(October 3, 2021 at 4:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Appearance of design is not the same as evidence for design.

And what do you suggest, that we neglect the appearances that reach our senses?

The problem of other minds is very useful here to think about. The appearance of other people is not the same as evidence for people. Should we endorse solipsism, then?

(October 3, 2021 at 4:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The prevalence of pediatric bone cancer is irrelevant. 

It is relevant actually. If you are trying to reject theism based on observations of bone cancer or other instances of evil, then you have to prove that evil is prevalent under the assumption of theism.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:  there is nothing that is not evidence of God.

Attaboyyy. I completely agree.

(October 3, 2021 at 3:53 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 3:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Dude, ya can't just point at a pretty fish and declare it evidence of God. 

Actually, I can. The appearance of design is why the vast majority of people believe in God. If you think evolution is a valid defeater to design, you still have to rule out theistic evolution/guided evolution.

(October 3, 2021 at 3:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:  you can move on to try demonstrating why bone cancer in children is evidence for God.

Is bone cancer an exception, or the state of the majority of children in the world? I want a clear answer. 

Do you think it makes sense to make inference from exceptions, and not from the health status of the majority who don't have bone cancer?

---

(October 3, 2021 at 3:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:  And since mundane explanations are the preferred explanation for mundane phenomena, the God explanation automatically loses the position of 'most likely'.

It's really ironic that you mention the word mundane -which originates from the French word mondain=worldly. Something that is worldly belongs to the world. A mundane(worldly) explanation is an explanation inside the world.... How does that make you dispense with the creator of the world... outside the world ????

If a mundane (inside the world) explanation is possible, why would a non-mundane one be required? It's like saying that angels are guiding the planets in such a way that it *looks* like there is gravity.

While those angels aren't *forbidden*, the fact that gravity works according to laws we can discover suggests that the angel explanation isn't a very good one.

Likewise, if evolution by natural selection is sufficient to explain the observed variations in living things, then adding a deity to the explanation is to complicate matters unnecessarily.

(October 3, 2021 at 3:48 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(September 23, 2021 at 11:23 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Instead of starting with a beginning-less past until the present, start with the present and go back into the past (which astronomers do with telescopes); you'll simply go on forever and ever.

Start with the present and go back into the past...........Um, seriously ? 

Discussing the past and the present is not like discussing a set of numbers. Again, you're simply equivocating between an actual infinity and a potential infinity. An eternal past is an actual infinity, we can't just jump to the present, we really did go through an eternal past to get here. And because one can't go through an infinite period of time, an eternal past is impossible.

Yes, seriously; there are peer-reviewed papers in The Physical Review Letters that discuss this very possibility.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 4:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Appearance of design is not the same as evidence for design.

And what do you suggest, that we neglect the appearances that reach our senses?

The problem of other minds is very useful here to think about. The appearance of other people is not the same as evidence for people. Should we endorse solipsism, then?

No. But appearances need to be upheld by hypotheses and rigorous testing of those hypotheses. Any hypothesis that is inherently untestable can be dismissed as not being an explanation at all.

Quote:

(October 3, 2021 at 4:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The prevalence of pediatric bone cancer is irrelevant. 

It is relevant actually. If you are trying to reject theism based on observations of bone cancer or other instances of evil, then you have to prove that evil is prevalent under the assumption of theism.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:  there is nothing that is not evidence of God.

Attaboyyy. I completely agree.

Which means that the 'God Hypothesis' is inherently untestable. And *that* is enough to disqualify it as a reasonable explanation of anything.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: But if there was no beginning, then the time interval between any two *actually existing* times is always finite.

So what ? In an eternal past, there are infinitely many segments of finite time. 

(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, I am talking about an *actually infinite* past. In other words, that there i no beginning. In other words, that there is an infinite regress of causes.

Why would *that* imply we 'could never get here'?

Because if there is no finite past, there can't be a present moment. An actually infinite past will take an infinite amount of wait by definition. Waiting infinitely for X means that X never happens, period.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Give a detailed argument why there could not be an infinite past that doesn't simply claim that we could not 'get here' without an argument *why* we couldn't.

In particular, when you say we couldn't 'get here', exactly *from where* are you saying it is impossible?

Precisely, because there is no *from where*. There is no starting point when we assume an infinite past. You can't just pick a moment and start with it, if you do that, you are not talking about an actual infinity any more, you will be considering the past a potential infinity, just like numbers. It's as if you skip all the (infinitely many) negative numbers and start from 0, false.

---

(October 3, 2021 at 4:18 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Which means that the 'God Hypothesis' is inherently untestable. And *that* is enough to disqualify it as a reasonable explanation of anything.

The God hypothesis is not empirical by definition. Testability/falsifiability/explanatory power criteria can only be applied to empirical hypotheses.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:22 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: But if there was no beginning, then the time interval between any two *actually existing* times is always finite.

So what ? In an eternal past, there are infinitely many segments of finite time. [/o? No contradiction there that I can see.

Quote:

(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, I am talking about an *actually infinite* past. In other words, that there i no beginning. In other words, that there is an infinite regress of causes.

