Pages

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

God, Intelligent Design, and The Illusion of Technique

Image result for metacrocks blog




On Secular Outpost , Eric Sotnak [1] opens debate against Intelligent Design (ID) by approaching it politically, DeVos ls ID and  she will be imposing it upon the schools, so here's why it's wrong.... Eric is approaching it through the notion of defending evolution, I have no intention of attacking evolution so I am approaching it through an understanding of belief in God. The issues transcend both politics and evolution, ID is just fancy packaging to dress up creationism in a more respectable garb, but the basic concept  that the universe is  the product of mind I support; it is that issue that I  approach as a form of belief in God. 

If you really want to fight what's about to happen to the educational system then you need to join the political struggle and back the resistance, Major part of the resistances is Christians. You don't see my feed on facebook but most of the anti-Trump stuff I see on FB is from Christians. Atheists ate still about 3% Christians are about 80% so it just stands to reason most anti-Trump feeling will be Christians,We resistance Christians are pretty pissed about what the Republicans have done (fundies included) to the faith. Eric is above making little wise cracks about Christians but not all of the posters of SOP are, this topic no less draws some of those comments.

There are three major issues I will deal with here, Two are used by Eric and one is my own. First there is Probability of naturalistic origin as opposed to Supernatural one,,
Secomdoy, the mechanism for creation , and thirdly the illusion of technique, This is the concept I barrow from William Barrett and his Book of that title.
 [2] I will be making use of this concept in a major way kn  my upcoming book God,Science, and Ideology. The point being that the way the  issues are discussed in the conventional argument between ID and evolution feeds into the ideology that motivates scientism, not to accuse Eric of being scientistic.


Eric argues that Irreduceable Complexity (IC), a major argument in favor of ID,  is more probably a product of naturalistic forces rather than supernatural."But it is at least less improbable that it should have come about by supernatural means (intelligent agency).IC is about various organisms that are complete in themselves such as microbes that are like little motors,any part missing would mean the whole organism would fail to function, I have seen the same kind of argument made about the eye, So evolution could not have produced such an organism because it would have to start out whole, Sotnak argues that the probability is with a naturalistic outlook at the product of IC.  But he can't make good on that claim because there is no way to subject God to probability. Especially not with Bayes because (1) any setting of a prior is strictly biased, on either side. (2) No new info coming in about God because God is not given in sense data, If God is not given in sense data then God can't be subjected to probability, Consider the limitations of trying to use probability such as Bayes theorem for any kind of question about religious faith,m not merely the likelihood of God creating IC.

 Bayes’ theorem was introduced first as an argument against Hume’s argument on miracles, that is to say, a proof of the probability of miracles. The theorem was learned by Richard Price from Bayes papers after the death of the latter, and was first communicated to the Royal society in 1763.[3] The major difference in the version Bayes and Price used and modern (especially skeptical versions) is that Laplace worked out how to introduce differentiation in prior distributions. The original version gave 50-50 probability to the prior distributions. The original version gave 50-50 probability to the prior distribution.[4] The problem with using principles such as Bayes theorem is that they can’t tell us what we need to know to make the calculations of probability accurate in dealing with issues where our knowledge is fragmentary and sparse. The theorem is good for dealing with concrete things like tests for cancer, developing spam filters, and military applications but not for determining the answer to questions about reality that are philosophical by nature and that would require an understanding of realms beyond, realms of which we know nothing. Bayes conquered the problem of what level of chance or probability to assign the prior estimate by guessing. This worked because the precept was that future information would come in that would tell him if his guesses were in the ball park or not. Then he could correct them and guess again. As new information came in he would narrow the field to the point where eventually he’s not just in the park but rounding the right base so to speak.

