The Cumulative Argument for the Whingdingdilly

[Ooberman]

In a debate with Edwin Curley, William Lane Craig said in his opening statement, "These reasons are independent of one another, so that if even one of them is sound, it furnishes good grounds for believing that God exists. Taken together, they constitute a powerful cumulative case that God exists."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-exis ... z2JqYx3lbK

In that debate he used three arguments:

1. Kalam
2. Teleological
3. Moral

The first obvious criticism is that the moral argument and Kalam have nothing to do with each other. There is no "powerful" connection between the cause of the visible universe and moral values. After all, they could exist independently of each other, theoretically.

And, neither require a God.

So:


1.

The Kalam argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The theist then slips in, usually, "This cause we call God".

Well, the theist MAY call it whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it IS God.

That is, I call it the Cause of the Universe, and it fits perfectly within a naturalistic framework.

After all, for the Cause to be called "God" the theist needs to prove the Cause is ALSO tied to other aspects of God in a sufficient and necessary way.

It's not enough to declare "we know the universe had a cause" (Something science has verified, which means Kalam is now redundant.) and use it for God if it equally applies to other explanations.


Craig argues, "If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.�

I argue, “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, Cause of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.�

My argument sounds like a plausible sketch of how an event like a vacuum fluctuation in quantum foam could explain the observable universe. (The quick analogy is that our universe is like a bubble in a pot of water, sans pot, and the water is the infinite sea of undifferentiated energy)

That is, by using Kalam, we both arrive at a proof for our beliefs. Craig, however, tries to add "intelligent" which is a poorly defined term and certainly only makes sense if there is a Mind, and Minds only make sense if there are Brains. Brains only make sense if there is matter. Matter only makes sense if there is Time and Space.

And Intelligence only makes sense if there is Time.

This is one of those examples that Craig tries to overwhelm the audience by piling on too much and hoping they don't recognize his addition of the things he REALLY needs to prove: intelligence or some personal aspect.

His argument for the personal aspects of God, are, again, not part of Kalam, but a separate argument all together; the neck of the Whingdingdilly.


2.
WLC then moves to the teleological argument. Well, this is one of the least used arguments used, but Craig being a great orator uses it to great effect on people who are already theists.

Here, I am going to counter this argument for the Whingdingdilly's hind legs and point out that there is scientific evidence that people may be prone to belief in God due to brain activity, and not because there is a God. (Similarly some people believe in ghosts, phantoms and other non-existent beings because of the sense of agency and other psychological states, as well as confusion over data we get from the environment and our inability to properly assess it.)

For example, pareidolia is common. You can do it yourself. Find a richly patterned wallpaper and stare at it for a while. You will see "design" of faces in it.

Of course, there was no design of faces, but our human brains evolved to recognize faces, so we are exceptionally good at finding them.

This is what Craig preys on - he is hoping people use this evolved trait to extend to the natural world; design and agency.

Clearly, there is a reason ID (which was the most serious push of the teleological argument to date) is not taught in schools or is a serious field of study.

I don't feel the need to continue with a rebuttal of the teleological argument since it is becoming less used by theists in scholarly circles for good reason.

If someone wants to press it, I will continue.


3.
The moral argument, or the Whingdingdilly's head, is not a serious concern either and everyone calls it Craig's weakest argument.

The reason it is weak is because he presumes: "if objective morals exist, then god exists".

This is clearly contradicted by deontology and the vast majority of philosophers.

And, if that's not enough to stop Craig's argument, it's enough to point out that saying "objective morals SEEM to exist, therefore they exist". Yes, there need to be arguments to explain this seeming truth, but it would have been a lot harder for Craig to argue his "killing children just seems wrong" in ancient times when it was a normal practice.

And, I might add, the world today kills millions of children in the form of abortion and has legalized it. If "killing children" is objectively wrong, then we, collectively, don't seem to realize it.

This means the objectivist must add certain qualifiers, which under deontology are perfectly explainable.