Why would *that* imply we 'could never get here'?

Because if there is no finite past, there can't be a present moment. An actually infinite past will take an infinite amount of wait by definition. Waiting infinitely for X means that X never happens, period.

What 'wait'? From when to when?

Once again, you make a claim that is irrelevant to the point. An infinite amount of time has *already* happened at any point of time. So there is no waiting that needs to be done.

Think of the negative integers. There are infinitely many numbers before 0, but yet 0 certainly appears. And yes, the collection of numbers before 0 is an *actual* infinity.

[/quote]

(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Give a detailed argument why there could not be an infinite past that doesn't simply claim that we could not 'get here' without an argument *why* we couldn't.

In particular, when you say we couldn't 'get here', exactly *from where* are you saying it is impossible?

Precisely, because there is no *from where*. There is no starting point when we assume an infinite past. You can't just pick a moment and start with it, if you do that, you are not talking about an actual infinity any more, you will be considering the past a potential infinity, just like numbers. It's as if you skip all the (infinitely many) negative numbers and start from 0, false.[/quote]

EXACTLY. There is no start. it has always been running. At any point of time you pick there has *already been an infinite amount of time that has passed*. No starting point is needed! There is no 'infinite wait' because an infinite past already occurred.

Any negative number you pick already has an infinite number of precursors. There is no start. And *that* is the point: there is no start, But that doesn't mean the system can't exist at all. And, in fact, the negative integers show that there is no *logical* contradiction involved.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:15 pm)polymath257 Wrote: If a mundane (inside the world) explanation is possible, why would a non-mundane one be required? It's like saying that angels are guiding the planets in such a way that it *looks* like there is gravity.

Because the world in itself warrants a cause. Angels guiding planets isn't exactly the same as the designer of the universe. Angels didn't cause the existence of planets, they are a simple substitute (or a complement) to natural laws. God, on the other hand, is posited as a lawgiver.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:22 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: But if there was no beginning, then the time interval between any two *actually existing* times is always finite.

So what ? In an eternal past, there are infinitely many segments of finite time. 

(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Yes, I am talking about an *actually infinite* past. In other words, that there i no beginning. In other words, that there is an infinite regress of causes.

Why would *that* imply we 'could never get here'?

Because if there is no finite past, there can't be a present moment. An actually infinite past will take an infinite amount of wait by definition. Waiting infinitely for X means that X never happens, period.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Give a detailed argument why there could not be an infinite past that doesn't simply claim that we could not 'get here' without an argument *why* we couldn't.

In particular, when you say we couldn't 'get here', exactly *from where* are you saying it is impossible?

Precisely, because there is no *from where*. There is no starting point when we assume an infinite past. You can't just pick a moment and start with it, if you do that, you are not talking about an actual infinity any more, you will be considering the past a potential infinity, just like numbers. It's as if you skip all the (infinitely many) negative numbers and start from 0, false.

---

(October 3, 2021 at 4:18 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Which means that the 'God Hypothesis' is inherently untestable. And *that* is enough to disqualify it as a reasonable explanation of anything.

The God hypothesis is not empirical by definition. Testability/falsifiability/explanatory power criteria can only be applied to empirical hypotheses.

Why is that? It seems to me that it can be applied to pretty much any hypothesis.

For example, mathematics is not an empirical endeavor. But testability and falsifiability is a part of it: the goal is to prove things from a recognized set of axioms. if the rules of deduction are violate, the claim (of a proof) is invalidated and the problem remains open.

In order to be a 'truth claim' at all requires that there be some collection of principles that allow one to discard falsehoods. That in and of itself is a form of testability. So, if I say that Thor exists, is there a way to show that wrong if, in fact, it is wrong? if not, then it can't even be said to have a truth value at all.

---

(October 3, 2021 at 4:32 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 4:15 pm)polymath257 Wrote: If a mundane (inside the world) explanation is possible, why would a non-mundane one be required? It's like saying that angels are guiding the planets in such a way that it *looks* like there is gravity.

Because the world in itself warrants a cause. Angels guiding planets isn't exactly the same as the designer of the universe. Angels didn't cause the existence of planets, they are a simple substitute (or a complement) to natural laws. God, on the other hand, is posited as a lawgiver.

I disagree. First, all causality we have ever seen has been *inside* of the universe. hence, it is reasonable to assume that is always the case. Empirically, it is certainly correct.

The angels cause the motion of the planets in my scenario. As such, the fact that there are alternatives shows the hypothesis to be unnecessary.

in regard to evolution, the fact that mutation and natural selection are enough to explain the observed variations is enough to show that the 'God Hypothesis' is unnecessary to explain the diversity of life. And that shows that beautiful fish *cannot* be evidence of a deity.

Yes, God is posited as a 'law giver', but through what process does that happen? What more fundamental law allows for such a lawgiver to exist? And how does a mere postulation of such a lawgiver show that such a thing actually exists? The evidence has to come about *without* assuming the existence ahead of time. otherwise you simply have a circular argument.

