Statistical evidence of god

[lightgigantic]

Can you clarify your statement. You mentioned O'Grady ( ? ) who explained what had been misunderstood about creation. I asked how she knew, why you appear to believe her and what evidence supported her claim. Can you give a straightforward answer or not ?

Who claims to know what the body is good for and if it is wholy good with what is it being compared ?[/QUOTE]

ok so here's the post


Or maybe there is an issue about why the material world is designed the way it is that you are not addressing

The rational argument of design started off with a serious handicap that left it open to Hume's attack.

4) Though the different parts of the great machine of nature work together systematically, these parts (for instance, rainfall) are sometimes deficient, sometimes excessive. Thus it seems nature works without higher supervision. Why, if God is infallible?

The handicap was incomplete knowledge of the purpose of creation. In her book Heresy, Joan O'Grady writes that this problem arose from a tenet ...

... developed from the Old Testament, that God, the Creator, made a world that is good. And God saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good. (Gen 1.31) From that it follows that our bodies are good.

If the world and our bodies are good, what are they good for?
well?
suggestions?

You mean to suggest you can't uncover a few general principles that Hume is drawing upon about the nature of creation to undermine the notion of god's infallibility?

Who claims to know what the body is good for

anyone who lodges an argument similar to Hume for a start

and if it is wholy good with what is it being compared ?

that we can discuss once we uncover something of hume's general principles

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura

Originally Posted by LG
google "intelligent design" and read something that is not composed by an atheist
”
I have never read anything substantial on intelligent design that was composed by an atheist - it's a kind of nonsense that usually requires very strong faith in a deity to believe.

There is no evidence for it. It's simply the argument from incredulity, dressed up in fancy language. I recall picking up Behe's book on the topic because of a genuine interest in the concept - my own background is in mathematical biology, and the topic was and is fascinating from that point of view - and getting about forty pages into it before realizing that there was nothing there,that he was never going to get to any point - the guy just didn't understand evolutionary theory, and wrote a booklength embarrassment of himself.

But the money must be a consolation, if he's not still in denial.

I have the same attitude towards dawkins

“
Originally Posted by LG
the higher the volume on inference, the weaker the empirical claim
”
And the more supporting evidence, especially verified predictions, the stronger the empirical claim. Your point ?

so when you take the verified predictions and compare them to the volume of unverified or off the chart verifications (how much "refinement" has evolutionary theory/reductionist paradigms of consciousness undergone in the past 20 years) you can properly assess the situation

“

Originally Posted by LG
usually the distinctions between predictability and inferences require a rigorous standard ... an inference based on an inference doesn't somehow magically lose its status
”
Of course. Again. So what ?

Do you plan to replace inferences with certainties, in science, somehow ?

I guess they came to some sort of amends when they stopped adding epicycles to make heliocentrism sound right

 

[spidergoat]

Well, it's words, concepts - they usually are not considered "material".

The hypothesis that explains the phenomenon is obviously not required for the phenomenon to exist.

 

[Myles]

Who claims to know what the body is good for and if it is wholy good with what is it being compared ?

ok so here's the post


Or maybe there is an issue about why the material world is designed the way it is that you are not addressing

The rational argument of design started off with a serious handicap that left it open to Hume's attack.

4) Though the different parts of the great machine of nature work together systematically, these parts (for instance, rainfall) are sometimes deficient, sometimes excessive. Thus it seems nature works without higher supervision. Why, if God is infallible?

The handicap was incomplete knowledge of the purpose of creation. In her book Heresy, Joan O'Grady writes that this problem arose from a tenet ...

... developed from the Old Testament, that God, the Creator, made a world that is good. And God saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good. (Gen 1.31) From that it follows that our bodies are good.

If the world and our bodies are good, what are they good for?
well?
suggestions?

You mean to suggest you can't uncover a few general principles that Hume is drawing upon about the nature of creation to undermine the notion of god's infallibility?





anyone who lodges an argument similar to Hume for a start


that we can discuss once we uncover something of hume's general principles[/QUOTE]

Hume is saying that things are not perfect from which he concludes that god is not infallible, as is normally claimed for him.

