Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[remez]

Not bad memory, a bad argument that I have to respond to.

On the hand you do indeed give lip service to scientific models that do not require a creator, and on the other hand you make claims such as this:

'The beginning of nature is the limit of science.

I was saying its narrow thinking (self-defeating actually) to assert that science is the only way to knowledge.

I value the epistemological power of science. But science alone is self-defeating

First….

'The beginning of nature is the limit of science.

Here is the logic of the context to that statement.
Science by definition and reason can only study nature.
Thus science is limited to the study of nature.
We are discussing the beginning of nature.

If nature began to exist and science can only study nature then science cannot study that which caused nature to exist. The cause of nature is beyond nature, limiting the reach of science in this regard.

But there is no reason to stop our search for an explanation of nature itself. The explanation logically cannot be a scientific explanation, but it can and is supported by science. To force this to a scientific explanation only is scientism and a nature of the gaps fallacy and a category fallacy as well.
Second…..

I was saying its narrow thinking (self-defeating actually) to assert that science is the only way to knowledge.

This is a slightly different issue dealing with epistemology.

Do you believe that science is the only way to knowledge?
If you do then your epistemology is scientism and that is self-defeating.
Here is why…………………
To believe in the proposition that science is the only pathway to knowledge is a proposition (you believe is true) that is not scientific. So how can you limit all knowledge to science? You can’t scientifically reason that your proposition is true. I defended this earlier with reputable quotes that went unchallenged.
Third…………

I value the epistemological power of science. But science alone is self-defeating

Context… “science alone” is scientism.
Thus, I was drawing a distinction between scientism and science. Even though scientism is self-refuting it doesn’t mean I do not embrace the awesome power of science.

So you make what superficially sounds like the right noises about scientific models that work without the need for a Creator - - yet reject them on the basis of your claim that 'science alone is self defeating' and 'the beginning of nature is the limit of science' at which point you assert your own arbitrary rules and conditions.

1. Thus it is not I that misunderstood science. Science by definition and reason is limited to the study of the natural world.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_03
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/natscimn.html

2. Arbitrary rules and conditions?

I did not create the rules of logic. And those are the “arbitrary rules and conditions” that I’m using. Before you deny my assertion, observe my case against scientism. It wasn’t arbitrary it was logic. Observe my reasoning that science cannot create a cosmological model for a creator. That wasn’t arbitrary it was logic, and you agreed. Observe the cosmological arguments. They are not arbitrary they are logical. Observe your scientism. It is arbitrary and illogical.

3. Your stated reasoning of my rejection is inaccurate.

I rejected your cyclic model based on the scientific reasoning and evidence that stood against it. I did not reject it based on the faulty epistemology of scientism. Two different but related issues.

If science cannot test its BB model beyond the limit of 300 thousand years because photons had not yet formed, how is faith supposed to do better? Because it says so in a Holy Book? That's evidence? That's a better option? Because you desire the existence of a God? Does that make it viable? Desire is not evidence that supports a proposition.

You are confusing two different issues here. I’m not asserting that faith infers that the universe began to exist. I’m contending (provided evidence) that science infers that the universe began to exist. And logically this means material nature began to exist. Reasonably since it began to exist then it needs a cause. Science, which is the study of nature, cannot study beyond natures beginning. That is what I meant by the limit of science. Philosophy governed by logic can logically reason further back than nature, science is limited on this cause.

Asserting that ''the beginning of nature is the limit of science'' when you don't actually have a viable alternative.

Logically the definition of science limits science to the study of natural world. How is it reasonable to suggest otherwise?

The viable alternative…….logic and reasoning from the evidence we have.

You assert that ''science alone is self-defeating'' yet have no evidence for your own faith based model, god did it, which is self defeating.

1. Reasonably scientism is self-defeating, because it is a belief not science.

2. Not sure what you mean by a faith based model? I have provided two cosmological arguments, supported by evidence, that provide good reason to believe that the theistic God exists. Remember I was challenged to provide reasons why I believe that the theistic God exists.

3. Specifically what is your reasoning to assert that my position is self-defeating? I can certainly understand that you might not find it compelling. But specifically how is it self-defeating?

