Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2019 2:10 AM
14 online now:
(14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,045 Year: 7,081/19,786 Month: 1,622/1,581 Week: 1/443 Day: 1/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Methodological Naturalism is fallacious
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 50 (514380)
07-07-2009 6:40 AM


The problem with the natural assumption is that it is the very same thing as the God of the gaps fallacy. That is - it is also fallacious. Think with me for a moment.

Science is great when it comes to analyzing natural processes, repeatable experiment, and so forth. But when it comes to evolution, whether chemical or biological, you MUST include assumptions about questions pertaining to God. Such theories depend on a designer not being involved.

If you say that you can't include God in science - I agree. If you say you can continue to assess "truth" about nature - without God, I don't agree, because logically, you can now only come to a false conclusion, based on premisses which do not involve a Creator.

If I insist that a ferrari is designed, and have a theory that it is designed by itself, somehow, and I don't include a designer, strictly - then I must come to a conclusion that is natural - yes.

So you must come to a natural conclusion, about something which might not have been naturally created, LOGICALLY.

Therefore parsimony isn't quite the truth of the matter - the truth of the matter is that science can't include God, and rightfully so - but humans nevertheless want science to answer questions about origins.

My conclusion is that you are asking too much from science, when it is infact much more effective on a smaller scale. This is why big theories that pertain to big philosophical questions, will never hold the logical weight of pure science. (edit. I should add that yes I am aware that pure science on a smaller scale, also logically assumes that God isn't necessarily involved. However - I will let you figure out the rest. Rest-assured, I have thought it all through, as per usual.)

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 07-07-2009 9:12 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Huntard, posted 07-07-2009 9:24 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Phage0070, posted 07-07-2009 9:47 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-07-2009 9:56 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 07-07-2009 11:37 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Granny Magda, posted 07-07-2009 12:45 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 07-07-2009 2:18 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2009 5:55 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 50 by kbertsche, posted 08-12-2009 12:40 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 50 (517790)
08-02-2009 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
07-07-2009 2:18 PM


I have thought it all through, indeed, beyond your weak response.

The original point remains. It is still fallacious to proceed, " all it states is that science restricts itself to natural explanations ".

Logically this leads to ALL claims now being fallacious, so you make a moot point about it not being fallacious because one is still not allowed to conclude or include God. Try again.

It's pretty clear that you don't think that it's fallacious after all.

Close, but no cigar.

I believe in parsimony, it is not the same thing. You should have not assumed I did not know what I was saying.

If a sperm fertilizes an egg, and the process is observable and repeatable, this is not the equivalent of origins-claims. You have to go many, many steps further, and give nature a credit card with no interest.

Of course, that is not true. Excluding a true premise does not guarantee a false conclusion.

The point is that you can not know that the conclusion is true, if you ommit a potential truth.

If we have a murder, and we disregard a murderer, we guarantee a false conclusion that the knife-did-it, which is analogous to the truism of design requiring a designer, where design is obvious.

Your bit about the ferrari is vacuous because the point is that there is obviously a designer, where there is a design. You are bound to come to a false conclusion if you dismiss the possibility of a designer.

Now, with organisms, the "design" is much more sophisticated, therefore we can safely conclude that the problem is much, much greater because if you are going to assume the necessity of a designer is not there, and go for a natural approach, then you have a very weak syllogism, because of the pressure from designs.

I am unrefuted because it is fallacious to rule out a possible conclusion whether you state it or not.

Fact is that the GOTG is almost irrelevant, because the burden ofr proof is on those denying the truism of design.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 07-07-2009 2:18 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2009 5:11 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2009 5:19 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 12 of 50 (517791)
08-02-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Dr Adequate
07-08-2009 5:55 AM


It's irrelevant, the point of the analogy is to highlight how absurd it is to remove the designer. You are stating that there is no designer, given a much greater design-standard.

It's not that I don't understand MN, it's that I know that permitting nature to solve everything, is fallacious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-08-2009 5:55 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 4:43 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 13 of 50 (517793)
08-02-2009 4:41 PM


REMINDER OF WHAT AN ANALOGY IS

An analogy is designed to represent an example, not an argument in itself.

It is quite silly to assume that I would therefore believe that ferrari-designers are supernatural entities. A more thoughtful, logical approach will suffice.

