Im stating this because they refuse to address the epistemology. That is the heart of this divide.
Because, in their eyes, there is no epistemology involved. Christian knowledge is not empirical to the most part, so the knowledge is not valid.
Richard
And this is why dialogue with atheists seems to break down so much. They refuse to even see my point of view and dont engage properly. Its frustrating.
All Iām going to do is wait for you to present the inference for intelligent design in fine tuning. Iāve been asking that every time waiting for the answer. I figure Iāll try one or two more times and then ignore this thread and assume its a dead end.
Except Iām not an atheist. The breakdown is you canāt answer basic questions. Itās like pulling teeth for an answer. So if youāre feeling attacked then itās just you. Youāre not even being attacked. Youāre being asked specific questions to support claims you make. Not even scientific explanations just what even the claim is.
First, i didnt say intelligent design. I think of it more like providence. Think the creation myth of the Silmarillion. The fact that everything seems completely organized to produce life suggests fine tuning to me. Its not a proof, but i find it compelling. Still waiting for you to engage the epistemology.
1 Like
Okay. Then letās play your little games of goal post changing.
What specifically about epistemology do you mean? Itās broad as can be. Whatās your definition youāre using for it within the context of the question you want me to answer.
Because to me it means this.
Faith is not based on evidence but on naturally and inherently recognizing some truth. I believe in fairies because I feel it in my heart and soul that itās true. There are millions of people globally that believe in them and stories from around the world predating the English language describing these little folk or magic people encounter. Iāve just had experiences and blah blah. Itās just circular debate.
So what exactly do you mean and what exactly are you asking me to answer?
Editing in.
So what Iāll do once I know more of what youāre asking is spend about 20 minutes thinking about it. Writing down thoughts on paper. Then answer. Then after answering Iām probably not going to check Biologos again for roughly 24 hours. My lunch is over and after work go hours if stuff I do daily. Plus circular arguments just burn me out and prove to be fruitless and wa waste of my time. So itās easier to just move to reading and responding 1-2 times a day.
Yes it is frustrating for you, but also for them. @SkovandOfMitaze has a faith but it might not be what you would think it is.
You are looking at things non scientifically, in fact it might even be called romantically. You allow your faith and emotions to tint your view of reality. I mentioned incredulity. Basically it is the notion that something so āperfectā (even that statement is disputed), could come by chance or from chaos. You may not have mentioned ID (I did) but ID is disputed because it is considered incredulous or not accepting that the science could have got it right. The notion that āAnything could happen given enough timeā is not only incredulous to me, it is actually disprovable, but those Evolutionists who hear me claim that it does not apply to the processes of evolution, and that they can do anything within their parameters. There is no answer or proof either way, but if I say it boils down to āBeliefā that then opens another ugly can of worms about science not being about beliefs!
IOW we cannot find a common ground or parameters or beliefs to engage each other. It becomes the slanging match you are close to having here.
Richard
Forget the atheists. Go with the science and scripture. God is the author of both. The Bilble tells us what God dis and why. Science tells us how and when. You do not have to be an atheist to be a scientist. In my opinion science uncovers and extols the mystery and greatness of God.
True.
False.
Thatās just an excuse for not presenting evidence.
Thats an insulting caricature of what faith is. And its not even a biblical definition. Its not just blind feelings like youre describing it. You say youre not an atheist but you sound like one.
I generally find your comments insightful, and regard you as a talented naturalist, but with all due respect you seem to be pushing our new arrival kinda hard. A person is allowed to hold opinions that he cannot prove - degrees of gut feeling, balance of probabilities, perception, or faith. As long as someone is honest and not exaggerating the certainty of their personal belief, why should they have to justify it any further?
2 Likes
Dear EC, please allow me to send you a chapter from my book ms called āReading Genesis.ā Write to me at my email address and make sure to include your own. One scholar recently told me itās the best thing he ever read on Genesis. roy.a.clouser@gmail.com
1 Like
I sent you an email. Thanks!
Here is the thing. Iām not pushing anything hard. Itās a basic question. He wonāt answer. Heās not going to answer it. He canāt answer it. Heās confused about every term he uses. Everything is done with a quarter effort and is disingenuous.
He stayed clearly that he believes there is evidence for fine tuning. I asked what evidence. He says youāre an atheists attacking me.
So for me this is simple. Heās not interested in actually having any form of discussion. Because he disagrees with my own approach to faith he says itās insulting. He then clearly describes whatās beliefs in intelligence design and says he does not believe in intelligent design. Then he says he want me to answer his little question about epistemology and so i ask to be more specific and then all he can do is state once again I sound like an atheist.