The problem is that doesn’t work as well when no new information comes in, which is what happens when dealing with things beyond human understanding. We don’t have an incoming flood of empirical evidence clarifying the situation with God because God is not the subject of empirical observation. Where we set the prior, which is crucial to the outcome of the whole thing, is always going to be a matter of ideological assumption. For example we could put the prior at 50-50 (either God exists or not) and that would yield a high probability of God.[5] Or the atheist can argue that the odds of God are low because God is not given in the sense data, which is in itself is an ideological assumption. It assumes that the only valid form of knowledge is empirical data. It also ignores several sources of empirical data that can be argued as evidence for God (such as the universal nature of mystical experience).[6] It assumes that God can’t be understood as reality based upon other means of deciding such as personal experience or logic, and it assumes the probability of God is low based upon unbelief because the it could just as easily be assumed as high based upon it’s properly basic nature or some form of elegance (parsimony). In other words this is all a matter of how e chooses to see things. Perspective matters. There is no fortress of facts giving the day to atheism, there is only the prior assumptions one chooses to make and the paradigm under which one chooses to operate; that means the perception one chooses to filter the data through.

Perhaps he's not thinking in terms of Bayes but just asserting that we only have empirical evidence of naturalistic things. First of  all He's right about the issue of  biological development of organisms, there is no way to something like that to a direct SN origin. But as long as we are not fighting evolution we can't expect that standard of empirical evidence to rule out God as the ultimate origin of all things. After all we have direct empirical evidence of physical laws or mutliverse or string membranes but some scientists want to assume these things. Remember I do not argue for proof that God exists but rather for a "rational warrant fro belief, " the subtitle of my book. In that book I argue for warrant for belief based upon empirical evidence oft the co-determinate, That is the concept of Schleiemacher very much like the idea of foot prints in the snow, We don't have direct empirical evidence of God but we do have empirical evidence of the co-determinate,k the effects of God or as I have it The Trace of God. Of course the draw back there is that you have to know wast effects God would leave so we know them when we see them, That is an issue for another time. Read the book.[7]

Eric also makes a second point about the mechanism through whichGod creates, "The claim is usually made using the term “design.” But this avoids the question of how, exactly, the design is implemented. That is, if the bacterial flagellum begins as a design in the mind of an intelligent designer, how does the designer get the flagella into the world."[8] The problem here is that the mechanism I could advance is also a mystery to us, The saving feature is we know it exits, in fact all knowledge comes to us through this mechanism: mind, If we assume consciousness is a basic property of nature an assumption well argued for B y David Chalmers for example, [9] this gives us a justification for understanding mind as the basis of reality and then we can see God as the mind that is the basis of reality. Issac Newton had a concept that the universe is the "sensorium of God" which I take to mean the universe was God's interface with tangability,[10] There as a great deal of opposition on this point from Libnetz and it does indicate that Newton tendking to think in very physical and mechanical terms even ab out God. Libeniz claimed Newton understood space as an organ God needed to see, of course that;'s an exaggeration. [11] Be that as it may the are more modern examples such as that of University of Oregon Physicist Amit Gaswami, who sees thought as the basis of reality rather than energy.
The current worldview has it that everything is made of matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter, the basic constituents—building blocks—of matter. And cause arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the elementary particles. This is the belief—all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we call "upward causation." So in this view, what human beings—you and I—think of as our free will does not really exist. It is only an epiphenomenon or secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we seem to be able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm[12]



My overall point is mind can be the mechanism and the world is a thought in the mind of God.



Not Bill Gates: "Therefore it is more likely that DNA was magically popped into existence by a supernatural agent than that it came about through natural processes."



Sure but the natural process, all natural processes wre kicked of by the SN power, the miomd tha thinks the universewhy not? All reality was so popped. Look, your question how could God go from idea in mind to real world? I don't think that's a fair question because it's eh kind thing of which we can't gain knowledge empirically; if we can't gain knowledge we can't assert it can't be done.Moreover,I have a theory of it, That is to take seriously Newton;s idea that the universe is the sensorium of God, I take that to mean analogous to thought in a mind,So God is thinking the world, Look you are assuming an evolutionary process is more: realistic than a mind thinking of things but it's no moreso, that's relative, we are startling from nothing. God would be all there is,so any thought God has is reality.You are assuming some kind of pre given set of physical laws governing a process of nature, that's really just God without the personality.