(October 3, 2021 at 3:53 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(October 3, 2021 at 3:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Dude, ya can't just point at a pretty fish and declare it evidence of God. 

Actually, I can. The appearance of design is why the vast majority of people believe in God.

Incorrect.  The vast majority of people who believe in gods do so because their parents believed in gods.  

Quote:If you think evolution is a valid defeater to design, you still have to rule out theistic evolution/guided evolution.

If you want to assert that god guides evolution in any way... you can just point out the place where god touches the genetics.  It will be manifestly apparent.  That is, after all, how we know when a genetic line has been designed in a lab.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:22 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: The God hypothesis is not empirical by definition. Testability/falsifiability/explanatory power criteria can only be applied to empirical hypotheses.

The appearance of design is empirical, by definition.  Get your shit together. If you want to insist that your god is hidden, that's fine - but you'll have to do without the appearance of this or that...and, if you want to insist on the appearance of this or that...that's fine too..but you'll have to do without the notion that the god hypothesis is not an empirically testable claim.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:29 pm)polymath257 Wrote: What 'wait'? From when to when?

Once again, you make a claim that is irrelevant to the point. An infinite amount of time has *already* happened at any point of time. So there is no waiting that needs to be done.

Think of the negative integers. There are infinitely many numbers before 0, but yet 0 certainly appears. And yes, the collection of numbers before 0 is an *actual* infinity.

Again, integers or numbers in general are absolutely not a valid analogy. There is no causal chain or temporal relationship between 1 and 2, 9 and 10, etc. They are imaginary constructs. The arrow of time, on the other hand, is not an imaginary construct, we can't jump between moments in time as we please, we have to go through Monday to get to Tuesday.

Above, you are simply begging the question, you assume that an infinite amount of time happened and then happily define a new start for yourself. Well, the entire discussion is about the logically impossible occurence of this infinite amount of time. If you assume that infinite past happened and then say no waiting is needed, you assumed your conclusion. Circular.

If I tell you I had an infinitely long childhood? Would you accept such a claim? Or would you simply retort: how did I get to adulthood, then? 

Similary, the universe/multiverse had to go through the purported infinite past -impossible.

(October 3, 2021 at 4:11 pm)polymath257 Wrote: EXACTLY. There is no start. it has always been running At any point of time you pick there has *already been an infinite amount of time that has passed*. No starting point is needed! There is no 'infinite wait' because an infinite past already occurred.

Any negative number you pick already has an infinite number of precursors. There is no start. And *that* is the point: there is no start, But that doesn't mean the system can't exist at all. And, in fact, the negative integers show that there is no *logical* contradiction involved.

As above, your statements about infinite wait are circular because you assume an infinite past already occurred. The contention is precisely that it cannot occur, you can't just brazenly assume its occurence.

And the second you decide to pick your starting moment, you shifted from the real to the imaginary. 

(October 3, 2021 at 4:34 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Why is that? It seems to me that it can be applied to pretty much any hypothesis.

For example, mathematics is not an empirical endeavor. But testability and falsifiability is a part of it: the goal is to prove things from a recognized set of axioms. if the rules of deduction are violate, the claim (of a proof) is invalidated and the problem remains open.

In order to be a 'truth claim' at all requires that there be some collection of principles that allow one to discard falsehoods. That in and of itself is a form of testability. So, if I say that Thor exists, is there a way to show that wrong if, in fact, it is wrong? if not, then it can't even be said to have a truth value at all.

I don't think falsifiability can be extended to mathematics. Falsifiability in inherently linked to experiments, and there is no experiment in mathematics.

The assertion "Thor exists" is unfalsifiable, but unfalsifiable doesn't imply false, the best thing we can do is to be fair to Thor, and suspend judgement. There are many unfalsifiable assertions that turned out to be true, if one tells you that there is a black swan in a time when all known historical records of swans reported they are white, it's clear that the statement "There is a black swan" can't be falsified. You can't derive an experiment that rules out the existence of black swans,, and yet it turned out they are real.

---

(October 3, 2021 at 4:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Incorrect.  The vast majority of people who believe in gods do so because their parents believed in gods.  

That's not true I think. Believing in God comes naturally to many people, and it doesn't have anything to do with their parents' beliefs.

Children display a bias for teleological explanations:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296364/

(October 3, 2021 at 4:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If you want to assert that god guides evolution in any way... you can just point out the place where god touches the genetics.  

Why? Why should I point out precisely where or how God intervened? You surely would agree that a deity can create a self sufficient world where genetics take care of things...

---

(October 3, 2021 at 4:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: and, if you want to insist on the appearance of this or that...that's fine too..but you'll have to do without the notion that the god hypothesis is not an empirically testable claim.

Now you're absolutely mistaken about this one. God (as in traditional belief systems) has purportedly rare direct manifestations in the material world, and may do so exclusively through miracles. Miracles are rarely occuring events by definition. An empirically testable claim has to be about repeatable, even reproducible phenomena. A divine miracle is not repeatable nor reproducible.

And because of that, the god hypothesis cannot be an empirically testable claim. This is a textbook category mistake. Ah.. and a nice attempt to strawman, also.