"It's wrong to torture babies for no reason". Well, but on naturalism, we have reasons not to do things for no reason, whether it's torturing babies, killing witches, or stoning children, or maintaining realms of eternal torture.



All in all, the arguments for God all seem to be flawed, and, even if they are persuasive in any one area, they don't seem to get us to the argument the the Whingdingdilly (God) exists.

That is, let's say the Moral argument works. It only shows, then, that there may be a God of Moral Values that was created when the universe was created.

Or, if Kalam is an argument for God, it only shows that the God that created the universe was capable of creating a universe, not making it appear designed (after all the Kalam God could be a Cause-maker, and he eternally pumps out causes that, in this one case, caused this universe).

Or, if teleological argument is true, it only shows that the cause of the universe may have caused something to design a universe...


So, my challenge to the theist is prove the actually Whingdingdilly exists, not each of it's attributes, which can be used to prove more mundane and naturalistic claims.

Yes, the elephant, giraffe, camel, rhino and reindeer exist.
The Whingdingdilly is what needs to be argued for.

So far I have not, to date, seen any theist argue why each argument must support the other. I have seen no argument the the "cumulative argument" is sound.

Can someone provide a logical argument for why the "cumulative argument" should be considered seriously?

[Mithrae]

Your knowledge of your own morals exceeds anyone else's knowledge of your morals, doesn't it? So in a theistic morality in which God devised a moral system (rather than it being derived from his nature), he would obviously know more about it than any other being.

About his moral values, perhaps. But how could he be sure his morals are objective and not his own subjective moral values?

It would be God's own subjective moral values. That's why I mentioned Euthyphro's dilemma as a worthy tangent to consider. I've suggested three possible descriptions of 'good' in a theistic view:
A> Good is an expression of God's nature
B> Good is a value system devised by God
C> Good is a value system independant of God

In the case of <A> it's meaningless to say that God himself is good, and questionable in the case of <B>. <B> describes God's subjective moral values, whereas <A> describes ontologically objective morality, and possibly <C> also (though I'm not sure it could make any sense). <C> could also potentially describe epistemologically objective morals (collectively subjective); for example moral values in the form of a covenant or agreement between God and men, as some folk interpret the Jewish scriptures to portray.

But none of this makes the problem of evil a logical objection to any form of theism I've come across. In the case of <A> it's also meaningless (and indeed logically incoherent) to say that God is evil. In the case of <B> God obviously knows his moral system better than anyone else possibly could. Only in the case of <C> might we meaningfully say that God is evil, or that God should have done things different. But we'd have no reason to suppose that humans' intelligence or access to data (and hence knowledge of objective morality) could be even remotely comparable to a being which created us, our planet and the whole universe.

The problem of evil cannot (despite Philo's squirming attempts to avoid the admission and switch the goalposts) be a reductio ad absurdum argument against any modern form theism I know of. And without appealing to some ontologically objective moral values, it may well be a very eloquent and impassioned expression of our opinions and preferences about the state of life on Earth - but that's all it ever could be.


Edit: Anyways, I only joined the topic to clarify my views on the Craig vs. Harris debate on objective morality The actual wingdiddilydoo thing doesn't much interest me - I agree that Ockham's razor hardly proves anything in that scenario, though one God is simpler than many Gods, I think. And I agree with Assissigirl that it is quite cute.

Here's an interesting string and recorder piece by Telemann

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Potentially perhaps, but not all of them are. A problem of evil reductio ad absurdum cannot logically be applied to a theism which suggests that 'good' is an expression of the nature of God. Nor can it be applied to a theism which suggests that God is good by virtue of his knowledge and adherence to some absolute principles, since God's knowledge of such principles would obviously far exceed our own.

In both case the theist runs straight into the Euthyphro dilemma, and renders the concept of "good" meaningless as it is placed beyond human comprehension. "Omnibenevolent" behaviour in both cases is reduced to whatever God's behaviour happens to be.

Not if those absolute moral principles were independant of God (rather than formulated by God), but broadly speaking I agree.

