Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Friday, April 18, 11:22:35pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

Subject: Interpretation. Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 02/ 6/02 8:17am In reply to: Ben 's message, "I have an invisible dragon" on 02/ 5/02 3:26pm >>To say that there is no evidence for God is a >>rather extreme (and unsupported) claim, as is your >>flat claim that the explanation I presented is absurd >>(since you have not provided any supporting evidence >>for that either). > >I don't find that an extreme claim at _all_. Really? That surprises me. >>As for God, one category of evidence is theism’s >>explanatory power. Nature consistently operating in >>mathematical patterns might be expected if a >>rationally orderly God created the universe, whereas >>there is no a priori reason to expect this from >>atheism. But this goes off the topic. The theory of >>creation (as I defined it earlier) does not by itself >>entail the existence of any deity. > >So what if nature operates in mathematical patterns? >Maybe this is just the way nature is. So what if the fossil record is in a particular order? Maybe this is just the way nature is. So what if there are similarities? Maybe this is just the way nature is etc. You see, I can play that game too. You can put forth any data you wish that evolution explains, and I can explain it away just as easily. But the point is that theism explains the data (nature consistently operating in mathematical patterns) better than atheism, because there is no a priori reason to expect it from atheism, whereas that's not the case for theism. No matter what data you use to support evolution, it can be interpreted by another theory. That's why the underdetermination of theories is so important to recognize. There are always multiple alternative theories to interpret the observations. But who says which theory interprets data the best? Alas, there is no logical procedure that demonstrates which theory better explains the data. That's why different people can look at the exact same data and disagree about which theory most rationally explains the observations. In this way people can believe what they want to believe, because thier theories are empirically identical to the competition and there is not any objective, rigorously defined criteria to decide who is right. If I try to present evidence supporting theism, you can simply interpret the data another way and claim "See? This is not really evidence. There is no evidence for theism." But keep in mind I (and Paul) can do the same thing to evolution. "See? This is not evidence. There is no evidence for evolution." This is why I put in a word of caution. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Getting on out there again Damoclese 02/ 6/02 9:21am And again. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 6/02 10:01am Some more -- Damoclese, 02/ 6/02 1:14pm And some more. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/15/02 9:24pm Not so much more -- Damoclese, 02/23/02 5:41pm As I see it ..... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 9:25am A fundamental question... Ben 02/ 6/02 3:09pm A fundamental answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/ 7/02 6:24pm A fundamental misconception -- Ben, 02/23/02 11:29am Fundamental beliefs. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/24/02 12:32pm Fundamental... ah, I can't think of any more -- Ben, 02/25/02 7:15pm A fundamental order to the universe. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/02 5:37pm You put the FUN in fundamental -- Ben, 03/20/02 10:43pm Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:43am You put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:40pm Tying up. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:22pm Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:59am Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/28/02 10:12am Symbolilc Pitfall? -- Damoclese, 03/28/02 12:02pm Not yet. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 1/02 12:50pm How do you solve a problem like the God-a? -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:02pm Elucidation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 1:11pm There is no "why," there is only Zeul -- Ben, 04/15/02 5:13pm Huh? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:22am I'll tell you why you're wrong, why you're really really wrong -- Ben, 04/16/02 2:38pm Lol. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:50pm Why don't we all just bow out? (except for Wade) -- Ben, 04/20/02 4:34pm On bowing out. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:19pm Still a potential pitfall looms -- Damoclese, 04/ 1/02 10:45pm How so? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 2:15pm Like This -- Damoclese, 04/15/02 3:58pm Huh -- David, 04/16/02 2:12am A response. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:47am Christian God is greatest possible? -- David, 04/16/02 1:20pm Perhaps, but that would require an additional case. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 2:37pm Hm? -- David, 04/16/02 9:50pm Definitions. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:24pm Relevence? -- David, 04/18/02 9:17pm To me you are correct Dave. -- Don, 06/ 7/02 7:31pm Yes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/21/02 3:52pm response -- drago, 06/ 3/02 1:48pm Not like that. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:39am Muddling a simple point -- Damoclese, 04/16/02 3:47pm Attempting to get a strait answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:14pm Trying to keep my patience -- Damoclese, 04/18/02 7:06pm I'll try to keep mine as well. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/24/02 11:59am Cutting to the chase -- Damoclese, 04/24/02 2:22pm What's the chase? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/26/02 11:05am Foxes -- Damoclese, 04/26/02 12:19pm Logical flaw perhaps -- David, 04/15/02 3:00am Continued -- David, 04/15/02 3:18am Please clarify. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 11:03am Hehe -- David, 04/16/02 1:16pm Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:06pm *giggle* -- David, 04/18/02 12:57pm Ha ha. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:29pm Hohoho -- David, 04/18/02 9:29pm toung twister -- Emma, 12/22/02 7:04pm Perhaps not. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:50am you now have a definition ........... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 1:28pm not this again. .......... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 10:06am