I was not trying to show how MN is valid, but infact I was performing reductio ad absurdum, because nobody would assume a ferrari was not designed, given it's crude comparison to ANY organism.


  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 50 (517795)
08-02-2009 4:48 PM


ok guys - WHY, given how brilliant organisms are, should I assume the very great assumption of methodological naturalism?

This is the crux - that theories that are observable, testable, and parsimonious, are good science, because they rule out the fallacy BECAUSE they deal in facts.

With theories on origins, the fallacy is relevant BECAUSE you have to assume a great many things that are not repeatable, because of history not being repeatable.

Science is good, as I originally stated, for it's small albeit powerful effetiveness, but evolution, chemical and biological, does not rule out the fallacy because the difference is that smaller theories do not affect God's existence or lack thereof

Evolution rules out special creation, but sex by sperm and egg, doesn't.

The fallacy is that if God's existence cannot be ascertained, you cannot logically conclude that a special creator is OUT.

Think about the underlined part properly.


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2009 4:57 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2009 5:24 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2009 6:19 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 50 (517796)
08-02-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
08-02-2009 4:43 PM


Re: Design - A Sliding Scale
Here's my standard. Take any KNOWN design, and compare it with a similar design in nature.

My radio-controlled helicopter is 60 grams, and can NOT deal with a slight breeze, despite being a good thoughtful, mechanical device.

Meanwhile, a hover fly is 1% of 1 gram, and I observed it hover in a brisk breeze.

Now logically, if a designer designed the lesser design, tell me why I should assume that the grand design would not require a designer.

Try answering my questions for once, instead of asking, asking, asking.

HOW does a designer NOT follow design.

YOU HAVE BIG BIG PROBLEMS GUYS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 4:43 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 5:01 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 18 of 50 (517798)
08-02-2009 4:59 PM


FINAL POST
MESSAGE 15 CONTAINS A LOT OF THINGS UNSAID, AND I REASONABLY NOMINATE IT AS MY RESPONSE TO ANY FURTHER POSTS

-- My personal views on the conclusion of the topic. I still think methodological naturalism was, an attitude. People wanted to say, "how about not having supernatural answers?"

To me - that's a fair thing to proceed with, but I do not think that organisms can be denied. Let's face it - animated matter? What WOULD constitue a miracle, if not this? This is beyond amazing. Shame you can't see it as the truism it is.

(BTW, evolutionary scientists admitt design, but not necessarily a designer, despite it being the best answer for the facts.)

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 19 of 50 (517799)
08-02-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Theodoric
08-02-2009 4:57 PM


I have discussed it before. Compositionally, I can break down the IPU as being a vacuous invented item, invoked for the purpose of argument. This does not "remove" design in organisms. I do not want to discuss the IPU and it's compositional problems, ad nausueam.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2009 4:57 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2009 5:03 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 23 of 50 (517805)
08-02-2009 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Theodoric
08-02-2009 5:03 PM


hahaha. "evidence" is the weak consequent in a modus ponen form, because of the power of tollens, to falsify. Therefore I do not claim any evidence, in the knowledge of how weak it is. I infact call on facts.

The designs in organisms, no matter what anyone says, are excellent, and therefore we have what is called a truism of design. Therefore, logically, a designer reasonably follows.

There is lots of evidence for false theories by the way - otherwise, I ask you this; how could they have been dismissed, if they were not for a time accepted? Therein lies the key to this problem; that being that "evidence" only makes a theory viable. I am not stating theory - but I see with my eyes the facts before me. My whole being cannot deny that which is before my eyes.

therefore i have no evidence, i have something far greater!

MESSAGE 15 PLEASE now guys, you are too keen to swamp me. I understand, but I am only one man.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2009 5:03 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2009 5:18 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 26 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2009 5:19 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 08-02-2009 5:29 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 37 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2009 5:41 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 25 of 50 (517808)
08-02-2009 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
08-02-2009 5:11 PM


No - the burden of proof is not upon me when design is a truism even evolutionary scientists know of!! The burden is to prove that a designer does not follow.

The only genuine reason that I can think of to dismiss a designer, is because you don't want Him to be there. It was a position of naturalists in the past to promote and find a way of explaining things without the supernatural, but that does not grant a logical permission slip. You have one power - parsimony, and a freedom to conclude anything. EXCEPT a designer.