 

[skepticalbip]

I was providing “evidence” and “reasons” for the existence of a theistic God. Nowhere have I ever set the standard of reason at “proof.” Not even science does that. Proof is only found in mathematics and logic.
So………

1) there is no proof of "necessary" things.

2) there is no proof that universe need to have a cause.

3) there is no proof that the universe cannot have spawned from another universe.

What do you mean by proof?
Did you perhaps mean to say evidence?
What is the relationship between science and proof?
Other than mathematics and logic does proof exist?
Your standard…..your thoughts????

1) there is no proof of "necessary" things.

However this one is a conclusion of logic. Where is the logic wrong?
Remember historically many scientists reasonably inferred that the universe was necessary. What was their “proof” to reason so?

2) there is no proof that universe need to have a cause.

I concur in the context of proof.

But logically the universe would need a cause if it began to exist. And I have provided science that reasonably infers that it almost certainly did begin to exist. I have provided quotes from atheistic scientists that agree. Atheistic scientists are now even writing books about how the universe began. From there it is logical that it has a cause.

3) there is no proof that the universe cannot have spawned from another universe.

Again I agree with you as to the issue of proof here as well. But again I provided better scientific evidence and reason that it could not have come from an eternal material environment.

As for the rest…..I opt for the short cut you provided……..so here is what happens when you raise the standard of reasoning to “proof”…………..

4) the BGV is built on general relativity and thus fails to take quantum mechanics into consideration and thus says nothing about what happened before inflation

5) quantum mechanics and general relativity are models of how this universe behaves. There is no reason to believe that those must be valid in any universe.

6) we are the result of evolution on this planet, in this part of our universe. There is no reason to believe that the "reasons" for our universe (reasons which lies outside our universe) must be compatible with our faculties for making the world comprehensible.


7) forensic methods can be used when we know the milieu and background. We can deduce who did it by weighing probabilities and exclude impossibilities. And then we select a probable suspect. This has NO similarity with the beginning of the universe.

Well……………………..

this is a snapshot of an ongoing discussion where you pull multiple ridiculous claims right out you sleeve.
They are ridiculous because:

You can’t prove them……….end of discussion.

But I have demonstrated that I’m willing to be reasonable.

WTF is this? None of the quotes you have presented were mine even though you credited them to me.

I gave up trying to discuss the issue with you because you can't seem to understand what I was saying or what any reasonable person would consider as "evidence"

Science does NOT offer anything that could reasonably be considered to support or even indicate that god exists. Science does not even have anything to say or even any reason to believe that there was a beginning. The closest it comes is the point where science can no longer offer a scientific analysis... the "we don't know... yet" point. Anyone attempting to place god as the causative force to explain the "we don't know" is just hand waving since it requires ignoring and/or violating known physical laws. Further, if they want to assert their creation myth for the "we don't know... yet" then they need to explain how their religious creation myth is correct and the thousands of other religious creation myths are wrong - and they are all very different.

 

[remez]

Scepticalbip

Sincerely I apologize.
Those were to be for Juma.
I will fix Asap. If it is possible.

 

[remez]

I was providing “evidence” and “reasons” for the existence of a theistic God. Nowhere have I ever set the standard of reason at “proof.” Not even science does that. Proof is only found in mathematics and logic.
So………

What do you mean by proof?
Did you perhaps mean to say evidence?
What is the relationship between science and proof?
Other than mathematics and logic does proof exist?
Your standard…..your thoughts????

1) there is no proof of "necessary" things.

However this one is a conclusion of logic. Where is the logic wrong?
Remember historically many scientists reasonably inferred that the universe was necessary. What was their “proof” to reason so?

2) there is no proof that universe need to have a cause.

I concur in the context of proof.

But logically the universe would need a cause if it began to exist. And I have provided science that reasonably infers that it almost certainly did begin to exist. I have provided quotes from atheistic scientists that agree. Atheistic scientists are now even writing books about how the universe began. From there it is logical that it has a cause.

3) there is no proof that the universe cannot have spawned from another universe.

Again I agree with you as to the issue of proof here as well. But again I provided better scientific evidence and reason that it could not have come from an eternal material environment.

As for the rest…..I opt for the short cut you provided……..so here is what happens when you raise the standard of reasoning to “proof”…………..