On the other hand, there are plenty of variations of theism where the theist defends against the problem of evil by attempting to demonstrate that their god is morally consistent. Thus you occasionally run into the apologist who argues that the slavery of biblical times was actually a good thing, or that the biblical genocides were good genocides, or tries to explain how god has the right to kill babies as he sees fit. Popular theistic beliefs are indeed susceptible to the problem of evil (I know mine certainly were), that's why we see biblicists trying to interpret around it.

Christians try to understand God's goodness, and often have problems in light of some biblical atrocities. If a person's opinion can't reconcile itself to those atrocities a loss of faith may follow (in my own case also). But it's still a person's opinion, not an objective morality or a logical criticism of theism.

How is it not a logical criticism of theism if it shows that some theisms are logically inconsistent? If someone says that God is good then they cannot logically also state that genocide is bad. Thus some theistic beliefs are shown to be logically contradictory by the problem of evil.

[Filthy Tugboat]

I mean that if you look at all the bulk of professional and scholarly papers that have been published in the last 100-200 years, and particularly if you track the general papers of serious, sober research and attempts at understanding our world from the proper experts (not pundits, apologists, spinmeisters, commentators, etc. - which dominate the internet, tv, etc.)... there is no need or attempt to insert God into any of the equation.

...It has been my experience that nearly everything that opposes the popular teachings of those that are called Scientists is almost always called "junk science," a popular term among atheists...

I personally don't refer to it as such but the meaning behind the term is basically that the "science" some people purport is not actually science. What makes a field of inquiry actually science is that it follows the scientific method and has an efficient and accredited peer review system. Creationism and it's advocates do not have such a system, anything they purport is "actually science" is not peer reviewed, nor, as far as I've seen, has it ever been subject to the scientific method. In fact, I've never even heard of professionals in any field that actually agree with what creationist say about those respective fields. Biology, geology, astronomy, etc.

...If one interprets radiometric dating as guesswork they are considered ignorant. If one considers evolution nothing more than a theory they are considered ignorant. If one believes there was a canopy of water that surrounded the earth at one time they are considered ignorant.

Pretty much, yes. Ignorant of what each of those things actually are and why they are classified and regarded the way that they are. Anyone who says "evolution is nothing more than a theory" clearly doesn't know what a theory in science is, if they did, they wouldn't use those words. "nothing more than a theory". Just like the theory of gravity is "nothing more than a theory". You've probably heard this response a hundred times, I've seen it posted a hundred times to creationists, if you have, what about scientific theories do you not understand? If the theory of evolution were more than a theory, what would it be?

Mythology, psychology, biology, and other areas outside of a particular religion more than account for the reason people believe in religion. Particularly, why people can believe in a religion that is false, yet seem so convinced it's true, even in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

...take for instance my belief that scripture records a flood. I look at certain evidence which I believe points to precisely such an event yet it is considered ignorant...

Correct, if you believe that there was a worldwide flood and that evidence exists to support that belief then you would be ignorant of pretty much all of geology.

...I believe the reason we do not employ the full use of our brain to be a result of man having lesseened from what he was when originally created. But I cannot say that there are not those that even if by accident may be tapping into something that the rest of us cannot.

To keep the theme going, your belief's concerning brain usage are also ignorant. The reason not all of the brain is used at every given moment is because certain parts of the brain perform specific tasks and not all tasks need to be performed simultaneously, it would be wasting energy and generating excess heat in our skull if we were using all of our brain to complete something only 5% of our brain is useful for.

Given your beliefs are Biblically based, perhaps, given the framework you propose (the Bible is true) the cause for our deteriorated abilities is that we are all the product of incest, massive amounts of incest. Incest is known to cause birth defects. Just a thought.

...So the counterpoint would be "there is nothing that indicates it is impossible for the brain to produce psychokinetic abilities, either," and while science has not demonstrated this function, it would be foolish to rule it out just because we do not understand the brain.

It doesn't have to be ruled out but I certainly don't think it should be considered. There is no reason to believe humans capable of such abilities. Such abilities would invalidate much of what we know. Here's where taking, "we don't know what this can do so let's not rule out possibilities," goes way too far. If ever a potential conclusion is "magic", it's probably not going to happen.

