This was an exchange on carm with an atheist claiming to be a scientist. It's in answer to atheists constantly changing their mantra "there's no direct empirical evdience, we don't want arguemnts we want facts." This is a new slogan they've come out with recently.
God is beyond our understanding. God is not given in sense data and thus the demand for sense data proving God is silly and useless.
In one of their typically hypocritical moves those who claim they don't believe in the fortress of facts concept will turn around and take a page right off the heart of the fortress concept and demand empirical proof of God and when it doesn't come they will say "this is proof there's no God." But they have arleady been told "God is not amenable to this kind of evidence.
We know form scinece that there are many thing in scinece, whole knowledge levels above the scientific that are not given backed by any direct evidence and yet scientists assume they are real or that they could be real.
*big bang
*singularity
*string membranes
*dark matter (getting close)
*direct observation of *neutrinos (were historically *accepted as real long before any direct evidence, still don't have direct observation of them).
*Hawking's no singularity thing, (although that's pretty much set aside but it was accepted up front on the premise that we can't have direct proof).
Multivese (no direct proof, mathematical doesn't count).
that means not having direct evdience is not any kind of proof that they are not real.
The facts are just that we have to use other means of understanding God. that's all there is to it and theology has met that challenge by developing with scientific thinking, as with process theology.
Several reasons why it's not fair to expect direct evidence:
(1) God is not a thing in creation.
He's not on a par with objects in the world. he's the basis of all reality. that would be like expecting to find a piece of the laws of physics or the door to the unified field.
(2) God is not a big man in the sky but is being itself.
God is in everything. He's too big and too basic to be seen.
(3) God is the mind that thinks reality
we re figments of God's imagination. That means we can't get outside the thought and see what's thinking it. How could we possibility do that? I hate the film "the Matrix" no one bring it up. I prefer the holodeck on Star Trek TNG. how could a character of the Holodeck never know the truth?
(4) God's wants the search.
God doesn't' want to make it obvious. He makes it possible for us to find him but we have to seek. the reasons are laid out in my thing on soeteriological drama.
atheist says
Atheists might say God could make it obvious if he wanted to. Yes, but he doesn't want to because that would frustrate the process of interlinking values. Its' not unfair because the possibility is there. you only have to let go of your ego and seek God though the means that he may be found.
an atheist says:
Lets take a few things off:
*big bang
atheist says:
This comes from using we well verified theory in science (relativity) and extrapolating it back to the early universe after it was observed that the universe was expanding. but I can say the same thing about my arguments. I can say 'this come from using a well verified theory called modal logic ect ect." you want to make exceptions when it's knowledge you control then say all other forms of knowledge are crap. that's not fair.But you see what he's done in making this response is special pleading. He's doing exactly what the atheists have been telling us we can't do, their slogan: "stop giving us arguemnts we don't want arguments, we want facts." Yet, he comes back on something that has no direct empirical evdience and make an argument that's it's right anyway becuase of the fit with theory, meaning he doesn't have empirical evdience but he's going accept an theocratic argument. That's what we are doing with God arguments, it' sthe thing we do that the atheist say they don't want. This is a logical fallacy called special pleading becuase it means suspend the rules for me but keep them for my opponent.
*singularity
atheist says
atheist says
This shows that general relativity is incomplete as a physical theory. It signifies that there is a breakdown in the model.
there are physicists who say they don't accept the context of the singularity that proves it's not the fortress of facts. it's not a fact it's not solid, it could change. yet no one says "this isn't real becuase I don't have specific empirical evidence."
that is all about managing the context and that's all you are doing in rejecting God arguments.
*string membranes
atheist says
atheist says
String theory is so for the only model that unifies all known forces at all scales, it can be shown that branes (as they are known) must exist for the theory to be internally consistent.In other words, it's an argument based upon the fit of the theoretical phenomena with other theory. Same answer applies you don't' have direct empirical evidence I don't' see you saying its not reality. I have seen physicists say we may never have direct empirical evidence of this but you wont call it unreal.
*dark matter (getting close)
atheist says
This is interesting becasue I say we are getting close to finding empirical proof of dark matter he says "I wouldn't say anyone is getting close." He may have misunderstood what I meant so the meant in another way, it's hard to believe that since it seems so clear to me. Yet in another thread he say "i never said we were getting close." Which only works aginast his argument, makes me think he doesn't even realize what's going on in the whole thread.
atheist says
There are some ideas, certainly but I wouldn't say that anyone is getting close.
This is interesting becasue I say we are getting close to finding empirical proof of dark matter he says "I wouldn't say anyone is getting close." He may have misunderstood what I meant so the meant in another way, it's hard to believe that since it seems so clear to me. Yet in another thread he say "i never said we were getting close." Which only works aginast his argument, makes me think he doesn't even realize what's going on in the whole thread.