O'Grady argues that Humes argument is based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the purpose of creation. This suggest that she knows the purpose of creation.

All I'm asking is what she believes the purpose of creation to be and on what grounds she makes this claim.

 

[iceaura]

I have the same attitude towards dawkins

But not the same reasons for it.

And that's no excuse for taking "intelligent design" arguments seriously.

so when you take the verified predictions and compare them to the volume of unverified or off the chart verifications (how much "refinement" has evolutionary theory/reductionist paradigms of consciousness undergone in the past 20 years) you can properly assess the situation

That's not how it's done.

The verified predictions are not compared, but simply filed.

The contradicted predictions are examined closely for their necessary assumptions - which are discarded.

It's not a comparison of volume - one established contradiction of a fundamental, necessary assumption and the whole argument crashes.

 

[lightgigantic]

Hume is saying that things are not perfect from which he concludes that god is not infallible, as is normally claimed for him.

O'Grady argues that Humes argument is based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the purpose of creation. This suggest that she knows the purpose of creation.

All I'm asking is what she believes the purpose of creation to be and on what grounds she makes this claim.

obviously hume must be working with some standard of perfection or "goodness" to make that statement.
The (quite simple) question is, what is it?

 

[greenberg]

The hypothesis that explains the phenomenon is obviously not required for the phenomenon to exist.

Without the hypothesis, we couldn't observe the phenomenon for what (we think!) it is to begin with.

 

[Myles]

obviously hume must be working with some standard of perfection or "goodness" to make that statement.
The (quite simple) question is, what is it?

You are avoiding the issue. Hume'a response is to those who claim that everything God created is good. This can only be contrasted to evil. not good or whatever. Hume is simply pointing out that there are occasions when things are not good, nothing more. So he does not need a standard of perfection tro refute the typical theists argument; he is simply taking them at their word and showing how nonsensical their claim is.

If you take his example of rain, it would obviously be good, if it rained at the required time in the required place and vice versa.Does he need an absolute standard to state the obvious ?

Now how about answering the question I asked about O'Grady. She claims, as I understand it, that it is a mistake to claim that everything is good, her reason being that it shows a misunderstanding of the purpose of creation. That is not a refutation of Hume; it's not even an argument against Christians who interpret the Bible in a particulat way. It is merely a statement of opinion.


So, in what way does O'Grady support her claim to understand the purpose of creation?

 

[lightgigantic]

You are avoiding the issue. Hume'a response is to those who claim that everything God created is good. This can only be contrasted to evil. not good or whatever. Hume is simply pointing out that there are occasions when things are not good, nothing more.

If you read O'grady's comment, you can see she suggests that christians set themselves up for Hume's attack.
When you say that hume points out things are not good, what is he suggesting that design must be good for?

 

[Myles]

If you read O'grady's comment, you can see she suggests that christians set themselves up for Hume's attack.
When you say that hume points out things are not good, what is he suggesting that design must be good for?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Hume is simply saying that, unlike the claims made by Christians that everything God made is good, everything is not always good. He is using good in the same, everyday sense that Christians do. He is certainly not speaking of "the good" in the sense that Plato does. He is not dealing with the question of design as he does not believe in a designer. So why bring it up , if not to confuse the issue ?

O'Grady speaks of a lack of understanding of the purpose of creation. What, according to her, is the purpose of creation and what evidence supports her claim ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Hume is simply saying that, unlike the claims made by Christians that everything God made is good, everything is not always good.

yes
but good for what?

In other words what idea of goodness in regards to design is Hume challenging/ are the theists (apparently) advocating?

 

[lightgigantic]

here's a hint

 

[Myles]

yes
but good for what?

In other words what idea of goodness in regards to design is Hume challenging/ are the theists (apparently) advocating?

You continue to avoid answereing my question.

Goodness is an abstract noun as is, for example, whiteness. Why not ask white for what ?. it makes as little sense as good for what.

When used as an adjective good relates to desirable properties, fitness for purpose in relation to whatever we are talking about. So, a good doctor possesses the skills appropriate to his profession as opposed to a bad doctor who lacks some of thge requisite skills.