There is nothing inconsistent with the proposition that God does not exist, in the exact same way that pixies don't exist, or some other supernatural proposition.

Would you die for science?

What does that even mean?

[PhiloKGB]

Although I don't think it entirely my fault, I apologize for any botching up of the previous discussion. I'd like to start relatively fresh here.

I've suggested three possible descriptions of 'good' in a theistic view:
A> Good is an expression of God's nature
B> Good is a value system devised by God
C> Good is a value system independant of God

In the case of <A> it's meaningless to say that God himself is good, and questionable in the case of <B>. <B> describes God's subjective moral values, whereas <A> describes ontologically objective morality, and possibly <C> also (though I'm not sure it could make any sense).

If (A) describes an "ontologically objective morality," it does not do so for the reasons you assume. This is Wes Morriston's take, from a paper I've had sitting on my USB drive for years:

If, then, we identify the ultimate standard of moral goodness (not moral obligation) with God's moral nature, it seems that we are identifying it with a set of properties — and it is these properties, not God or God's existence, that are doing the real work in our theory of value. It is of course wonderful that there is a supreme being who possesses all these wonderful properties. But it is hard to see why they would have been any less wonderful or any less suited to the task of grounding moral value if there had never been a being who possessed all of them.

<C> could also potentially describe epistemologically objective morals (collectively subjective); for example moral values in the form of a covenant or agreement between God and men, as some folk interpret the Jewish scriptures to portray.

Is this "covenant" something that must be written down or transmitted orally? If so, while the morals themselves could be objective, their transmission and subsequent interpretation would not be.

But none of this makes the problem of evil a logical objection to any form of theism I've come across. In the case of <A> it's also meaningless (and indeed logically incoherent) to say that God is evil.

The Logical Problem of Evil does not conclude that God is evil.

In the case of <B> God obviously knows his moral system better than anyone else possibly could.

So? If God's moral system isn't objectively good, then we can just call it the Problem of Suffering and attack from within our own moral systems.

Only in the case of <C> might we meaningfully say that God is evil, or that God should have done things different. But we'd have no reason to suppose that humans' intelligence or access to data (and hence knowledge of objective morality) could be even remotely comparable to a being which created us, our planet and the whole universe.

But then the assumption that God is accurately representing those external objective morals is unwarranted.

The problem of evil cannot (despite Philo's squirming attempts to avoid the admission and switch the goalposts) be a reductio ad absurdum argument against any modern form theism I know of. And without appealing to some ontologically objective moral values, it may well be a very eloquent and impassioned expression of our opinions and preferences about the state of life on Earth - but that's all it ever could be.

I don't know what else to say.

I agree that Ockham's razor hardly proves anything in that scenario, though one God is simpler than many Gods, I think.

Consider the evolutionary arms race between cheetahs and gazelles. We could explain that as the cheetah-god making incremental improvements in speed and stealth, and the gazelle-god making incremental improvements in agility and grouping behavior, or we could explain it as one god playing chess against itself. Which one would Occam's Razor favor?

[Ooberman]

Well, it appears these debates are dying on the vine.

It's clear no theist here has an answer for the meta-argument for God's existence (that somehow pulls together the various arguments for God), and indeed, each argument itself is severely flawed.

Is anyone aware of a thriving debate forum where there are intelligent and eager Christians willing to argue in the vein of WLC, Plantinga, Van Wagon (;-)) and other Christian philosophers?

This site doesn't seem populated by particularly well-read Christians. Their strategy seems to be to adopt that of the wily fish and hide in a barrel....

http://youtu.be/jtFwpXcH-Tw

[Peter]

I agree that Ockham's razor hardly proves anything in that scenario, though one God is simpler than many Gods, I think.

Ah, an interesting thought.

Nope, that's like saying one infinitely complex god is simpler than three infinitely complex gods. In fact, wouldn't the existence of a single infinitely complex god imply the existence of an infinite number of infinitely complex gods? If we're going to accept one "uncaused cause" why stop there? It's all madness IMO but with the appropriate filters and blinders it seems to work for many people.