*direct observation of neutrinos (were historically accepted as real long before any direct evidence, still don't have direct observation of them).
atheist says:
Because they were predicted by a theory that was very well experimentally verified in other areas.Classic example. That's nothing more than what I said. It's not better than I can do with any of my God arguments. I can prove all my God arguments on the same basis. The God arguments can be predicted by theories that are well verified in other areas (in other words, not in direct relation of God). All he is doing is managing the context, that is the context under which such and such a phenomenon is thought of as evidence for something, such as God. He's just managing the context under which these phenomena can be tough of as backed evdience. In other wrongs we don't have direct empirical evidence of them but they are not going to say they don't exist. They would if it was a God argument. The very same basis upon which I can prove my God arguments, indirect, predicted by accepted theory in other vain, but that wouldn't be good enough for the atheists. Yet science does it accept it for other things. it's part of a theory. you don't have empirical proof. and my God arguments are part of a theory. This guy can't understand that every time he argues such and such can be proved real anyway he's backing my case. He thinks he's proving "O scinece works and God doesn't" he's actually proving the basis upon which I claim my God argument is scientific.
*Hawking's no singularity thing, (although that's pretty much set aside but it was accepted up front on the premise that we can't have direct proof).
atheist says:
*Multivese (no direct proof, mathematical doesn't count).
atheist says:
This is continued in the string model as as it has been explained to you that the beginning of the universe is no longer considered as a singularity.In other words, it's proved by a model that is itself not the result of empirical data but is also assumed true by its fit with other theory. Meaning he's compounded the problem twice over. Now he establishes the precedent of twice arguing for something that scinece says s real but does not ahve direct empirical data to prove. That stands as the security form yet another theory for which there is no empirical data. So far can they stretch that point. I have God arguments that have to verified by other non empirical theories. No twice overs among my 42 God arguments.
*Multivese (no direct proof, mathematical doesn't count).
All that really means is that without assuming the unverified multivariate they would have no answer temporal beginning argument or to the fin tuning argument.all the same deal.There are consequences that can be derived from the multiverse which can be tested and I am also told that they are looking at testing this idea experimentally already.
after enough of this charge of special pleading and explaining what it means:
Originally Posted by this atheist
No it's not. it's really the very same thing. Yes modal logic is not the same thing as physics but that has nothign t do with the way that argument functions i your utterance. Not all the verification of God arguments is form modal logic, some is form cosmology just like these are.
He did not provide any direct empirical evidence. all he did was manage the context in which you consider the theory to make the anamorphic into evidence. In other words it's dependent upon the paradigm. The proof is that some physicists don't' accept the same big bang paradigm anymore so the big bang evidence is not evidence in their paradigm anymore.
my God arguments are not proof for atheists because they say "that's philosophy and I don't dig philosophy so it's not proof." I say "I dig philosophy so it is proof." that doesn't mean it' snot proof becuase you say it isn't, it is to me. It' just that you are managing the context in which proof is seen as proof.
another atheist chimes in:
Once again meta, you are comparing apples and oranges. We are talking about theories that have predictive capabilities, that have warn out the decades of experimental tests and still have been correct. Singularities appear in such models you know that there is something else to do on the theory.I have 200 studies that are published in peer reviewed academic journals, everyone of them establishes the fact that religious experience fits the criteria of epistemic judgment, which is verified as valid by our daily epistemic practices. That means we can extrapolate from those findings and say this is verified by proven theory and it can be argued that it supports warrant for God belief. When I say that they go, "those studies don't' have 'god exists' as a finding so you can't extrapolate form it." The things they use to back these physical phenomena were not established on the basis that they back those phenomena. Einstein didn't propose relativity and say "and this valid as backing for a theory that will be put forth some day about neutrinos."
I'm really not doing anything any different than they do in their scientific work. In fact they don't do it, their priests of knowledge, the scientists do it. It's not different than what I do in my God arguments. Yet they allow it for scinece and not for God. That's what logicians call SPECIAL PLEADING!
atheist says:
String theory reduces to the previous laws which do have good experimental evidence, you don't think that they just dreamed the whole idea up do you?
Meta said:
you rationalize that lack by special pleading. you say "I can manage the context in which evidence is evidence and do it in such a way as to make up for the lack of what I require of God arguemnts.
you are saying "the rules apply to all the stuff off template but not to stuff on template." we call that "special pleading." In the lgoic world that's what it's called.
as I have explained, it's completely different.
you don't have direct evidence and you know you don't. It's a double standard it's special pleading.
