[Akoue]

How would you know this? Have you seen the person designing you computer. Have you seen the person building your computer? How do you know that there was a person behind it?

So you think science should proceed on the strength of the sorts of assumptions we make in our everyday life? Surely science should be more rigorous than that. The mere fact that someone may be prepared to assume a designer without ever having had perceptual commerce with the designer shows only that we are not epistemically rigorous much of the time. You can't think science should canonize these habits.

[Akoue]

Agreed - so there can be physical evidence of something which is not physical which proves that which is non-physical exists.

WHAT? What could it even mean to say that there could be physical evidence for something which is non-physical? What on earth do you mean by "evidence"?

Also, the designer of the computer was, or is, physical. So your argument, such as it is, is invalid. The absence of perceptual commerce with the designer isn't evidence of a non-physical designer.

[Tj3]

We've been through this. When I ask you to name practicing biologists who don't subscribe to theory of evolution or to provide evidence in support of an alternative scientific theory that explains all the facts, you change the subject.

I have never seen you ask before - enjoy!

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

Last summer I was dating the person who invented the first laptop computer.

Will God go on a date with me?

He indwells me.

Akoue is the expert in this area, not me.

I have no evidence that he is an expert in this area.

But I haven't seen any physical evidence of God's existence. Anything you can point to can be explained more easily by ordinary events. I thought the whole point of God was to have faith without looking for proof or demanding miracles...

Then you have not read the past threads on the topic.

[Tj3]

So you think science should proceed on the strength of the sorts of assumptions we make in our everyday life?

That is what I oppose. Evolution is based largely upon unproven assumptions.

[Tj3]

WHAT? What could it even mean to say that there could be physical evidence for something which is non-physical? What on earth do you mean by "evidence"?

We just went through that.

Also, the designer of the computer was, or is, physical.

Yes, but have you seen or touched or do you have any physical evidence of the person who designed or built your computer? No, you don't so how do you know that they exist?

Physical evidence of that which you have never sensed directly in any physical way.

[Akoue]

We just went through that.



Yes, but have you seen or touched or do you have any physical evidence of the person who designed or built your computer? No, you don't so how do you know that they exist?

Physical evidence of that which you have never sensed directly in any physical way.

Well, I've never seen an electron, or Andromeda, either. The idea that each person must, individually, have direct cognitive contact with each existent in order to be justified in the belief that it exists is, well, it's kind of bizarre, frankly. We have division of labor and it works well because then we get different people specializing in different things. I don't have to have seen China with my own two eyes in order to be justified in believing that China exists. And my evidence for the belief that China exists isn't anything non-physical. So, just to be clear: My belief that China exists has for its object something physical (China), and the causal-informational linkages that warrant, and even justify, my belief that China exists are likewise physical. In the case of the computer, I don't even need the causal-informational system, since it is part of the concept of a computer that it is an artefact and it part of the concept of an artefact that artefacts have artificers. So that belief is a priori and probably analytic. For someone who prides himself on logical acumen, you are going off the rails in a pretty big way here, Tom. This all just basic logic meets basic epistemology. One needn't have a naturalistic epistemology in order to accommodate what I've said, but everything I've said is perfectly consistent with a naturalistic epistemology. Don't you agree?

I notice you didn't answer the question about the relation of second-order functional properties and events that supervene on first-order physical properties and events. I'm beginning to get the suspicion that it is because you "dare" not to.

[Akoue]

I have never seen you ask before - enjoy!

Well that is truly odd, since I remember you being asked--by asking--on the evolution thread just a few weeks ago. In fact, I remember you being asked repeatedly by a number of people, including asking. And I know that you saw the request, because you quoted it in some of your own posts.

[Akoue]

That is what I oppose. Evolution is based largely upon unproven assumptions.

What *evidence* do you have for this claim:

He indwells me.

Is this epistemically on all fours with the claim that God exists, or are they in different epistemic categories? I trust that the claim that God "indwells" you is not something you would adduce as evidence that God exists since that would be begging the question.

[Tj3]

Well, I've never seen an electron, or Andromeda, either. The idea that each person must, individually, have direct cognitive contact with each existent in order to be justified in the belief that it exists is,.

Once you again, all you are doing is supporting my contention that something which is not physical can be demonstrated to existed by evidence resulting from the existence of that item or person. You do not need to physically touch and feel the exact subject of your investigation to be able to prove its existence.

The same is true with God. We can indeed find evidence of His existence, contrary to your prior statement that one can only see evidence of God if He was physical.