[S.T. Ranger]

I mean that if you look at all the bulk of professional and scholarly papers that have been published in the last 100-200 years, and particularly if you track the general papers of serious, sober research and attempts at understanding our world from the proper experts (not pundits, apologists, spinmeisters, commentators, etc. - which dominate the internet, tv, etc.)... there is no need or attempt to insert God into any of the equation.

...It has been my experience that nearly everything that opposes the popular teachings of those that are called Scientists is almost always called "junk science," a popular term among atheists...

I personally don't refer to it as such but the meaning behind the term is basically that the "science" some people purport is not actually science.

Hello FT, nice to meet you. Sorry to have to begin discussion with this is laughable.

Not science according to who? What is not science? Are you going to tell me you have looked at all that creation scientists have said and found all of it to be...not science?

Your comments suggest you have looked at nothing that a scientist or scientists have suggested point to the veracity of scriptural accounts.

What makes a field of inquiry actually science is that it follows the scientific method and has an efficient and accredited peer review system.

So you will acknowledge study of the Bible to be a science? Have not archaeologists, language scolars, textual critics for far longer than the study of DNA appraoched the Bible from a Scientific manner? And have not the findings been reviewed by believing and unbelieving peers in that time?

Creationism and it's advocates do not have such a system,

Sure we do.

It's just a matter of not conforming to indoctrination that many that oppose creationism have been.

anything they purport is "actually science" is not peer reviewed, nor, as far as I've seen, has it ever been subject to the scientific method.

I gave a link to a scientific study concerning prayer and whether those prayed for heal faster. In the article, taken from a secular source, it was admitted that in the scientific community anything that even had the word prayer associated with it was not even considered.

I suggest to you, FT, that this is the case with most of Creation Science. It is like Dawkins refusal to debate the fellow Ooberman focuses on in this thread: he gives his reason for not debating based on the beliefs of WLC and denounce them as unreasonable, when in fact, one such belief which is that God's mercy can be seen in instances such as the Flood and other events where children died, based upon two primary and basic principles, in that God is just (and would therefore not condemn a child to eternal separation) and that their death actually prevented them from going up to become guilty of the sins of their fathers which would likely ensure their eternal separation. Dawkins dismisses this as terrible, yet the belief is not only reasonable when we balance what we know of God it is probable.

Good excuse not to debate, though. His adoring fans loved it. I actually appreciated his humor. But it is an excuse nonetheless.

I will give you a couple of scientific discoveries to consider, FT, and you can tell me if they are scientific or not:

Turbidity Currents: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/turbidity.html

If you can tell me why I think this is relevant to a global flood we can discuss it in more detail. I would also like to know the general view of Geologists in regards to turbidity currents, which should be fairly easy for you, who also know all that creation science offers up, to do.

Then apply turbidity currents to polystrate fossils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

Seems to me that these secular sources give a good reasdon to see evidence of a flood that was quite considerable.

But of course this is not a scientific position, right? No science involved here.

In fact, I've never even heard of professionals in any field that actually agree with what creationist say about those respective fields. Biology, geology, astronomy, etc.

Perhaps your focus of inquiry is limited?

...If one interprets radiometric dating as guesswork they are considered ignorant. If one considers evolution nothing more than a theory they are considered ignorant. If one believes there was a canopy of water that surrounded the earth at one time they are considered ignorant.

Pretty much, yes. Ignorant of what each of those things actually are and why they are classified and regarded the way that they are.

Okay, so explain in your own words and understanding how radiometric dating works.

We can go from there. I would also like to know if you are in this field of expertise or if you simply take the word of others as to the validity of both the methods and the conclusions.

Anyone who says "evolution is nothing more than a theory" clearly doesn't know what a theory in science is, if they did, they wouldn't use those words.

I am familiar with scientific theory, however, theory in regards to Evolution is reduced to the basest meaning of theory, in that it is a conclusion seeking out facts and interpreting the "evidence" as fitting the theory.

What do you take theory to mean?

