(June 7, 2012 at 11:57 pm)libalchris Wrote:

(June 7, 2012 at 11:45 pm)elunico13 Wrote: So then give your logical justification for the future to be like the past.

This is what science relies on in order to get the same results for the same experiment.

How is that of any relevance to what I just said? Are you just quoting from some website or something? I mean seriously, what's your point behind asking that?

The answer is simply because it works. Every experiment ever performed has shown our universe behaves in predictable ways. There's never been a case observed where the universe didn't behave in a predictable way.

I would like to note that science doesn't rely on uniformity to get the same results for the same experiment, you've got it backwards. We do the same experiment and get the same results from it each time, therefore establishing a principle of uniformity.

The point was to expose your beliefs in a post. Thank you for finally answering. Science only works for you because you are inconsistent with what you believe and biblical creation is true.


Let me point out that uniformitarianism is incorrect when it says "the past is the key to the future." If that were the case then I guess I'll never die since I never have in the past. It's ridiculous to think that way.

You say science establishes a "principle" of uniformity because of multiple experiments with consistent results. It DOESN'T rely on uniformity. WOW!

Well there isn't much confidence in that sort of reasoning since MANY things in nature change. You do agree I hope!

You are assuming that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

ALL systems of epistemological inquiry start with axioms (or assumptions or presuppositions, if you prefer), even yours, whether you recognize it or not.

Properly, the question is not whether these axioms are provable - by definition, they cannot, they are self-evident, at least to the person holding them as axiomatic - but whether it is justifiable to treat them as such. Our observations are consistent with a reality that conforms to the principle of uniformity, and so from the scientific viewpoint, that axiom is justified. If our observations were not consistent with the principle of uniformity, then clearly, treating it as axiomatic would be unjustifiable and we'd have a problem. They aren't, so we don't.

You're free to disagree, of course, and I expect you will.

I'll also note that even if we couldn't justify our own axioms (even if not to your satisfaction), it in no way relieves you of the intellectual obligation to justify your own. Put another way, even if we're completely and utterly wrong, that says nothing about the truth value of your proposition.

(June 8, 2012 at 1:04 am)elunico13 Wrote: The point was to expose your beliefs in a post. Thank you for finally answering. Science only works for you because you are inconsistent with what you believe and biblical creation is true.


Let me point out that uniformitarianism is incorrect when it says "the past is the key to the future." If that were the case then I guess I'll never die since I never have in the past. It's ridiculous to think that way.

You say science establishes a "principle" of uniformity because of multiple experiments with consistent results. It DOESN'T rely on uniformity. WOW!

Well there isn't much confidence in that sort of reasoning since MANY things in nature change. You do agree I hope!

You are assuming that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

I'm genuinely having a difficult time responding to something so nonsensical. I really don't see any kind of coherent logic anywhere. I genuinely can't respond if I don't know what your argument is.

Let me point out though that you misunderstood about what I said science's relationship was with uniformity. Let me explain completely. Experiments and observations have shown that the universe behaves in predictable, rational ways. Using that, we can assume that, for the most part, fundamental laws stay the same in the future, and have been the same throughout the past, unless there is reason to suspect something caused change. For example, you have not died in the past, but we cannot assume you will never die in the future, because known biological processes show that you will one day die. The universe is expanding, but we cannot assume it has always been because that would be impossible, it had to have started expanding at a minimal size.

---

(June 8, 2012 at 1:19 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: ALL systems of epistemological inquiry start with axioms (or assumptions or presuppositions, if you prefer), even yours, whether you recognize it or not.

Properly, the question is not whether these axioms are provable - by definition, they cannot, they are self-evident, at least to the person holding them as axiomatic - but whether it is justifiable to treat them as such. Our observations are consistent with a reality that conforms to the principle of uniformity, and so from the scientific viewpoint, that axiom is justified. If our observations were not consistent with the principle of uniformity, then clearly, treating it as axiomatic would be unjustifiable and we'd have a problem. They aren't, so we don't.