I notice you didn't answer the question about the relation of second-order functional properties and events that supervene on first-order physical properties and events. I'm beginning to get the suspicion that it is because you "dare" not to.

I've responded to all your comments. I note that you don't read my comments carefully. You seem to miss a lot.

[Tj3]

What *evidence* do you have for this claim:

There is so much and far too much to summarize on a single post. Part of the problem being that it depends upon exactly what aspect of evolution you are speaking of - because there are assumptions made for each area. If you had to following this and the last thread, you will see that I went over a number of the assumptions regarding the age of the earth. My suggestion, if you are really interested in learning about the topic is to grab a copy of the book "Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe - you might learn a great deal. Of course, some folk who do like being confronted with fact that they don't agree with simply attack the book without so much as cracking the cover. I hope that you are not one of those.

[asking]

He indwells me.

This sounds painful!

Indwell "Pertaining to a catheter or other tube left within an organ or body passage for drainage, to maintain patency, or for the administration of drugs or nutrients."

I have no evidence that he is an expert in this area.

You probably have no direct evidence that your local congressperson actually ever goes to Washington, D.C. either. Or possibly even that he or she exists. But you have indirect evidence. I have substantial indirect evidence that Akoue exists and knows what he's talking about.

I even think that you are real, since your prose style is consistent over a long period and others have attested that they have encountered you elsewhere on the Internet. Although I don't know anyone who has ever seen you.

[excon]

My suggestion, if you are really interested in learning about the topic is to grab a copy of the book "Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe - you might learn a great deal. Of course, some folk who do like being confronted with fact that they don't agree with simply attack the book without so much as cracking the cover. I hope that you are not one of those.

Hello again, Tj:

I'm one of those.

Michael J. Behe, a central figure in the Intelligent Design movement, is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

Intelligent design is creationism. I don't need to know any more about ID than what has been proposed here numerous times by you and others; It's TOO complicated for nature, therefore God did it!

For anybody who truly understands evolution, there really isn't ANY cogent argument against it. I wouldn't take the time to read a book that offered "evidence" of the Tooth Fairy, either. I just wouldn't.

excon

[asking]

We've been through this. When I ask you to name practicing biologists who don't subscribe to theory of evolution or to provide evidence in support of an alternative scientific theory that explains all the facts, you change the subject.

I have never seen you ask before - enjoy!

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...ownload&id=660

This 2001 list of scientists who don't agree with evolution has been thoroughly debunked. Only 20% are [Edit: are listed as] biologists. Those that have some biological training represent a tiny fraction of biologists world wide; their reasons for disagreeing are religious, not scientific; and their institutional affiliations are often fraudulent (e.g. Jonathan Wells is not affiliated with UC Berkeley, but with the Discovery Institute itself). And as I mentioned before, he got his PhD in molecular and cell biology, with the express purpose of giving himself credentials to use in his fight against evolution, not in ecology and evolutionary biology.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furthermore, you have still not introduced an alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the facts as well or better than evolution. Needless to say, creationism is not a testable scientific hypothesis, nor is there any scientific evidence in support of it. In science, alternative hypotheses always have at least some modicum of evidence in support of them and they make some kind of sense--even when they turn out to be wrong. Creationism has not scientific evidence in its favor.

-->There is no credible evidence against evolution.
-->There is no testable alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the facts as well or better than evolution.

-->The few biologists who the Discovery Institute claims doubt evolution are mostly or entirely not practicing biologists. I have not analyzed the entire list myself, but I certainly am not interested in the opinions of people who may not even be real. I picked one "biologist" on the list at random and his college appears not to even exist and he does not have a web page anywhere on the internet. His only existence appears to be on the discovery institute's apparently fraudulent list.

[asking]

Of course, some folk who do like being confronted with fact that they don't agree with simply attack [Behe's book] without so much as cracking the cover. I hope that you are not one of those.

Hello again, Tj:

I'm one of those.

... I wouldn't take the time to read a book that offered "evidence" of the Tooth Fairy, either. I just wouldn't.

I actually did take the time to read some of Behe's book. I reject his arguments entirely, as have biologists generally.

As for Creationism's God-is-in-the-gaps arguments, I might just as well argue that because I can't understand how my car works that it must have been designed by God, because nothing less than a celestial being could possibly create something that I cannot explain in its entirety.

I agree with excon.

