RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 19, 2018 at 12:56 pm
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2018 at 1:54 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(March 18, 2018 at 8:44 pm)SteveII Wrote:(March 17, 2018 at 12:45 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: He doesn’t have to. You need to demonstrate that it is more likely true than not true, and with some actual evidence. Philosophy alone isn’t going to cut it.
That is the ONLY option. You cannot talk about "scientific" for things prior to the first moments of the universe. Full Stop.
Agreed. So, if we have no access to observations or data “beyond” that point, then we cannot make any predictions, assumptions, or extrapolations at all. Full Stop. What’s baffling is your continued insistence that we can accurately apply philosophical principles from within our known universe out across this unknowable state, despite the fact that we have no information about it.
You provided a nice wiki article earlier about how philosophy and science work together. Just as science is headless without philosophy, philosophy without science is wholly untethered to the real world. If philosophy is our only option in this instance, then there is no way to determine a probability one way or the other, and and premise 1. is completely unjustified. Without access to tangible information, you simply can’t say a damn thing about abstract causal principles beyond our universe.
Quote:All of our intuitions about reality (not just our universe) screams out a causal principle.
So your whole case for determining that premise 1 is more likely true than not is human intuition? That’s weak, Steve. Plenty of facts about reality go against our “screaming” intuition. Surely you know this. No way of getting around it? Human intuition is demonstrably fallible. There. I just got around it.
So again; there is no way of avoiding the composition fallacy here before we even get to the ‘therefore god’ stuff.
Quote:Regarding your first point about category error, yes--comparing God to physical laws is an obvious and silly category error and shouldn't be done. This is not that.
Regarding you second point, is there any reason whatsoever to think that causal principles only apply within the universe?
Wrong question. The right question is: is there any reason to think that they should? Because, your argument assumes that they do, and if you can’t justify that assumption, it’s a damn composition fallacy.
Quote:Why are scientist talking about string theory, multiverses, etc.?
Because they’re scientific theories, Steve. Category error; remember?
