RE: Deism for non-believers
June 10, 2012 at 10:34 am
(This post was last modified: June 10, 2012 at 10:50 am by The Grand Nudger.)
I don't see creation as contradictory with reality, I see any creation act by a conscious agent as un-evidenced. Since we're referencing the creation of our material world here it is a material claim and the null hypothesis applies.
Of course it's meaningful. Lets say you have two explanations for an identical observation. One makes fewer unjustified assumptions than the other. Which is more valuable or more likely. Which is more plausible? Parsimony.
It matters very little if you think a creator bird is less plausible unless you can show why it is less plausible. It isn't a tangent, I'm checking for false positives in your scale, and attempting to show you how easy it is to reduce this scale to the absurd. If this scale business is useful then I shouldn't be able to insert 80 foot creator birds or immaterial strawberry shortcake and have it return similar (or in this case, more plausible) results than your plausible god..now should I?
No, I'm not saying that creation contradicts reality, I'm stating explicitly that creation is an act of intervention/interaction and that you have previously stated that your plausible god does not do this sort of thing. (I think that this non-intervening/interacting god is a weasel argument by the way, a conscious attempt to produce an unfalsifiable proposition so that you can then declare the proposition plausible without explaining how you have assigned any metrics of plausibility in the first place -after deliberately tanking any means by which you could conceivably do so-).
Of course it's meaningful. Lets say you have two explanations for an identical observation. One makes fewer unjustified assumptions than the other. Which is more valuable or more likely. Which is more plausible? Parsimony.
It matters very little if you think a creator bird is less plausible unless you can show why it is less plausible. It isn't a tangent, I'm checking for false positives in your scale, and attempting to show you how easy it is to reduce this scale to the absurd. If this scale business is useful then I shouldn't be able to insert 80 foot creator birds or immaterial strawberry shortcake and have it return similar (or in this case, more plausible) results than your plausible god..now should I?
No, I'm not saying that creation contradicts reality, I'm stating explicitly that creation is an act of intervention/interaction and that you have previously stated that your plausible god does not do this sort of thing. (I think that this non-intervening/interacting god is a weasel argument by the way, a conscious attempt to produce an unfalsifiable proposition so that you can then declare the proposition plausible without explaining how you have assigned any metrics of plausibility in the first place -after deliberately tanking any means by which you could conceivably do so-).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
