my reality, we call that "faith."

I think some here believe that my purpose is to prove reality that is not physical. I cannot do that. I can only clearly state the limitations to perspective inherent in the Scientific Method and then prove that those limitations do indeed exist. I can't show someone anything beyond. But, in every case, I can remind them that they probably already know of things that go beyond physical reality. Metaphorical realities are real, too.

What is respect?

Respectfully,
OldSoul

OldSoul

The only supernatural that could by definition exist exists outside of our scope of ability to comprehend it and study it. Therefore it's irrelevant.

Reality outside our ability to record it, to poke it, to prod it, to make this bit twitch, take apart that bit over there, hold it, or taste it that can impact us, nonetheless.

What if hyperspace theory is correct and reality actually has a construction of many more dimensions of space and time than 3 of space and 1 of time? Can we then pretend there are things we can't study with Science?

Here's the thing, Cygnus: Science frequently runs into reality that is beyond our scope of ability to comprehend. It makes them very uncomfortable, so there is usually a knee-jerk reaction to define and/or label as many attributes as possible. NOW it's physical reality! Why? Because we defined it? Now it is a physical reality because we can call it something?

You get the problem? Gravity doesn't exist apart from metaphysical descriptors we arbitrarily assign to a set of observed phenomena. Science does that a lot. Then we say gravity part of physical reality. It is part of natural reality, though.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

tdogg

What if hyperspace theory is correct and reality actually has a construction of many more dimensions of space and time than 3 of space and 1 of time? Can we then pretend there are things we can't study with Science?

What if? Yes, if it is correct then we can stop pretending...and begin to study hyperspace theory as well. Maybe God will be there, and respect too.

<chirp, chirp, chirp (crickets in the distance)>

<impatiently tapping fingers>

So when do we get to find out if hyperspace theory is correct, I'm dying to know?

BTW, my walls are "not enough information to answer" colored. And I do know there are walls because I am in a room and it by definition has walls.

LittleToe

Tetra:It wasn't a complaint. Merely an observation

Why naturalism is irrational

Share this