That brings up the third problem, the illusion of technique, The false notion that we can know it all because we can manipulate nature to a certain degree, We don';t know why we are here  or what started the big bang expansion or where the energy that makes the universe cane from,We pretend that we have it all under control because we only accept that which we can manage and manipulate the rest we pretend is not important, that means we have many mechanisms we do not understand.

Sources 


[1] Eric Sotnak, "Intelligent Design: Get Ready for Another Round,l" Secular Outpost, (Feb. 17,2017) blog, URL:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/02/17/intelligent-design-get-ready-another-round/#disqus_thread  (accessed: 2/18/17) 
Eric Sotnak teaching Philosophy at  University Of Akron.

[2] William Barrett, The Illusion of Technique: The Search for Meaning in a Technological Civilization, New York:Anchor, 1979, no page indicated.


[3]Geoffrey Poitras, Richard Price, Miracles and the Origin of Bayesian Decision Theory pdf http://www.sfu.ca/~poitras/Price_EJHET_$$$.pdf
11/11/10.
Faculty of Business AdministrationSimon Fraser UniversityBurnaby, BCCANADA V5A 1S6. Geoffrey Poitras is a Professor of Finance in the Faculty of Business Administration at Simon FraserUniversity. Lisited 12/22/12.
[4] ibid
[5] Joe Carter, “The Probability of God” First Thoughts. Blog of publication of First Things. (August 18, 2010) URL: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/08/18/the-probability-of-god/  visited (1/10/13). Carter points out that when Unwin (an atheist discussed in previous chapter) puts in 50% prior he gets 67% probability for God. When Cater himself does so he get’s 99%.Cater’s caveat: “Let me clarify that this argument is not intended to be used as a proof of God’s existence. The sole intention is to put in quantifiable terms the probabilities that we should form a belief about such a Being’s existence. In other words, this is not an ontological proof but a means of justifying a particular epistemic stance toward the idea of the existence or non-existence of a deity.The argument is that starting from an epistemically neutral point (50 percent/50 percent), we can factor in specific evidence for the existence or non-existence of a deity. After evaluating each line of evidence, we can determine if it is more or less likely that it would entail the existence of God.”
[6] Metacrock, "The Scale and The universal Nature of Mystical Experience," The religious a priroi blog URL: http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-m-sacle-and-universal-nature-of.html see also the major argument I sue for documentation in that article,  In P, McNamar (Ed.), Where God and science meet, Vol. 3, pp. 119-138. Westport, CT: Praeger. linked in Google preview.

[7] Joseph Hinman, The Trace of God:Rational Warrant For Belief. Colorado Springs: Grand Viaduct, 2014
https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714

[8] Satnak op oct. all quotes by Sotnak from this article

[9] 
David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a theory. England, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. 3-5.on line version: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16574382/David-Chalmers-The-Conscious-Mind-Philosophy Scribd, David Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Theory of Conscious Experience, webstie Department of Philosophy, University of California at Santa Cruz, July 22 1995, visited 3/1/11 on line page numbers apply.

[10] Alexander Koyré, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press,  1957, 235-239

[11] Ibid 239

[12] Gaswami

31 comments:

  1. Thanks for highlighting my post, Joe. But I fear you misunderstood at least one of the arguments I made there.

    You wrote: "Eric argues that Irreduceable Complexity (IC), a major argument in favor of ID, is more probably a product of naturalistic forces rather than supernatural."

    Actually, no, I didn't. What I said is that in order for the argument in favor of ID to succeed, the ID proponent must make a case that it is more probably that IC came about through ID than by purely naturalistic means. This is usually an implicit premise, buried in hand-waving about how improbable various organic structures are on naturalism. But it doesn't matter how improbable they are on naturalism unless it can also be argued that they are more probable on ID.

    You actually make the same point that I do when you say "But he can't make good on that claim because there is no way to subject God to probability." Except that you are responding to the claim that these structures are more probable on naturalism than supernaturalism (the claim I didn't make) whereas I am responding to the claim that they are more probable on supernaturalism than on naturalism. So we are actually in agreement (miracles do happen, I guess).