When Christians say everyting God made is good they are referring to everything in the universe which, they believe ,was created by God. Ask them to explain what is good about an earthquake and they will be stuck for a sensible answer. Hume is pointing out the obvious by talking of rain to make the point that it is not always good in the sense that too much may cause a flood and too little will cause a drought, possibly followed by famine.

The question of absolute standards in relation to good is meaningles.

So. stop playing games and tell me what O'Grady is talking about when she refers to a failure to understand the meaning of creation. What according to her is the meaning of creation and how does she support her argument ? If you cannot or will not answer this question, I see no point in continuing this dialogue. You used O'Grady's statement to support a point you wished to make. Why did you do so.

 

[lightgigantic]

You continue to avoid answereing my question.

I am beginning to think that you are so conditioned by this notion of goodness that you cannot even see it as a mere approach to interpreting goodness

Goodness is an abstract noun as is, for example, whiteness. Why not ask white for what ?. it makes as little sense as good for what.

When used as an adjective good relates to desirable properties, fitness for purpose in relation to whatever we are talking about. So, a good doctor possesses the skills appropriate to his profession as opposed to a bad doctor who lacks some of thge requisite skills.

so apply that to design, and what is the answer?
designed for what?

When Christians say everyting God made is good they are referring to everything in the universe which, they believe ,was created by God. Ask them to explain what is good about an earthquake and they will be stuck for a sensible answer.

so what is the idea of the goodness of design that seems to be at hand?

Hume is pointing out the obvious by talking of rain to make the point that it is not always good in the sense that too much may cause a flood and too little will cause a drought, possibly followed by famine.

so what do you think the ultimate purpose of design is that has taken stage?
Why is a flood or drought considered bad?

The question of absolute standards in relation to good is meaningles.

if that was the case, there would be no room for hume to challenge the idea by a presentation of "badness"

So. stop playing games and tell me what O'Grady is talking about when she refers to a failure to understand the meaning of creation. What according to her is the meaning of creation and how does she support her argument ? If you cannot or will not answer this question, I see no point in continuing this dialogue. You used O'Grady's statement to support a point you wished to make. Why did you do so.

O'Grady is simple introducing the idea that despite the myriad of arguments that support/challenge the idea of the goodness, there are other perspectives that can be taken. .... actually our absorption in this singular interpretation of goodness is part of the whole problem

 

[Reiku]

I would say the statistics of this thread, far outweigh the initial intentions.

 

[Reiku]

Does that make it right?

 

[Myles]

I am beginning to think that you are so conditioned by this notion of goodness that you cannot even see it as a mere approach to interpreting goodness

so apply that to design, and what is the answer?
designed for what?

so what is the idea of the goodness of design that seems to be at hand?

so what do you think the ultimate purpose of design is that has taken stage?
Why is a flood or drought considered bad?


if that was the case, there would be no room for hume to challenge the idea by a presentation of "badness"


O'Grady is simple introducing the idea that despite the myriad of arguments that support/challenge the idea of the goodness, there are other perspectives that can be taken. .... actually our absorption in this singular interpretation of goodness is part of the whole problem

I don't believe in design or a designer. Equally, the question of what life is good for is meaningless; life simply is. Adios

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't believe in design or a designer. Equally, the question of what life is good for is meaningless; life simply is. Adios

As indicated by your posts though, you clearly have opinions on the value of a design.
Infact you advocate those values to indicate that a designer (ie god) could not exist

 

[Myles]

As indicated by your posts though, you clearly have opinions on the value of a design.
Infact you advocate those values to indicate that a designer (ie god) could not exist

You and O'Grady are two of as kind; you are long on statements ans short on explanations. Poore Hume must tremble in his boots at the thought of both of you attacking him.

I said, and I repeat, that your question is meaningless. What is life good for ?

Try asking why you have reason to believe it is good for anything !

 

[Imperfectionist]

The energy in the universe is balanced by negative energy, meaning no energy was required to create the universe, which is exactly what we should see if it came from nothing.