4) the BGV is built on general relativity and thus fails to take quantum mechanics into consideration and thus says nothing about what happened before inflation

5) quantum mechanics and general relativity are models of how this universe behaves. There is no reason to believe that those must be valid in any universe.

6) we are the result of evolution on this planet, in this part of our universe. There is no reason to believe that the "reasons" for our universe (reasons which lies outside our universe) must be compatible with our faculties for making the world comprehensible.


7) forensic methods can be used when we know the milieu and background. We can deduce who did it by weighing probabilities and exclude impossibilities. And then we select a probable suspect. This has NO similarity with the beginning of the universe.

Well……………………..

this is a snapshot of an ongoing discussion where you pull multiple ridiculous claims right out you sleeve.
They are ridiculous because:

You can’t prove them……….end of discussion.

But I have demonstrated that I’m willing to be reasonable.

WTF is this? None of the quotes you have presented were mine even though you credited them to me.

I gave up trying to discuss the issue with you because you can't seem to understand what I was saying or what any reasonable person would consider as "evidence"

Science does NOT offer anything that could reasonably be considered to support or even indicate that god exists. Science does not even have anything to say or even any reason to believe that there was a beginning. The closest it comes is the point where science can no longer offer a scientific analysis... the "we don't know... yet" point. Anyone attempting to place god as the causative force to explain the "we don't know" is just hand waving since it requires ignoring and/or violating known physical laws. Further, if they want to assert their creation myth for the "we don't know... yet" then they need to explain how their religious creation myth is correct and the thousands of other religious creation myths are wrong - and they are all very different.

Fixed everywhere save inside your quote of my error.
Again I apologize.
Bad copy and paste.

 

[Juma]

Scepticalbip

Sincerely I apologize.
Those were to be for Juma.
I will fix Asap. If it is possible.

Dont bother. That hodgepodge of texts contain nothing of interest.

Start anew and formulate your complete argument.

 

[DBT]

A waste of time altogether. No matter what errors are pointed out, the goal posts are simply shifted a bit, and around it goes. A pointless dance - the semantic shuffle - that can easily go on for years...

 

[abaddon]

By stringing this out over months, all points become fragmented and scattered. That process is helped by tearing arguments apart in sentences which makes the atheist argument seem more scattered than it was when first presented. When I address a post in parts, I keep the overall post in mind. But remez does not, he just takes isolate bits to argue against each in turn and dismisses the overall context and thereby never really adequately addresses anyone’s challenges.

Thus solid arguments against the CA are too readily dismissed and then eventually forgotten as the dogmatic repetition of his “reasons to believe" just go on and on and on and on and on. The only way to contend with this is to repeat yourself again and again, only for a repeat of the whole wearying fragmentation process. Disappearing for a week at a time makes it all that much more difficult to sort. (It'd help also if he'd link the quotes to the right posts, so that refreshing your memory of the actual context doesn't involve searching the thread).

If he really just wanted to show that his faith has reasons, that could have been done in just a post or two. He took on the additional project of showing that atheism or materialism or "IDKism" are the faith-based stances. And wanted to prove god, and in the process laid bare an over-dependence on definitions (as if they're necessarily accurate descriptions of things, like "God is eternal" for example) and a slew of presuppositions about how things must "necessarily" be (like "all that begins must have a cause" for example). Which rather illustrates how theology differs from science.

 

[Underseer]

By stringing this out over months, all points become fragmented and scattered. That process is helped by tearing arguments apart in sentences which makes the atheist argument seem more scattered than it was when first presented. When I address a post in parts, I keep the overall post in mind. But remez does not, he just takes isolate bits to argue against each in turn and dismisses the overall context and thereby never really adequately addresses anyone’s challenges.

Thus solid arguments against the CA are too readily dismissed and then eventually forgotten as the dogmatic repetition of his “reasons to believe" just go on and on and on and on and on. The only way to contend with this is to repeat yourself again and again, only for a repeat of the whole wearying fragmentation process. Disappearing for a week at a time makes it all that much more difficult to sort. (It'd help also if he'd link the quotes to the right posts, so that refreshing your memory of the actual context doesn't involve searching the thread).