You're free to disagree, of course, and I expect you will.

I'll also note that even if we couldn't justify our own axioms (even if not to your satisfaction), it in no way relieves you of the intellectual obligation to justify your own. Put another way, even if we're completely and utterly wrong, that says nothing about the truth value of your proposition.

This is where this whole conversation is going I think, I've seen it before. It's called presuppositional apologetics. Our friend here will say that his axiom is the holy bible. In other words, he makes his arguments that God exists, by assuming God exists.

This is why at this point I think I'm done with this conversation. I refuse to argue points like this for 2 reasons.
1. Presuppositional apologetics is bullshit. It's circular reasoning to attempt to prove the bible by assuming the bible is true.
2. It's worthless philosophical bullshit. Discussing things like this is worthless and accomplishes nothing. Unifomitarianism works because it has been observed. Every observation and experiment ever done has shown that physical laws don't change unless another predictable physical process causes them to. We can apply the principle of uniformity to radiometric dating, for example, because we understand what causes radioactive decay, and have run numerous experiments that show radioactive decay simply does not change.

(June 7, 2012 at 11:27 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Now you're getting into science when you mention gravity. Science relies on the Law of uniformity. Don't you recognize that no one can account for these preconditions of intelligibility without the biblical God.

So you haven't come up with any justification for logic according to your worldview. How do you account for the law of uniformity which science presupposes? Simpler terms... How do you know the future will be like the past?

Let me guess... "because the future has always been like the past in the past".

Lets see if you recognize the problem with the answer that I most commonly get from atheists.

I like your arguments here but I think they're too long-winded in your presentation. I have a shorter version:

N'yeth N';Yeth, you don't know everything, therefore Jesus!

To which the proper response would be , "nyeh, nyeh, we know nothing therefore waffles now prove me wrong!"

(June 8, 2012 at 8:49 am)Rhythm Wrote: To which the proper response would be , "nyeh, nyeh, we know nothing therefore waffles now prove me wrong!"

That sounds every bit as logical as presuppositionalism.

Except that I can show you a waffle. My presupposition is just that much more valuable than the god presupposition.

(June 8, 2012 at 1:19 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: ALL systems of epistemological inquiry start with axioms (or assumptions or presuppositions, if you prefer), even yours, whether you recognize it or not.

Properly, the question is not whether these axioms are provable - by definition, they cannot, they are self-evident, at least to the person holding them as axiomatic - but whether it is justifiable to treat them as such. Our observations are consistent with a reality that conforms to the principle of uniformity, and so from the scientific viewpoint, that axiom is justified. If our observations were not consistent with the principle of uniformity, then clearly, treating it as axiomatic would be unjustifiable and we'd have a problem. They aren't, so we don't.

Looks like we have a case of empiricism here.
Well if your observations were consistent in noticing uniformity that's what I would expect as a believer in biblical creation. The laws of uniformity were already pre-existent for your observations to discover them.
My justification for the laws of uniformity and the whole reason science works is because the biblical God consistently keeps this universe in motion. Night and day, the seasons, orbits, life cycles, etc... He is omnipresent so I would also expect uniformity throughout the entire universe and also laws of logic to apply.

When I get answers like "science works because it works" that's a pretty arbitrary answer for the justification of uniformity.

Without justification for the law of uniformity from the evolutionist it becomes as arbitrary as a child believing in Santa Clause coming down the chimney Christmas Eve.

I would have to call you out on your conclusion above.
You're assuming your observations are giving you reliable information. Plus if empiricism is your method then you must have empirically come to that conclusion which is impossible since knowledge is not observable.

If you disagree then tell me what color it is.

All wisdom and knowledge is hidden in Christ.

---

(June 8, 2012 at 1:23 am)libalchris Wrote: This is why at this point I think I'm done with this conversation. I refuse to argue points like this for 2 reasons.
1. Presuppositional apologetics is bullshit. It's circular reasoning to attempt to prove the bible by assuming the bible is true.
2. It's worthless philosophical bullshit. Discussing things like this is worthless and accomplishes nothing. Unifomitarianism works because it has been observed. Every observation and experiment ever done has shown that physical laws don't change unless another predictable physical process causes them to. We can apply the principle of uniformity to radiometric dating, for example, because we understand what causes radioactive decay, and have run numerous experiments that show radioactive decay simply does not change.