    Near the end of your post you say, "...mind can be the mechanism and the world is a thought in the mind of God."

    As far as speculation goes, I can't disprove that, nor do I intend on doing so, except to say that this is a very thin mechanism to propose unless you can also say more about how, in general, thought operates as a causal mechanism, and in particular, how it does so in the case of a being as presumably mysterious as God. What you re left with here is essentially no different, I think, than saying, "God does it by telepathy."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where we set the prior, which is crucial to the outcome of the whole thing, is always going to be a matter of ideological assumption.

    It seems to me that you don't have a good understanding of 'prior probability'. It is not a matter of making assumptions. It is based on what is known - typically statistical information. That's why Bayes' theorem is useful in various scenarios like predicting the occurrence of cancer or developing spam filters. These are things where we have plenty of a priori information available to establish a probability basis. On the other hand, if you want to say "the prior probability of God is 50%", you are only farting into the wind, because this implies that you have information indicating that God exists in 50% of all possible worlds. And nobody has any such information. I think you agree with me that Bayes' theorem is misused by many. And with regard to theism vs. naturalism, it goes both ways. We have no basis whatsoever to say the laws of physics should turn out a certain way with probability p1, just as we have no basis to say th eprior probability of God should be p2. But this isn't a question of whether we understand God. It's simply a matter of knowing something about the statistical incidence of God's existence. And that's something we can only guess at.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When you say that the universe is a thought in the mind of God, it's not clear what the meaning of the word "is" is. At times you seem to imply that the world is caused by thought and other times that it's constituted by thought.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's true that theists can't explain how God implements his thoughts into material reality. But it's also problematic to explain how we humans implement our thoughts and intentions into material reality. Considering that this process is happening in large part inside of us and that our actions are the only thing in the world we know from both the inside and the outside, then the explanatory difficult in relation to God can be seen as at least not unique to him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. m-skeptical said...
    Where we set the prior, which is crucial to the outcome of the whole thing, is always going to be a matter of ideological assumption.

    It seems to me that you don't have a good understanding of 'prior probability'. It is not a matter of making assumptions. It is based on what is known - typically statistical information.

    Of course it is based upon assumptions like all studies are. You think science doesn't make foundation assumptions that shows that you don't understand the basic process. It also proves that you didn't read the Clarice since I talked about how the basic nature of the prior has changed since Bayes started. Saying that they don't make make assumptions but say they only use empirical data proves you don't understand the basic issues because there is no empirical data that tells us a priori that God does or odes not exist,(if there was we would not need Bayes to prove or disprove it) so you can't set the prior for God based upon factual data it has to be an assumption.



    That's why Bayes' theorem is useful in various scenarios like predicting the occurrence of cancer or developing spam filters. These are things where we have plenty of a priori information available to establish a probability basis.

    Yes if you read the article you would know I said that. That doesn't mean it can be used for God


    On the other hand, if you want to say "the prior probability of God is 50%", you are only farting into the wind, because this implies that you have information indicating that God exists in 50% of all possible worlds.

    No. It means as far as empirical evidence tells us God might or might not exist, it doesn't take possible worlds into account. In Baye's day they did not think about possible worlds that way.

    But if you kine the history of the idea would know setting it at 50/50 is Bayes's method. Modern version was invented by LaPlace.



    And nobody has any such information. I think you agree with me that Bayes' theorem is misused by many. And with regard to theism vs. naturalism, it goes both ways. We have no basis whatsoever to say the laws of physics should turn out a certain way with probability p1, just as we have no basis to say th eprior probability of God should be p2. But this isn't a question of whether we understand God. It's simply a matter of knowing something about the statistical incidence of God's existence. And that's something we can only guess at.