If he really just wanted to show that his faith has reasons, that could have been done in just a post or two. He took on the additional project of showing that atheism or materialism or "IDKism" are the faith-based stances. And wanted to prove god, and in the process laid bare an over-dependence on definitions (as if they're necessarily accurate descriptions of things, like "God is eternal" for example) and a slew of presuppositions about how things must "necessarily" be (like "all that begins must have a cause" for example). Which rather illustrates how theology differs from science.

Eh, show some sympathy for Remez. People he trusts told him he will be tortured for eternity if he doesn't accept certain conclusions. Don't you think you would do strange things to cling to a conclusion under that circumstance?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Don't you think you would do strange things to cling to a conclusion under that circumstance?

But i was IN that circumstance.
Their inability to explain why finite crime justified infinite torture was what made me stop trusting those that were trying to tell me about it.

 

[abaddon]

Someone arguing the CA might think you guys don’t “get” the argument ;-) because you’re all-too-sensibly going on about the real world practical effects of what it is to believe in God, and not addressing the inarguably obvious logical proof that his existence is “necessary”.

Which is one of the strange things about anyone arguing the CA. So, what if God really did make the universe? If it’s true, then where the heck is he now? Why do you have to go back to before time to prove he exists? Show what his behaviors in or out of nature are now.

Making the alleged “necessary” cause of the universe into the Christian God… Small wonder it’s necessary to evade the details and want to make it into an abstruse discussion of logic only.

 

[remez]

I gave up trying to discuss the issue with you because you can't seem to understand what I was saying or what any reasonable person would consider as "evidence"

You are free to give up of course. And you may want to do that before reading any further, because I will not allow your challenges of my reasoning to repose unaddressed.

Science does NOT offer anything that could reasonably be considered to support or even indicate that god exists.

Redressed this several times …..

Evidential Scientific support red-shifting, GTR, predictive H/He abundance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation, CBR, to name a few. The most reasonable interpretation of that evidence is the universe began period. No wildly imagined previous states, it began to exist. Thus its cause had to be beyond nature. The characteristics of that cause match the characteristics of God. It is a direct inferential trial.

Again science supports a premise…… in an argument…… that concludes…. that the theistic God exists.

Science does not even have anything to say or even any reason to believe that there was a beginning.

And with that statement you just eliminated the science of cosmology.
And the scientists like Hawking, Kraus, Penrose and Vilenkin etc. are all just wrong.

The closest it comes is the point where science can no longer offer a scientific analysis... the "we don't know... yet" point.

Philosophical hand waving.

You are denying rational induction for empiricism on an arbitrary basis. You can’t remain a strict empiricist and rationally defend your epistemology of empiricism. Thus your arbitrary reasoning and empiricism here are irrational.

See….that is what I meant, when I said that whatever you bring against my position will need to be rationally defended. No one has done that yet. You may believe what you said is true but you can’t rationally defend it consistently with a self-defeating epistemology. In short you don’t just to get to arbitrarily bury your head in the sand with empiricism, whenever you want to avoid rational induction and consider your objection rational.

Anyone attempting to place god as the causative force to explain the "we don't know" is just hand waving since it requires ignoring and/or violating known physical laws.

Examine your philosophical statement…………….it is just hand waving with your head buried in the sand.
For you to be consistent………. your philosophy is simple hand waving as well and should be dismissed without reason.

Also……….

What physical laws are violated?
And……..
Where did they come from?

Further, if they want to assert their creation myth for the "we don't know... yet" then they need to explain how their religious creation myth is correct and the thousands of other religious creation myths are wrong - and they are all very different.

Just more hand waving…………but…………..
I have been building precisely that case at the same time. How many of those “religions” purport a theistic God that transcends the universe? Bingo…….. Rationally the list just got incredibly shorter.... didn’t it?

 

[remez]

Dont bother. That hodgepodge of texts contain nothing of interest.

Then let it go.

Start anew and formulate your complete argument.

Why should I?

What reasonable expectation should I imagine that you will treat it fairly the next time?

So…..no….I’m comfortable that our conversation not only addressed the objective of the thread but actually provided evidence to be analyzed. Thus to that end I’m comfortable with my end. Thanks.

 

[remez]

A waste of time altogether. No matter what errors are pointed out, the goal posts are simply shifted a bit, and around it goes. A pointless dance - the semantic shuffle - that can easily go on for years...