"nothing more than a theory". Just like the theory of gravity is "nothing more than a theory".

Not exactly. THere is that which we can determine about gravity that is accepted by most. We give the term "law of gravity" which few will argue.

Gravitational Time Dilation is a theory associated with Gravitational Theory.

But theory when used in regards to Evolution takes on a base meaning which cannot, in the view of some, be viewed as an irrefutable fact. If you drop something, it will fall. If you change the conditions men live under...they will become a different animal.

Two entirely different things using the same word to describe something.

Kind of like "jealousy." Two kinds of jealousy, one good, one bad.

You've probably heard this response a hundred times, I've seen it posted a hundred times to creationists, if you have, what about scientific theories do you not understand?

Not a thing. It's promoting Evolution as a law that I disagree with. A theory is a theory until proven, correct? Show me proof that man was not created in the form he is in today regardless of his ability to adapt to external conditions and climates. You can't do it, but I am sure you will tell me how ignorant it is to blieve this.

If the theory of evolution were more than a theory, what would it be?

It would be law, FT.

It would be fact.

If I theorize that sedimentary layering can be accomplished in minutes, hours, and days, instead of the necessity for millions of years, and then evidence of this taking place within the very conditions that would have existed in a flood, it may still leave me to theorize because I am not a witness, but it is as reasonable a belief as that it did not happen.

Mythology, psychology, biology, and other areas outside of a particular religion more than account for the reason people believe in religion. Particularly, why people can believe in a religion that is false, yet seem so convinced it's true, even in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

...take for instance my belief that scripture records a flood. I look at certain evidence which I believe points to precisely such an event yet it is considered ignorant...

Correct, if you believe that there was a worldwide flood and that evidence exists to support that belief then you would be ignorant of pretty much all of geology.

Is that a fact. law, or theory you present, FT?

So your knowledge of geology extends to every available aspect which should be considered? Or it is limited only to those sources which accomodate your beliefs?

...I believe the reason we do not employ the full use of our brain to be a result of man having lesseened from what he was when originally created. But I cannot say that there are not those that even if by accident may be tapping into something that the rest of us cannot.

To keep the theme going, your belief's concerning brain usage are also ignorant. The reason not all of the brain is used at every given moment is because certain parts of the brain perform specific tasks and not all tasks need to be performed simultaneously, it would be wasting energy and generating excess heat in our skull if we were using all of our brain to complete something only 5% of our brain is useful for.

I have no problem being considered ignorant, FT, do you?

Here is an article which parallels what I have said regarding the power of popular opinion in regards to what is considered "true science" and scientific process:

But much of the criticism of PEAR disregards the lab’s sound scientific practices and procedures, according to Michael E. Yank ’02, who assessed the integrity of PEAR’s scientific articles as part of his history and science senior thesis. “The PEAR articles follow a very textbook methodology,� Yank says. “This is very pristine science.�

Yank attributes much of the criticism of PEAR to most scientists’ reluctance to use modern scientific techniques to address subjects like psychokinesis and ESP that have long been seen as ridiculous on their face. He says the scientific community often refuses to consider claims that exist outside of the scientific mainstream, no matter how seemingly compelling the data that PEAR compiles. Yank says that one can see evidence of this bias in the fact that established scientific journals, such as Nature or Science, almost never publish articles by groups like PEAR.

This reluctance to explore nonstandard scientific frontiers creates serious problems for PEAR scientists, who seek credibility among their peers but are often barred access to the very means of attaining credibility, such as publication in the most preeminent scientific journals. “It’s like a chicken and egg scenario,� Yank says. “Groups like PEAR can’t get [scientific] authority until they become established but they can’t get established until they have some authority.�



Like Roger Daltrey sang, "Here comes the new boss...same as the old boss..."


Here is the source of the quote if you care to look at the pseudoscience of this particvular group: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/4/11/princeton-studies-mind-reading-or-did/

Gotta be pseudoscience, I mean, with a name like PEAR, c'mon...

