tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post5639876127847617554..comments2023-10-15T08:36:48.841-07:00Comments on A Counter Apologist Blog: Naturalism, Falsifiability, and Hiddenness A Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-60336777036708542092014-03-06T17:34:27.837-08:002014-03-06T17:34:27.837-08:00Well yes, I'm saying what I need is for god to...Well yes, I'm saying what I need is for god to show up and start demonstrating the whole omnipotence, omniscience, and Omni-benevolence thing. <br /><br />It wouldn't "stay god of the gaps" so much as it would be something that really would be "physically impossible". As such it would necessarily be something that would always be beyond our reach - and an omnipotent god would understand that to pick the right kind of thing to demonstrate! He could even explain why certain things aren't miracles by showing us why/how things are physically impossible.<br /><br />At some point you're stuck between two options - retreating into almost total skepticism about what is and isn't physically possible, or through repeated interaction with the deity, you believe, and if Omni-benevolence is as good as it should be, worshiping this being would follow. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-77856876403646640602014-03-06T15:15:50.273-08:002014-03-06T15:15:50.273-08:00Wait a second. The way you've set things up, t...Wait a second. The way you've set things up, the only way to prove God exists is for a god-of-the-gaps event to happen, <i>and stay god-of-the-gaps forever</i>. Or do I have it wrong? What could possibly suffice? Perhaps we'll be able to resurrect people three days dead, 10,000 years into the future.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-80849010082955260102014-03-06T12:55:17.578-08:002014-03-06T12:55:17.578-08:00Oh I've read the theory of miracles paper, and...Oh I've read the theory of miracles paper, and it entails bringing on a-priori all sorts of Aristotelian thoughts of causation that I reject as being unnecessary and outdated. <br /><br />If you've got to bring in all sorts of stuff a-priori to save your god or position, then I think that is a very big problem for you.<br /><br />A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-1038355765931199592014-03-06T10:14:50.949-08:002014-03-06T10:14:50.949-08:00I suggest checking out A Leibnizian Theory of Mira...I suggest checking out <a href="http://writings.kennypearce.net/miracles.pdf" rel="nofollow">A Leibnizian Theory of Miracles</a>. Your definitions reduce the theist to arguing in god-of-the-gaps style, which is very ugly. Furthermore, it is actually extremely hard to know what is and is not physically impossible; see the struggles philosophers of science have with defining "natural law". Also, you might enjoy <a href="http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2013/09/the-computational-theory-of-natural-laws.html" rel="nofollow">The Computational Theory of the Laws of Nature</a>.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-70909896125650597462014-03-01T12:36:37.701-08:002014-03-01T12:36:37.701-08:00I think I have spotted an error. Given my experien...I think I have spotted an error. Given my experience in physics, I know that the second law of thermodynamics says that the probability that the entropy of a closed system decreases is very low. It does not say that it's (physically) impossible for it to decrease -- not at all!Arpithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17842513683654079721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-1265693770889628292014-03-01T12:35:44.532-08:002014-03-01T12:35:44.532-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Arpithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17842513683654079721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-4546749441367010792013-12-19T17:05:35.125-08:002013-12-19T17:05:35.125-08:00I can agree completely, it's either a) god or ...I can agree completely, it's either a) god or b) advanced natural life. <br /><br />The fact that it could be either, logically speaking, IMO, makes things worse for the theist. The thing is, by doing these miracles, god isn't "forcing" someone to believe in some absolute way.<br /><br />Interestingly enough, I've been doing some reading over at http://www.thinkingchristian.net/ about the definition of "faith" and one of the ways he uses the word there is as if faith were a way to rationally analyze evidence and come to an inductive conclusion. <br /><br />In this case, if that was what "faith" is, then it would still take faith to believe in light of these miracles, though obviously far far less than it takes to believe in the historical account of miracles that we have to evaluate today in a universe where it appears no miracles seem to happen. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-48806828391243814092013-12-19T14:34:47.897-08:002013-12-19T14:34:47.897-08:00I've been thinking about this for over a week ...I've been thinking about this for over a week now. <br /><br />I've decided that in principle, Clarke's Law would still make any apparently supernatural event *either* point to a) God, or b) advanced natural life, due to our ignorance of unknown physics. In practice however, there might be specific events that make the god more likely, since we can always ask the question 'What is most reasonable to believe on the evidence at hand?', rather than 'What is possible on the evidence at hand?'<br /><br />Perhaps something akin to true believers in that god developing non-natural abilities in virtue of their belief, like the power to heal amputations, or some other similarly natural-law breaking event. Or something akin to the powers of Biotics from Mass-Effect. Putting the power to effect that kind of change into the hands of a human seems to nudge it slightly away from the possibility that an alien hoaxster could be responsible (at least in my intuition). Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11027784110866996968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-84606499533162616672013-12-09T09:33:33.936-08:002013-12-09T09:33:33.936-08:00There's nuance there I think you're missin...There's nuance there I think you're missing.<br /><br />An argument could in principle establish the existence of some kind of deistic clockmaker god, but I don't think it could work to establish the kind of god who wants a relationship with us. <br /><br />However even then, the argument is only as good as its premises. When it comes to direct experience of empirically verifiable miracles, that's far and away the best kind of evidence we could have.<br /><br />The point is the arguments become superlative, they shouldn't even be necessary. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-64692831717791083542013-12-06T21:04:26.414-08:002013-12-06T21:04:26.414-08:00Going off on a bit of a tangent...
