Oh good. Then your God does not exist, because your God is logically contradictory.
Just to start - if your God is omnibenevolent, then he must do only those things that result in the optimum good, whatever they are. (We’ll accept that allowing children to drown leads to the maximum good for the purpose of this argument.) If this is so, he cannot perform any action that does not lead to the maximum good. Thus he is not omnipotent. He cannot save those children, because that would in some way lead to a worse world.
There is a similar contradiction between omnipotence and omniscience, but this one is simpler.
Your god just vanished in a puff of logic. No science required at all.
By the way, I’ll also give you the challenge Ive been giving people for about 20 years. If you believe that a deity must be responsible for the creation of the universe, and if you believe in the Biblical God, please connect these gods. In other words, how does accepting a creator God lead to acceptance of the Biblical God. The Bible got the story totally wrong - maybe there is a holy book out there that gets it right, and that God is the true god.
“Pure mathematics” can be derived from logic alone, but the chances of it being like our mathematics are unlikely. The definition of the integers, for instance, is back-projected. Nobody sat down and reasoned how to define the integers, we got a system called the integers from people who realized counting things is practical and then (much, much) later reasoned about the axioms/assumptions that must be true to get it to work properly (along with all the extra baggage we invented in the intervening years).
A non-trivial, interesting mathematical system can be derived from a few made up rules and taken from there. However, you’re unlikely to get anything interesting without first observing the real world.
Actually, one of the better known ancient Greek thinkers, who’s name escapes me at the moment, said that you should examine any idea you came up with while drunk some evening, the next day, when you’re sober. And any idea you came up with while sober, that evening when you’re drunk. If it doesn’t stand up under both sobriety conditions, it’s a bad idea.
I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of good science gets done using that method. I know that I came up with a ‘great thought’ one night in college, studying chemistry, while drunk. All I remember, now, is it had something to do with ‘de Broglie waves’. The next day, when sober, I realized Stephen Hawking had published the same damn thing a couple of years previously. And my idea matched his paper. And his paper held up on examination and experiment.
I’ve never had an idea that fails the ‘came up with while drunk – examine while sober, came up with while sober – examine while drunk’ test that’s survived any test for it’s validity, and actually been any good. It’s a good test.
Well, Asimov didn’t drink either. His method for coming up with ideas or solutions to problems was to watch spy movies - formulaic thrillers that would distract him without really engaging him.
‘Reason’ and ‘empiricism’ are just different words for the same thing, so your first is just a restatement of part of BPC’s response.
Revelation can only be a source of knowledge for the person to whom it’s revealed. How can I know that what God supposedly told you is actually true? Only through observation and empiricism (i.e. reason). Unless that confirms it, it’s not knowledge. Also, how do you know it was God telling you, and not just a figment of your imagination? Only through observation and empiricism. In other words, back to square one.
So, essentially, ‘revelation’ is useless as a source of knowledge, since it isn’t knowledge until and unless it’s confirmed by observation and empiricism. In other words, until it is proven to be true, and not just a product of a drug-addled/insane/sleep-deprived/insert-other-mind-altering-condition-here brain. Sorry, you can’t insert ‘God’ into the category of ‘source of knowledge’ that way. Try again, and thanks for playing.
OK, I was off on that one. I was under the impression that ‘empiricism’ meant reasoning from observation. I guess I was mistaken.
By ‘it can only be a source of knowledge for the person it was revealed to’ I meant that that’s the maximum it can extend to. Not to imply that it would even extend that far. Hence the 4th sentence after the one you quoted:
I suppose arguably reason lets you take control of empiricism, i.e. if you reason out the chain of events the lead to a result, you can see how to alter or influence these events to get a different, more desired result.
Faith just shrugs this off with “gods will be gods.”
Once and for all, please state whether God (or evidence for God) is observable. It appears from the quote above that you have surrendered this particular point.
If you do admit that there is no observable evidence for God, how then do you distinguish “God” from “nothing”? If you assign any sort of description to God at all in which he interacts with the universe in any way, he goes from being not observable to being observable, and therefore vulnerable to scientific consideration. If God does not interact with the universe in any observable way (and this is the question I’m most curious for you to answer, which is why I’m repeating it), what then distinguishes God from nothing?
If you consider this, and reach the completely reasonable conclusion that God is indistinguishable from nothing, why would you then consider that God may indeed be something?
“Bad Design” Debunked in a Fish: It Actually Achieves the Impossible
The engineering progress had actually been hindered by wrong assumptions.
The assumption that biological design is “wasteful or useless” comes right out of Darwinian thinking.
This is why we need more scientist with Intellegent Design thinking.
You know, it’s telling that only denialists of evolution tend to talk much about Darwin. Why do you think that is? Why is it that the only people who tend to spend a lot of time thinking or talking about the founder of the theory are those who deny it and who run against a gigantic scientific consensus built over literally centuries?
Well, simple. It’s because evolution is no longer the same theory that Darwin proposed. He got a lot of it right, and his insight has been important, but if you try to argue against the views of Darwin, or Darwin’s colleagues, you are arguing against science from over 150 years ago. You are trying to craft an argument from authority based on the opinions of scientists who lacked most of the evidence that we have today to support evolution. It was reasonable to doubt evolution around 1850, back when Darwin first published the book. Just like it was reasonable to doubt Pasteur’s germ theory of disease back when it first was published. But now? With the massive preponderance of evidence you apparently don’t know or don’t care about? Why should we care whether or not one of the co-authors of a theory believed in it? Darwin himself could have recanted the theory on his deathbed (there’s no credible evidence that he did) and all it would imply is that one person 100-odd years ago disbelieved a theory that has since been backed up by more evidence than any theory beyond perhaps Germ Theory or Gravitational Theory.
The article is utterly irrelevant. It makes absolutely no real statement about the validity of evolution, and its conclusion (that the fact we could find a surprising mechanism behind the presumed inefficiency of the Glass Knifefish somehow demonstrates that there are no designed inefficiencies) is utter crap. No, all you can derive from this is that there is a mechanism that makes this inefficiency useful. You can’t just assume such a generality like this. Especially when the examples of complete inefficiency (or incompetence) in design are so myriad - the Laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, the human appendix, the list goes on and on. These are all things that make perfect sense if the organism evolved gradually, but which make no sense if the organisms were designed more or less in their current form. And none of these are explained away by the Knifefish. But then again, this site promotes the idea of “teaching the controversy”, so what do you expect? :rolleyes: You need to get an actual science education, and stop getting your information from BS creationist websites.