A subjective summation of our conversation thus far. My summation would be ….I found it very useful?

No matter what errors are pointed out

Off course it matters. You should address your errors.

the goal posts are simply shifted a bit,

You still haven’t explained why you did that.

A pointless dance - the semantic shuffle - that can easily go on for years...

I disagree.
I presented and defended two cosmological arguments for the existence of the theistic God.
Your summation reflects a frustration of your failure to invalidate either argument.
You may find them uncompelling, but that is all you have insufficiently defended thus far.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[remez]

By stringing this out over months, all points become fragmented and scattered. That process is helped by tearing arguments apart in sentences which makes the atheist argument seem more scattered than it was when first presented.

I was not addressing any single “atheistic argument.” I was addressing the many different objections brought against my presented arguments.
I was challenged to provide evidence for the existence of the theistic God. So to set the table I told everyone that I would begin to make a case. But I warned, be prepared that anything you bring against my case I would challenge you right back……..remember…..post 46 12/21

It’s their skepticism and enthusiasm for truth in action. We don’t trust anyone’s testimony on things. The testifier needs to point at phenomena and say “from this evidence I get this conclusion, for the following reasons: x, y, z”.

Phrases like ………..there IS no evidence…..”we” don’t trust anyone’s testimony…..require justification as well, for they sound very suppressing. What you folks even consider as evidence and then how you judge its’ verifiability is completely on the table of discussion. Your conclusions need be rational, consistent and justified. With every attempted rejection or challenge, I’ll challenge you right back to defend the very reasoning and presuppositions inherent in your rejections and challenges. Rational consistency will need to be demonstrated.

You don’t just get to assert your view is correct because your epistemology is unchallengeable. I have challenged the challenges. That is how a discussion works. You guys have hit me with a great number of challenges and I have addressed them a challenged you right back. Yet you seem to fault me for this. Why? That is the way it works.

When I address a post in parts, I keep the overall post in mind. But remez does not

So do I. So when I address those “parts”, why should you conclude I have lost or distorted the context? If you felt it was an issue you should have addressed it. At one point (the fallacy conflict of composition and special pleading) you did and we discussed it. But that was not me purposely taking your text out of context, it was me misjudging something you weren’t very clear about. We adjusted and moved on.

Here is my modus operandi and why. I am a theist on an “atheist” board. Logically I’m going to have to deal with several posters from several angles. To help keep all the contexts straight I use a word processor to keep a file of each poster in a separate wp file as to address everyone in context. That way I have a running record of all the conversations. That is how I was quickly able to go back a quickly recall post 46 of our earlier conversation to address the context.

So your statement assumes that I’m not making any attempt to stay in context when actually I rely upon the context to continue the narrative. That in no way implies, I’ll get it right all the time maybe you didn’t phrase it well. Perhaps I misunderstood the context of your point. So just politely inform me, and I’ll adjust. But to imply I’m doing it on purpose is inaccurate, insincere and unsupported.

When I address a post in parts, I keep the overall post in mind. But remez does not, he just takes isolate bits to argue against each in turn and dismisses the overall context and thereby never really adequately addresses anyone’s challenges.

Notice………Your charge of my MOTIVE comes without evidence or CONTEXT.
Also………………………
As to the hinted frustration of my “isolated bits”….I was CONTEXTUALLY addressing your “post in parts.”

Thus solid arguments against the CA are too readily dismissed and then eventually forgotten as the dogmatic repetition of his “reasons to believe" just go on and on and on and on and on.

“reason to believe” go on and on and on…… but that is the CONTEXT that you are belittling. Stay consistent.

“solid arguments are readily dismissed.” I challenged the validity of each “solid argument.” Most of which were flat out wrong. I did not simply dismiss, I showed you where they were in error. Example the fallacy of composition was provided as a challenge. I showed you where the charge was wrong. I did not just simply wave it off. I did the same for the special pleading plea. If some “solid argument” was dismissed, I first provided the reason for its dismal. I did not simply dismiss anything without presented reason.

You on the other hand (as evidenced here in this summation) are the one simply dismissing my dialogue. You provide no evidence of this your summation just simply dismiss me. Time for you to actually provide evidence of your summations here.