If arguments f...Going off on a bit of a tangent...<br /><br />If arguments for theism are sufficient in principle, and it's just in practice that they fail, then the atheist need not demand the miraculous evidence written about in the bible - it would be enough to demand (at least) arguments that are sufficient in practice. <br /><br />I had another paragraph here about the theist/atheist asymmetry involving time machines, but I deleted it because it turned out to not work out so well. Oh well. Skepticism Firsthttp://skeptischism.com/skepticismfirst/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-83603453989416314872013-12-06T14:11:40.821-08:002013-12-06T14:11:40.821-08:00Something I forgot to mention:
I'd just reit...Something I forgot to mention: <br /><br />I'd just reiterate the point I raised in the article - even according to Christians, arguments weren't sufficient to establish the existence of the deity in order for it to gain followers. In order to get to the existence of Yahweh or Jesus being god, the being <b>had to manifest itself in miraculous ways.</b>A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-38715471135302112912013-12-06T14:07:45.076-08:002013-12-06T14:07:45.076-08:00An excellent point, and one worth expanding on.
I...An excellent point, and one worth expanding on.<br /><br />I should preface this with the idea that if there was an argument whose premises were true and it was logically valid, I'd have to accept the conclusion. The problem with natural theology arguments is that the premises are not more likely to be true (in the way the arguments require) so as to establish their conclusion. They are controversial at best, and that's just for the deistic god. <br /><br />The argument from hiddenness only counts against deity that supposedly wants nothing more, and created all of the material universe, so that it may have a personal, loving relationship with us humans.<br /><br />This leads into some reflection on the argument itself. One thing we do have extremely strong inductive evidence for is the idea that the best way to identify true features of reality is via empirical observations. The immense progress of science and the empirical method it entails demonstrates its superiority to the a-priori metaphysical thinking that preceded it. <br /><br />Finally, there is a bit of an asymmetry in the position of the theist and the atheist, and this is at the heart of the argument from hiddenness. <br /><br />The theist is asserting the existence of something that given what we have access to, we have no empirical evidence to back up its existence - but it is NOT the kind of thing that we can't ever have empirical evidence of in principle. <br /><br />Given this, all an atheist can do is adopt the neutral position and try to show contradictions in the properties of the supposed being. In principle, <b>if the atheist is correct</b>, the most an atheist could ever do in principle is give arguments. <br /><br />A supposed deity, at least one that wants us to believe and love it, does not suffer this limitation if it does exist. It could even refrain from direct appearances, and allow it's believers to channel it's power under certain conditions, ala Mark 16:17-18 or D&D/Pathfinder.<br />A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-82844520123097736372013-12-06T13:13:29.041-08:002013-12-06T13:13:29.041-08:00If "arguments" don't hold up well as...If "arguments" don't hold up well as evidence, then what of the divine hiddenness argument? It seems to be in the same "class" as the natural theology arguments - it points to some feature of reality, and argues that this feature is evidence that the proposition "God exists" is false. This doesn't seem much different in structure from, say, the fine tuning argument. Skepticism Firsthttp://skeptischism.com/skepticismfirst/noreply@blogger.com