So what im going to do is ignore him and this thread. Heās wasting my time and itās not worth it. Asking ā can you describe what you mean when you say thisā is not pushing. Itās the bare minimum other than just agreeing yeahā¦ ahhh shucks meanie atheists asking me to many wittle questions.ā
When I use to believe in intelligent design to some fashion you could ask meā¦.. hey what specifically is it that you believe and I would just answer it. Then time after tine learned naturalistic explanations to it all. Or hit a gap. Eventually those gaps went from being a place for the supernatural to hide to just simply a realization we donāt have the answers yet.
I even stopped and said okā¦ Iāll answer you question. What exactly are you wanting to ask. Epistemology Is a very broad term.
I want itās the study of truth. One way to voice it is to tease apart the nature of belief and that can mean to understanding the limits of what and how we believeā¦..
Itās the whole Plantingaās framework of we can believe in God because itās apparently true and we donāt need a long chain of scientific facts to prove it just like when I go outside and look at a trees I know itās a tree and I donāt have to do scientific experiments to prove itās a tree as opposed to letās say an alien that looks like a tree.
If you make the claim that is similar to Hebrews 11:3 NRSVue āBy faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.ā and combine it with Romanās 1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.ā
Thatās a super common argument used by people trying to hide behind epistemological style arguments.
ā itās evident that God is real because look at creationā¦.. look at the universeā¦.. itās fine tunedā¦.. I donāt need clear cut evidence because itās something inherently true and we see it by just lookingā¦ā right thatās now a real argument.
So when someone presents that along with this complaint that atheists are just these bullies messing with themā¦. The reality heās using non arguments and changing the goal post and then saying oh youāre this or that. Itās silly.
Itās not this hard with an authentic person to just answer a basic questionā¦ā¦ you say itās obviously true because of fine tuningā¦.. ok so whatās fine tunedā¦.. youāre an atheistā¦.. okay what do you mean by epistemology within the context of this discussionā¦ā¦ you are mocking faith and sure seem like an atheistā¦.. pushing by asking basic clarifying arguments that triggers someoneā¦. Come on.
So you say why should he have to justify itā¦.. then whatās the point of holding a discussionā¦.. you believe in Santa clauseā¦. Itās epistemologically trueā¦.. you believe in fairies because how else could there be fairies of fairies did not existā¦.. okayā¦ Bigfoot must be real thousands of people have seen him from around the worldā¦. Heās just super good at covering up his tracksā¦ā¦ okayā¦.
He said atheists were attacking himā¦. I asked is it just like general attacks or is it about some stance you hold that you claim is trueā¦. He then jumps between evidence versus not empirical but epistemologically trueā¦ philosophically trueā¦ not intelligent design but an apparently true creation and fine tuning of the cosmosā¦.. what are you supposed to do with that? Ignore it. Thatās all I can do now. I tried to hold a conversation and ask basic questions. We past it. Iām even repeating myself. Itās beating a dead horse wanting it to get up and continue on. All it has been is a total waste of my time. At least I was getting paid by my job to sit on my phone screwing off waiting for material. Now Iām homeā¦ have far to many better things to do and hold conversations with people who actually want them.
If all they wanted was to be told sorry thatās happeningā¦ okayā¦ sorry thatās happening to y him I hope it gets better and they just ignore him ā¦ I guess.
I answered your question about fine tuning. I admit Iām being a bit defensive, because I know how this is gonna go. Iām gonna give you the evidence I find compelling and youāre just going to label as non-evidence. Whatās the point of presenting it then? This is why I asked about your epistemology. You seem to think anything that isnāt empiricism is just magical fairy thinking. Okay, what am I supposed to do with that? You seem unwilling to concede anything outside of your framework. So really, what kind of discussion can we have?
If everything was organised to produce life Iād expect life to be a lot more common than it seems to be.
Then I would just say I donāt think your expectation is necessarily correct. This is the problem I often have with skeptics. Iāll answer a question, and theyāll respond with some version of āIf God were real, then X would be true, not Y.ā Well sorry, the world is the way it is, and I and many think it points to God. You can say weāre wrong, but thatās not really interesting or helpful, so whatās the point? In my experience, a skeptic cannot really have a good discussion with a theist unless they are willing to step into our worldview. And I rarely see that happen.
For others to see?
If you present reasonable evidence and @SkovandOfMitaze rejects it, your credibility rises compared to his, and you are more likely to get the help you are seeking.
If you refuse to present any evidence, your credibility falls and you are less likely to get that help.
Itās a no-brainer.