No worries. If I had your worldview I'd be frustrated too.

(June 8, 2012 at 1:04 am)elunico13 Wrote: ...


Let me point out that uniformitarianism is incorrect when it says "the past is the key to the future." If that were the case then I guess I'll never die since I never have in the past. It's ridiculous to think that way.

...

Wow, that's a terrible analogy. We know that it's extremely likely that each us of will die eventually because billions of other people have died in the past and continue to today.

(June 8, 2012 at 5:42 pm)elunico13 Wrote: My justification for the laws of uniformity and the whole reason science works is because the biblical God consistently keeps this universe in motion. Night and day, the seasons, orbits, life cycles, etc... He is omnipresent so I would also expect uniformity throughout the entire universe and also laws of logic to apply.

To anyone not indoctrinated into the cult of Christ, this seems a very shallow answer.

"Why do we have morality?"
"GodWillsIt"
"Why is there order in the universe?"
"GodDidIt"
"What is the meaning to our existence?"
"GodIsIt"

The three word answer to everything: "God", a verb, and "It".

How does that elucidate anything for us? Never mind the underlying assumption of yours that "God" must be Yahweh/Jesus and not Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, Allah or many others. How does such a vapid three-word answer provide you with any greater understanding of any of these abstract philosophical issues?

The answer, of course, is that presuppositional nonsense isn't about understanding anything. It's about finding a reason to justify a belief that you already held before you even got started. Like most other canned apologetic philoso-babble, you start with the conclusions of your faith and try to find a way to work back to it.

The point you keep missing in your quest to invent evidence where none exists is that logical rules and scientific laws are not "things" nor are they mysterious forces that require the existence of a divine hand to maintain them. There is no magical power that prevents you from contradicting yourself nor is there some angel that stops you from creating or destroying energy or matter. They are nothing more than observations of reality and our way of measuring them. They no more shape our reality than a ruler creates distance.

Your demands that we justify why we use logic or science can be paraphrased into "I demand you figure out a reason why we figure things out without using the process to figure things out."

Then you say "GodWillsIt" (as if that explains anything) and follow it up with the hilarious non sequitur "Nyeth nyeth you don't know everything therefore Jesus" (to quote an earlier post that put it so well).

Quote:When I get answers like "science works because it works" that's a pretty arbitrary answer for the justification of uniformity.

Why do we need to provide you an answer at all? In the first place, you've asked an absurd question, that we figure out why we figure things out without using a process to figure things out. In the second place, not all preferences require any justification.

If I were to tell you "I like strawberry ice cream" and you ask me "why" and I tell you "I like the sensory inputs it leaves on my tongue" (I like the results it produces), this is a perfectly valid reason as far as personal tastes go. If you tell me "Well, I don't like strawberry ice cream" I will tell you, "Well, don't order it then."

Conversely, if I were to tell you "I like living in a rational society where science is ascendant" and you ask me "why", I will tell you "because I like the results it brings as opposed to what Western Civilization endured before the Age of Enlightenment. Now, if that's not your cup of tea, as with the ice cream example above, I'll tell you to join some cult's commune if you prefer magical thinking.

Quote:All wisdom and knowledge is hidden in Christ.

And he keeps it hidden, it would seem, since the Golden Age of Christianity is known to the rest of us as The Dark Ages. I prefer science, which has a better track record, but that's just my personal tastes, I guess. Go live in an Amish village if you don't like it.

---

(June 8, 2012 at 5:42 pm)elunico13 Wrote: No worries. If I had your worldview I'd be frustrated too.

Don't confuse all the face-palmings for a sign of victory. The frustration is not from the devastation of your arguments but from the painful realization that we have so far yet to go before we can achieve a truly rational society.