Disappearing for a week at a time makes it all that much more difficult to sort.

Doing the best I can. I’m the only theist dealing with several different posters. Please show some understanding of the comparative time commitment. I prefer to collect several responses and address them in one sitting so the others aren’t left concluding I ignored them. Thus it takes a moment. You were basically just dealing with me. I was dealing with several posters.

The one time I was away for a spell…..I did inform all of you to the condition. You on the other hand have disappeared for far longer than a week. At one point you disappeared for over two weeks. Your typical response time is a week or more. Mine has been several days and with several posters.

Further…….on this point….. you even contrarily complained of my responses being too hasty…………..post 205…on 2/7

Also you took “No, I’m not saying your argument’s a fallacy of composition” out of the context of its fuller sentence to say I’m arguing with myself. I’m not THAT bad of a writer, you seem to me too fast of a poster.

So which is it? Too fast or too slow?

(It'd help also if he'd link the quotes to the right posts, so that refreshing your memory of the actual context doesn't involve searching the thread).

So you were the one troubled with following the context. Like I stated I have all your posts in one file to follow the context. It helps with response time as well. But if referring to an earlier post I’ll try to put your suggestion into practice, thanks for the tip. I encouragingly recommend a tip as well…..for lengthier discussions you keep a temporary wp file to help with the context. It is an amazing help, just be sure to also record the post number with your paste.

If he really just wanted to show that his faith has reasons, that could have been done in just a post or two.

So is it my fault that you disagreed with my presented reasons?
If you would have just accepted my reasons without challenge then it would have been over that quick.

He took on the additional project of showing that atheism or materialism or "IDKism" are the faith-based stances.

These were your objections that I was addressing. I told you from the beginning that I would challenge your reasoning as well. You are giving me the impression you thought that…….
I would present a reason
You would tell me it was wrong
End of story

Well……

That is not the way it works. You have to defend your objections and the reasons for your objections.
Yet now you are complaining that I challenged you right back.

Now onto Post 270, which to me seemed like a continuance of your summation from post 267 addressed above. So admittedly I’m continuing in the same context.

Someone arguing the CA might think you guys don’t “get” the argument ;-) because you’re all-too-sensibly going on about the real world practical effects of what it is to believe in God, and not addressing the inarguably obvious logical proof that his existence is “necessary”.

Not at all. I’m not purporting that any of this it is inarguable. I presented the cosmological arguments as a couple of reasons I have to believe the theistic God exists and we have been discussing it, oft times using “real world practical effects.”

I am asserting that nothing you have challenged me with so far has invalidated the arguments.

Which is one of the strange things about anyone arguing the CA. So, what if God really did make the universe? If it’s true, then where the heck is he now? Why do you have to go back to before time to prove he exists? Show what his behaviors in or out of nature are now.

Really good questions.
But I reason them to be beyond the context of what we were discussing because you present a different context there, “if God exists.”
I was challenged to provide and defend reasons for the existence of the theistic God.
Your good questions would be more theological in nature because they journey to the next level.

Making the alleged “necessary” cause of the universe into the Christian God… Small wonder it’s necessary to evade the details and want to make it into an abstruse discussion of logic only.

“making the alleged cause” is a gross over simplification of my dialogue. I reasoned for the existence of a theistic God and defended those reasons. I did not just simply assert or make the theistic God the cause.

I evaded no details, evidenced by the fact that I dealt with every cosmological model thrown against the SBBM.

As to your charge that I relied too heavily upon logic…… well I find that perplexing.
How else were we to debate it?
And ……
Was it I that leveled all of the fallacy charges against my position?

 

[Juma]

What reasonable expectation should I imagine that you will treat it fairly the next time?

You have been treated fairly and you will be treated fairly but you doesnt seem comfortable with that.

 

[remez]

Eh, show some sympathy for Remez. People he trusts told him he will be tortured for eternity if he doesn't accept certain conclusions. Don't you think you would do strange things to cling to a conclusion under that circumstance?

Mockingly back at you……..

Eh, some like yourself have been told things by others and are afraid of the light. So I understand that you will strangely cling to irrational conclusions like those under those circumstances.