    Yes it's simply a matter knowing what we just agreed is unknowable.If we knew statistical incidence of God's existence we would not be arguing about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 7th Stooge said...
    It's true that theists can't explain how God implements his thoughts into material reality. But it's also problematic to explain how we humans implement our thoughts and intentions into material reality. Considering that this process is happening in large part inside of us and that our actions are the only thing in the world we know from both the inside and the outside, then the explanatory difficult in relation to God can be seen as at least not unique to him.

    excellent point. consciousness still largely mysterious

    ReplyDelete
  7. 7th Stooge said...
    When you say that the universe is a thought in the mind of God, it's not clear what the meaning of the word "is" is. At times you seem to imply that the world is caused by thought and other times that it's constituted by thought.

    11:52 AM Delete

    read about Newton, the sensorium of God. the Korey book from closed world to open universe

    ReplyDelete

  8. Blogger Eric Sotnak said...
    Thanks for highlighting my post, Joe. But I fear you misunderstood at least one of the arguments I made there.

    You wrote: "Eric argues that Irreduceable Complexity (IC), a major argument in favor of ID, is more probably a product of naturalistic forces rather than supernatural."

    Actually, no, I didn't. What I said is that in order for the argument in favor of ID to succeed, the ID proponent must make a case that it is more probably that IC came about through ID than by purely naturalistic means. This is usually an implicit premise, buried in hand-waving about how improbable various organic structures are on naturalism. But it doesn't matter how improbable they are on naturalism unless it can also be argued that they are more probable on ID.

    You actually make the same point that I do when you say "But he can't make good on that claim because there is no way to subject God to probability." Except that you are responding to the claim that these structures are more probable on naturalism than supernaturalism (the claim I didn't make) whereas I am responding to the claim that they are more probable on supernaturalism than on naturalism. So we are actually in agreement (miracles do happen, I guess).

    Yes we in agreement that's why I don;t like design arguments and stay away from them,
    the exception I make is fine tuning I think the target levels change things. I insist that my transcendental signifies argument is not a design argument,



    Near the end of your post you say, "...mind can be the mechanism and the world is a thought in the mind of God."

    As far as speculation goes, I can't disprove that, nor do I intend on doing so, except to say that this is a very thin mechanism to propose unless you can also say more about how, in general, thought operates as a causal mechanism, and in particular, how it does so in the case of a being as presumably mysterious as God. What you re left with here is essentially no different, I think, than saying, "God does it by telepathy."

    Well I* don't think we have to do it at all.We just re cast the question "why believe in God?" in terms other than the illusion of technique; the technique of manipulation of matter does not give us any more knowledge of things beyond than philosophizing does. Being able to describe the process of creation or not being able to does not detriment God's reality. A sound and valid reason is all we need,that is given in religious experience. It's given in the Transcendental intensifier, in the nature of Being itself

    8:04 AM Delete

    ReplyDelete
  9. Saying that they don't make make assumptions but say they only use empirical data proves you don't understand the basic issues because there is no empirical data that tells us a priori that God does or odes not exist,(if there was we would not need Bayes to prove or disprove it) so you can't set the prior for God based upon factual data it has to be an assumption.
    - That's MY point. If you don't have some kind of basis to make a probability estimation, then you have nothing. I'm not saying that people don't make assumptions. Of course they do. But it is pointless to use mathematical calculations based on a wild guess that has no basis. The results are no better than a wild guess.


    No. It means as far as empirical evidence tells us God might or might not exist, it doesn't take possible worlds into account. In Baye's day they did not think about possible worlds that way.
    - Joe, I wasn't talking about using any particular way of making a probability estimation (empirical or otherwise). I was talking about having some basis for it. Just saying it's 50% because you have no way of making a real estimation is no better than a wild guess. It's worthless for the purpose of applying Bayes' theorem.

    ReplyDelete


  10. Metacrock:
    Saying that they don't make make assumptions but say they only use empirical data proves you don't understand the basic issues because there is no empirical data that tells us a priori that God does or odes not exist,(if there was we would not need Bayes to prove or disprove it) so you can't set the prior for God based upon factual data it has to be an assumption.