Think about it again, what I said in message 15 - you do not need to refuse a designer for a theory of sex, because of observable fact, and because it does not rule out a special creator. Evolution does, even though nobody knows for sure if the special creator existed. It is an obvious flaw and difference. Why deny it? Because if you accept one thing I say, you think you might have to accept more things I say. Do you really seek truth? Admitt the flaw is there. There is a difference, do not lie.

Can't you see that the fallacious goes underneathe, and comes out on top. You can't hide it from wisdom. It is there - the conclusion of a none-designer based on naturalist-bias.

Sorry i provoked you - but you say things like, "you clearly haven't thought it htrough", and it annoys me. Why do you feel the need to provoke me to anger, when I know I have thought it through, and that YOU know that I am thoughtful?

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2009 5:11 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 5:24 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 36 by PaulK, posted 08-02-2009 5:38 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 30 of 50 (517813)
08-02-2009 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by bluescat48
08-02-2009 5:19 PM


No - you need to think before saying things about me. Logically, they are excellent designs, but very nasty, unpleasant realities. There is a difference.

There is a biblical explanation known as the "curse" or the "fall". You ahve NOT thought about the logical difference between internal consistency and exterior effects.

example - heart disease because of eating badly. This is not a design problem with the heart. The diseases aren't design-problems, they are effective in their task.

Appealing to a benevolent creator is not relevant to biblical theism, only philosophical theism because philosophical theism does not help the "problem of evil".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2009 5:19 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Theodoric, posted 08-02-2009 5:46 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2009 5:57 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 45 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2009 10:18 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 31 of 50 (517814)
08-02-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Straggler
08-02-2009 5:24 PM


Re: NOT Designed
How can I give an example of something in nature which is not designer if I believe in a creator of everything? I would expect, however, designs on a level less than human design, given there is not thought behind design, when we assume mutation and selection.

It seems my questions cannot be answered even though I am but one man.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 5:24 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 5:29 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 34 of 50 (517819)
08-02-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
08-02-2009 5:19 PM


Re: Fallacious
I have spoken to you before about "all the evidence"

I have a red-ball theory, that only red balls are in a bag, and I have so far picked out one million redballs, and no other colours.

hey - guess what> I have just picked out ONE green ball. END OF THEORY. Search "fallacy of exclusivity". nevertheless, I repeat these things to you do I not?

I do not agree that all the evidence fits the conclusion in any way whatsoever. I believe there is evidence for creation and evolution. How can I believe this?

YOU answer me! You think it through - they are not mutually exclusive?.............but why?.....................is it there yet?.............it's because evidence is only something which makes a theory "viable". The term, "confirm" doesn't mean "prove" BECAUSE of the power of the modus tollens. It simply means that if theory X is true, then evidence Y will follow.

The evolutionary evidence is vague, and selective. (assumption of transitionals for example).

You need to think it through more objectively. Remember - I have been evolutionist so I am not our for falsehood, I am out for truth, and will hunt it without mercy. (which meant personal depression for me, and suffering).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 08-02-2009 5:19 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 50 (517820)
08-02-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by cavediver
08-02-2009 5:29 PM


LOL.

Was the hover fly example piss-poor. This amazes me about you guys - define "piss-poor" in a fallen world, baring in mind that this "old system of things" is due to pass away?

You have to look to the systems themselves. Dawkins dissected the croc, and shown the extra aorta, and the brilliance of the stomache, but it was handwaved away.

Friend, I don't have the time to give you my book's worth of posts on just how special organisms are.

As for an all-seeing prophet, no, I am ignorant in many areas, obtuse in more areas, confused most of the time, but I have one thing you do not have because the bible says that you are not allowed it because He won't give it to those who do not believe in Him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by cavediver, posted 08-02-2009 5:29 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 08-02-2009 6:17 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 38 of 50 (517823)
08-02-2009 5:43 PM


FRIENDS CALM DOWN
CALM down now guys, I am but a man, even though I am irrefutable..

Haha, I know, I know, I am rare, but you cannot expect me to have an answer for everything, afterall, am I omniscient?

This really is my final post, I re-assert message 15. I must stop because the speed of my typing renders my posts incoherent. I have an answer for everything, even though it is a disagreeable one, so I am frustrated that I am limited.

Thanks for the interest,

I am sure you wil, as per usual, enjoy that juicy last word.

Sorry if I got a bit snappy, but people say things on a personal level and I really must stress that I am only out for the exchange of rational information.


  
1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019