Now did that get us anywhere?
And what about post 169 that you left unaddressed?
Your sniper fire approach is lame and you have a bad aim.

 

[abaddon]

I was not addressing any single “atheistic argument.” I was addressing the many different objections brought against my presented arguments.
I was challenged to provide evidence for the existence of the theistic God. So to set the table I told everyone that I would begin to make a case. But I warned, be prepared that anything you bring against my case I would challenge you right back……..remember…..post 46 12/21

It’s their skepticism and enthusiasm for truth in action. We don’t trust anyone’s testimony on things. The testifier needs to point at phenomena and say “from this evidence I get this conclusion, for the following reasons: x, y, z”.

Phrases like ………..there IS no evidence…..”we” don’t trust anyone’s testimony…..require justification as well, for they sound very suppressing. What you folks even consider as evidence and then how you judge its’ verifiability is completely on the table of discussion. Your conclusions need be rational, consistent and justified. With every attempted rejection or challenge, I’ll challenge you right back to defend the very reasoning and presuppositions inherent in your rejections and challenges. Rational consistency will need to be demonstrated.

You don’t just get to assert your view is correct because your epistemology is unchallengeable. I have challenged the challenges. That is how a discussion works. You guys have hit me with a great number of challenges and I have addressed them a challenged you right back. Yet you seem to fault me for this. Why? That is the way it works.

When I address a post in parts, I keep the overall post in mind. But remez does not

So do I. So when I address those “parts”, why should you conclude I have lost or distorted the context? If you felt it was an issue you should have addressed it. At one point (the fallacy conflict of composition and special pleading) you did and we discussed it. But that was not me purposely taking your text out of context, it was me misjudging something you weren’t very clear about. We adjusted and moved on.

Here is my modus operandi and why. I am a theist on an “atheist” board. Logically I’m going to have to deal with several posters from several angles. To help keep all the contexts straight I use a word processor to keep a file of each poster in a separate wp file as to address everyone in context. That way I have a running record of all the conversations. That is how I was quickly able to go back a quickly recall post 46 of our earlier conversation to address the context.

So your statement assumes that I’m not making any attempt to stay in context when actually I rely upon the context to continue the narrative. That in no way implies, I’ll get it right all the time maybe you didn’t phrase it well. Perhaps I misunderstood the context of your point. So just politely inform me, and I’ll adjust. But to imply I’m doing it on purpose is inaccurate, insincere and unsupported.

When I address a post in parts, I keep the overall post in mind. But remez does not, he just takes isolate bits to argue against each in turn and dismisses the overall context and thereby never really adequately addresses anyone’s challenges.

Notice………Your charge of my MOTIVE comes without evidence or CONTEXT.
Also………………………
As to the hinted frustration of my “isolated bits”….I was CONTEXTUALLY addressing your “post in parts.”

Thus solid arguments against the CA are too readily dismissed and then eventually forgotten as the dogmatic repetition of his “reasons to believe" just go on and on and on and on and on.

“reason to believe” go on and on and on…… but that is the CONTEXT that you are belittling. Stay consistent.

“solid arguments are readily dismissed.” I challenged the validity of each “solid argument.” Most of which were flat out wrong. I did not simply dismiss, I showed you where they were in error. Example the fallacy of composition was provided as a challenge. I showed you where the charge was wrong. I did not just simply wave it off. I did the same for the special pleading plea. If some “solid argument” was dismissed, I first provided the reason for its dismal. I did not simply dismiss anything without presented reason.

You on the other hand (as evidenced here in this summation) are the one simply dismissing my dialogue. You provide no evidence of this your summation just simply dismiss me. Time for you to actually provide evidence of your summations here.

Disappearing for a week at a time makes it all that much more difficult to sort.

Doing the best I can. I’m the only theist dealing with several different posters. Please show some understanding of the comparative time commitment. I prefer to collect several responses and address them in one sitting so the others aren’t left concluding I ignored them. Thus it takes a moment. You were basically just dealing with me. I was dealing with several posters.

The one time I was away for a spell…..I did inform all of you to the condition. You on the other hand have disappeared for far longer than a week. At one point you disappeared for over two weeks. Your typical response time is a week or more. Mine has been several days and with several posters.