    - That's MY point. If you don't have some kind of basis to make a probability estimation, then you have nothing. I'm not saying that people don't make assumptions. Of course they do. But it is pointless to use mathematical calculations based on a wild guess that has no basis. The results are no better than a wild guess.

    where the hell did you get the idea that I'm using a mathematical calamitous to argue for the existence of God? I've been gagging against that or years. No your assumption is wrong, Probability is not the only way to think about belief in God. The way you formulated it you demanded empirical knowledge of God up front which makes any arrangement for it unnecessary. For example deductive reasoning is not a probability argument.Personal experience is an empirical argument but not one that needs quantification.

    Metacrock:
    No. It means as far as empirical evidence tells us God might or might not exist, it doesn't take possible worlds into account. In Baye's day they did not think about possible worlds that way.


    - Joe, I wasn't talking about using any particular way of making a probability estimation (empirical or otherwise). I was talking about having some basis for it. Just saying it's 50% because you have no way of making a real estimation is no better than a wild guess. It's worthless for the purpose of applying Bayes' theorem.

    That was the way Bayes did it. He didn't use his theorem to argue for God's existence. Just for miracles. So he could have new evidence coming in, With the existence of God we aren't likely to get that.

    I am arguing agaisnt using probability to predict the existnece of God please get That straight. Manipulating probability is the illusion of technique.


    ReplyDelete
  11. 7th Stooge: "It's true that theists can't explain how God implements his thoughts into material reality. But it's also problematic to explain how we humans implement our thoughts and intentions into material reality."

    Except that we now know that brain processes are at least a major part (if not all) of thought, and we know quite a bit about how brain processes initiate and respond to neuro-motor processes. I think it's fair to say these advances advance the case for naturalism at least somewhat, while the case for any dualist account of such connections are unchanged from what they were 300 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am arguing agaisnt using probability to predict the existnece of God please get That straight. Manipulating probability is the illusion of technique.
    - And I tried to point out to you that we agree on this. However, there is still a proper application of Bayes theorem (regardless of how it was originally used - it wasn't even his theorem, but it was based on his work). The point I made is that I'm not sure you understand prior probability - based on what you said.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Except that we now know that brain processes are at least a major part (if not all) of thought, and we know quite a bit about how brain processes initiate and respond to neuro-motor processes. I think it's fair to say these advances advance the case for naturalism at least somewhat, while the case for any dualist account of such connections are unchanged from what they were 300 years ago.

    I understand your position and I can see how the mounting scientific data can seem to be pointing to naturalism as the explanation for actions. I wouldn't say that the case for libertarianism is unchanged in the last 300 years, as libertarians have incorporated scientific research into their arguments. And philosophers without an agenda wh are familiar with the sci literature like Al Mele say that the research is far from conclusive either way. I think the crucial hurdle is in trying to understand what the question is and how the scientific data can apply to this question.

    ReplyDelete
  14. read about Newton, the sensorium of God. the Korey book from closed world to open universe

    But I was asking you what you mean when you say the universe is an idea in the mind of God.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But I was asking you what you mean when you say the universe is an idea in the mind of God.

    Pretty straight foreword.God is thinking of the universe and that makes it come into being and sustains it.Like if I;km writing a novel and the charters in the novel experience the plot in the way we experience life.

    ReplyDelete
  16. im-skeptical said...
    I am arguing agaisnt using probability to predict the existnece of God please get That straight. Manipulating probability is the illusion of technique.

    - And I tried to point out to you that we agree on this. However, there is still a proper application of Bayes theorem (regardless of how it was originally used - it wasn't even his theorem, but it was based on his work). The point I made is that I'm not sure you understand prior probability - based on what you said.

    the little phony always starts feeling his oats, Barney Fife reincarnated,

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Proper application of Bayes" does not make it applicable to God. It's applicable to many things but not to God.

    ReplyDelete
  18. the little phony always starts feeling his oats, Barney Fife reincarnated
    ...
    "Proper application of Bayes" does not make it applicable to God. It's applicable to many things but not to God.


    - Isn't is sad when I tell you I AGREE, and you're still trying to fight me on this point? Yes, it is really sad.

    AND YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND PRIOR PROBABILITY.

    ReplyDelete
  19. - Isn't is sad when I tell you I AGREE, and you're still trying to fight me on this point? Yes, it is really sad.

