(August 3, 2014 at 10:02 am)Stimbo Wrote: I agree that comparing evidence of gravity with what is offered for the existence of "God" is unfair. One is observable, testable, repeatable, describable, measurable; the other... isn't.
As I type this, my keyboard is sitting on the desk in front of me more or less where I left it. Every time I hit a key, let's say the letter M, it appears to type out the same character each and every time, wothout fail. MMMMmmmMmmmMmmmmMmm. See? Goes like a bomb. It's also slightly arousing, in its own way.
The really interesting thing is that I don't even have to look at the key to know that it will do that. MmMm. There it goes again. I don't need to presuppose that hitting that key will suddenly cause my PC to turn into a teapot or a naked lady. Now the question is: is this a 'naturalistic' keyboard that will never do that, or a 'supernaturalistic' one that has only happened to behave naturalistically so far?
That's a nice analogy. But I think you're conflating naturalism (assuming only materialistic explanations of the universe are valid) with empirical inquiry. I do empirical research for a living and can't think of ever having to presume a naturalist universe in order to do my research.
If I interpret you right you're arguing 'based on empirical evidence we've come to the conclusion naturalism explains the world best - we may one day realise it doesn't - but right now that's the best empirical explanation of the world so we don't need another'.
That's a good response to god of the gaps type arguments - but I've always felt such arguments were weak anyway so I would join you in refuting these too.
But while you may be convinced that naturalism is a valid presupposition that helps you understand the world. How would you convince someone like me who doesn't think I need naturalist presuppositions to understand the world? You don't have to convince me of the benefits of empirical research (I already agree with that) but that I need to make naturalist assumptions to interpret the data.
Stimbo Wrote:Or to put it another way: "You can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways."
I know you're partly joking, but do you really think looking when you cross the road is only justifiable on the basis of naturalist assumptions? It may be for you, but I believe the laws of physics are completely consistent with my Christian worldview that the world is created by a rational God. I don't need to presume naturalism in order to know that if a truck hits me at 100mph I'll likely die.