Further…….on this point….. you even contrarily complained of my responses being too hasty…………..post 205…on 2/7

Also you took “No, I’m not saying your argument’s a fallacy of composition” out of the context of its fuller sentence to say I’m arguing with myself. I’m not THAT bad of a writer, you seem to me too fast of a poster.

So which is it? Too fast or too slow?

(It'd help also if he'd link the quotes to the right posts, so that refreshing your memory of the actual context doesn't involve searching the thread).

So you were the one troubled with following the context. Like I stated I have all your posts in one file to follow the context. It helps with response time as well. But if referring to an earlier post I’ll try to put your suggestion into practice, thanks for the tip. I encouragingly recommend a tip as well…..for lengthier discussions you keep a temporary wp file to help with the context. It is an amazing help, just be sure to also record the post number with your paste.

If he really just wanted to show that his faith has reasons, that could have been done in just a post or two.

So is it my fault that you disagreed with my presented reasons?
If you would have just accepted my reasons without challenge then it would have been over that quick.

He took on the additional project of showing that atheism or materialism or "IDKism" are the faith-based stances.

These were your objections that I was addressing. I told you from the beginning that I would challenge your reasoning as well. You are giving me the impression you thought that…….
I would present a reason
You would tell me it was wrong
End of story

Well……

That is not the way it works. You have to defend your objections and the reasons for your objections.
Yet now you are complaining that I challenged you right back.

Now onto Post 270, which to me seemed like a continuance of your summation from post 267 addressed above. So admittedly I’m continuing in the same context.

Someone arguing the CA might think you guys don’t “get” the argument ;-) because you’re all-too-sensibly going on about the real world practical effects of what it is to believe in God, and not addressing the inarguably obvious logical proof that his existence is “necessary”.

Not at all. I’m not purporting that any of this it is inarguable. I presented the cosmological arguments as a couple of reasons I have to believe the theistic God exists and we have been discussing it, oft times using “real world practical effects.”

I am asserting that nothing you have challenged me with so far has invalidated the arguments.

Which is one of the strange things about anyone arguing the CA. So, what if God really did make the universe? If it’s true, then where the heck is he now? Why do you have to go back to before time to prove he exists? Show what his behaviors in or out of nature are now.

Really good questions.
But I reason them to be beyond the context of what we were discussing because you present a different context there, “if God exists.”
I was challenged to provide and defend reasons for the existence of the theistic God.
Your good questions would be more theological in nature because they journey to the next level.

Making the alleged “necessary” cause of the universe into the Christian God… Small wonder it’s necessary to evade the details and want to make it into an abstruse discussion of logic only.

“making the alleged cause” is a gross over simplification of my dialogue. I reasoned for the existence of a theistic God and defended those reasons. I did not just simply assert or make the theistic God the cause.

I evaded no details, evidenced by the fact that I dealt with every cosmological model thrown against the SBBM.

As to your charge that I relied too heavily upon logic…… well I find that perplexing.
How else were we to debate it?
And ……
Was it I that leveled all of the fallacy charges against my position?

tl;dr

 

[Juma]

Remez. You ask why you should bother to make your argument concice and clear.

Because this is a discussion forum and that is what a decent person would do.

 

[DBT]

A subjective summation of our conversation thus far. My summation would be ….I found it very useful?

No matter what errors are pointed out

Off course it matters. You should address your errors.

the goal posts are simply shifted a bit,

You still haven’t explained why you did that.

A pointless dance - the semantic shuffle - that can easily go on for years...

I disagree.
I presented and defended two cosmological arguments for the existence of the theistic God.
Your summation reflects a frustration of your failure to invalidate either argument.
You may find them uncompelling, but that is all you have insufficiently defended thus far.

Thank you for the discussion.

You are playing games. You do know that the errors pointed out were yours....basically, that there is no evidence to suggest that a God (whatever that is) is necessary to explain the existence of the Universe. A God (whatever that is) is a completely unknown, non testable, non falsifiable, non verifiable Entity. If you want to believe that God (whatever that is) created the universe, that is a matter of faith. Therefore a belief that cannot be proven or dis-proven...being an non testable, non falsifiable, non verifiable belief.

 

[sdelsolray]

Remez thinks his Cosmo arguments are valid.

That's funny.