[Akoue]

Once you again, all you are doing is supporting my contention that something which is not physical can be demonstrated to existed by evidence resulting from the existence of that item or person.

Not sure what this means: "Something can be demonstrated to exist by evidence resulting from the existence of that item or person."

Do you mean to say that X is evidence for the existence of X? If so, that's trivially true. "From X I can deduce that X" is a tautology and so is not informative. Let me try to make this even more vivid: From the premise "X" I can deduce that "X". While deductively valid, it is circular and is therefore epistemically useless.

You do not need to physically touch and feel the exact subject of your investigation to be able to prove its existence.

That's true, so long as the thing whose existence you are proving is itself physical (like China, in my example). This won't work for proving God's existence so long as the evidence is physical since physical evidence can't prove the existence of a non-physical existent.

The same is true with God. We can indeed find evidence of His existence, contrary to your prior statement that one can only see evidence of God if He was physical.

No, the same isn't true in the case of proving God's existence. Evidence that we can see has to be physical (vision is a perceptual system and cannot detect non-physical objects). You can ARGUE by means of inference to the best explanation that the existence of God is the most rational explanation for what you see, but that's a different animal.

I've responded to all your comments. I note that you don't read my comments carefully. You seem to miss a lot.

I've just re-read the thread and notice that since I corrected your use of "mental state" you have not addressed my question in any way. If you don't have an answer just say so and I'll let it drop. But since you were the one who mentioned thoughts being non-physical I am interested to know how you understand the relation of second-order functional states (like thoughts) to their first-order physical supervenience bases.

[Akoue]

There is so much and far to much to summarize on a single post. Part of the problem being that it depends upon exactly what aspect of evolution you are speaking of - because there are assumptions made for each area. If you had to following this and the last thread, you will see that I went over a number of the assumptions regarding the age of the earth. My suggestion, if you are really interested in learning about the topic is to grab a copy of the book "Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe - you might learn a great deal. Of course, some folk who do like being confronted with fact that they don't agree with simply attack the book without so much as cracking the cover. I hope that you are not one of those.

I'm not sure why you changed the subject in this way. My question was: Do you have *evidence* for the claim that "God indwells" you? You answered by not answering, i.e. by talking about evolution (see quoted post above). Please, do you have evidence that God indwells you and, if so, what is that evidence?

[Akoue]

-->There is no testable alternative scientific hypothesis that explains the facts as well or better than evolution.

This seems to be the one that proponents of Intelligent Design pass over with the greatest frequency. They're willing to make their case that evolution is deeply flawed, but they don't seem to appreciate that Intelligent Design cannot count as an alternative scientific explanation of the data since it isn't a *testable* hypothesis. At the same time, these proponents of ID claim that evolution isn't empirically verified (testable) despite the fact that scientists have made plenty of predictive claims on the strength of it, claims which have in turn been empirically verified. It starts to look a bit like a shell-game.

[Tj3]

This sounds painful!

Not at all. But an eternity in hell wo0uld most certainly be painful

You probably have no direct evidence that your local congressperson actually ever goes to Washington, D.C. either. Or possibly even that he or she exists.

I know for a fact that my congressman does not exist. We are an independent country and in fact won the last war between our countries.

But you have indirect evidence. I have substantial indirect evidence that Akoue exists and knows what he's talking about.

No actually you don't. Akoue could be simply another userid for someone else. But if you accept that as evidence, I have 66 books of evidence that God exists.

[asking]

Akoue could be simply another userid for someone else. But if you accept that as evidence, I have 66 books of evidence that God exists.

Of course, "Akoue" is a userid, as is Tj3. But I can engage both Akoue and you in conversation in which my very specific questions and comments generate a coherent response that is, furthermore, specific to userid. For example, Akoue's responses are consistently articulate and scholarly, indicating a significant academic background. I would estimate that Akoue's control of English language is 99th percentile. In essence, Tj3 and Akoue both pass the Turing test.

The Bible, in contrast, is a static entity that does not respond to my specific queries any more than any other book. No book can past a Turing test. A book is made of paper and ink. It is, in essence, a fossilized remains of human thoughts. It is not, in itself, an intelligent or living entity.

[Tj3]

I actually did take the time to read some of Behe's book. I reject his arguments entirely, as have biologists generally.

Well, you cans peak for yourself, but I am always suspicious when someone elects themselves a spokesperson for others. Why don't we get into details on the book "The Edge of Evolution".

As for Creationism's God-is-in-the-gaps arguments

Cannot comment - never heard of that argument.