    I am begging to think you might argee on that, just think about it, be honest. ;-)

    AND YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND PRIOR PROBABILITY.


    who says I don't. because I didn't say something you wanted me to say or whatever? i didn't step into your trap in way you needed me to?

    you are basing that on a really sturdily idea you have about how to set the prior, you wanted to set it in such a way as to privilege the naturalistic view, you think that makes it scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am begging to think you might argee on that, just think about it, be honest. ;-)

    - I am begging you to READ WHAT I SAID : I AGREE. I couldn't say it any plainer than that. Why are you so obtuse?

    ReplyDelete
  21. you are basing that on a really sturdily idea you have about how to set the prior, you wanted to set it in such a way as to privilege the naturalistic view, you think that makes it scientific.

    - Once again, I am begging you to READ WHAT I SAID : "I wasn't talking about using any particular way of making a probability estimation (empirical or otherwise). I was talking about having some basis for it."

    This isn't about naturalism as a privileged way of determining prior probability. It's about having some kind of basis for making an estimation, whatever it may be. For god's sake, Joe, why do you always ignore what I say and insert your own version of it (as in "ATHEIST SAY SCIENCE GOOD - GOD BAD"), which is not what saying at all? You completely miss the point.

    ReplyDelete
  22. im-skeptical said...
    you are basing that on a really sturdily idea you have about how to set the prior, you wanted to set it in such a way as to privilege the naturalistic view, you think that makes it scientific.

    - Once again, I am begging you to READ WHAT I SAID : "I wasn't talking about using any particular way of making a probability estimation (empirical or otherwise). I was talking about having some basis for it."

    This isn't about naturalism as a privileged way of determining prior probability. It's about having some kind of basis for making an estimation, whatever it may be. For god's sake, Joe, why do you always ignore what I say and insert your own version of it (as in "ATHEIST SAY SCIENCE GOOD - GOD BAD"), which is not what saying at all? You completely miss the point.


    you are ignoring the obvious I already established, . God is not given in sense data there's not any empirical directly available evidence one way or the other,so the only fairway to talk about it if you are going to apply it to start by assuming 50-50.That is Victor Repert's argument. I agree with it.

    That is not the only Reasoner to refrain from applying Byes to Gods existence,but it's good enough or now.

    You are desperate to prove you known more than me but you don't.I don't care. Anyway,go try your gaslight techniques on other people I know I;m smarter than you and I am not interested in proving it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Joe, you are utterly hopeless. You don't hear one single word. NOTHING.


    Me: "My point is A."
    Joe: "You're so ignorant. B is not a C."
    Me: "That's not what I was saying. I was talking about A."
    Joe: "You're wrong. B is not as C."
    Me: "I agree that B is bot a C. That that wasn't my point.
    Joe: "But I already established that B is not as C."
    Me: "Listen to me. I'm not talking about that."
    Joe: "Stupid atheist. You just refuse to believe that B is not a C."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jim here's a post I did on it

    Yes, and all of my comments to that post still stand.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Pretty straight foreword.God is thinking of the universe and that makes it come into being and sustains it.Like if I;km writing a novel and the charters in the novel experience the plot in the way we experience life.

    To the extent to which those characters can be conscious and autonomous, then even if i was instrumental in their coming into being, they aren't 'mine,' other than causally.

    ReplyDelete
  27. To the extent to which those characters can be conscious and autonomous, then even if i was instrumental in their coming into being, they aren't 'mine,' other than causally.

    I don't understand why that'snot enough? It's the same basis upon which we belong to our parents. But moreover, it includes the possibility of everything else. All possibility is owes it's actuality to God.

    Our sense of autonomy is valid because the conception in God's mind is that of free will beings who decide for themselves and his concept of the world is an autonomous world that runs on its own devices., But even that independence we owe to God.

    ReplyDelete
  28. But the way you phrase it sounds like you're making an identity statement. Everything just IS a thought and nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't see that.God Can't focus on each event every quirk and bozon because that would be determinism. He only needs to focus on the general structures and answering prayer.

    ReplyDelete