Given your beliefs are Biblically based, perhaps, given the framework you propose (the Bible is true) the cause for our deteriorated abilities is that we are all the product of incest, massive amounts of incest. Incest is known to cause birth defects. Just a thought.

This is not entirely correct, FT. While my beliefs are biblically based I am not trying to convice anyone to embrace Flood Geology or for that matter to embrace God. In fact, this is a burden I have never carried and it's relevance has grown increasingly less of an issue with the embrace of evolution by many believers. If that is what they want to believe, so be it. My only concern is to convey that which I believe to be truth and I don't have a problem with others rejecting my beliefs. Doesn't mean I won't present the basis for my beliefs, and yes, this will in many cases stem from Biblical Doctrine.

Concerning theistic evolutionists, at the very least, we share common ground in regards to faith. Whether one embraces theistic evolution or not, makes no difference in regards to salvation. There have been many a popular Theologian that long before science had much to go on embraced theistic evolution. Gap Restoration Theology goes back some time.

you propose (the Bible is true) the cause for our deteriorated abilities is that we are all the product of incest, massive amounts of incest.

Intermarrying at initial creation and after the flood would have been limited. It does not take long for a family to have an incredible number of descendants. This was something that was a necessity at the time but was not meant to be the norm, and it is likely that this practice is now limited because of issues that arise from intermarriage and breeding.

I suggest that the cause for man's deterioration is SIN, and that he is under the same curse as the very world is under. Man was created quite the specimen, having a rule over creation, and now that rule is hard won. He is not at peace with nature, he has to work to survive, and he does not live as long as it is said that man once did in scripture.

That is my belief. part of it, anyway.

...So the counterpoint would be "there is nothing that indicates it is impossible for the brain to produce psychokinetic abilities, either," and while science has not demonstrated this function, it would be foolish to rule it out just because we do not understand the brain.

It doesn't have to be ruled out but I certainly don't think it should be considered.

Hmm, this is a popular view in the scientific community, as per PEAR's statement to that effect. It is noce to see some in the Scientific Community testify concerning the bias and fear of many in the scientific community to research certain fields.

But then, why research or give credence to something that might turn out to oppose the popular view? I can understand their hesitance to give much media time to something like this.

There is no reason to believe humans capable of such abilities.

There is much reason to believe that man may through prayer and conscious thought effect an outcome that would not take place apart from that effort.

Unless one fears it will undermine their particular faith, no matter where that faith might lie.

Such abilities would invalidate much of what we know.

Bingo!

Hence, it is pseudoscience. It's just easier that way, right?

Here's where taking, "we don't know what this can do so let's not rule out possibilities," goes way too far.

Nonsense. Scienctific process can be applied to the research.

It's not like randomly mixing chemicals and hoping for the best.

If ever a potential conclusion is "magic", it's probably not going to happen.

You mean like fax machines? The internet? TV. Radio. Can't see the process of radio waves by observation with the human eye, does that mean they aren't really there?

Quite magical if you ask me. Because we can explain how it works makes it less impressive?

As far as magic goes, is it magic that those that are prayed for heal faster than those that are not? Even if we ascribed this to something as mundane as the power of positive thinking it still evidences results that fall closer to what I believe than what you have expressed.

There is nothing inconsistent with the proposition that God does not exist, in the exact same way that pixies don't exist, or some other supernatural proposition.

Would you die for science?

What does that even mean?

How invested are you in your belief system? If you knew that you could conduct research that would cure a disease, though you risked death...would you do it?

For believers, they believe that the Gospel message can save lives on a level that exceeds temporal existance, and not only have died in the past for those beliefs, but do so on a daily basis today in modern times.

So would you risk your life for the benefit of scientific progress?

Thanks for the response.

God bless.

[Ooberman]

How invested are you in your belief system? If you knew that you could conduct research that would cure a disease, though you risked death...would you do it?

1. So, if you could fly planes into buildings, knowing it would topple the economic system of "the Great Satan, and you would go to HEaven for it, ....

2. IF you knew you could kill children and they would go to Heaven, while you might have to sacrifice your own eternal life...


See how this is a non sequitur to the question?

For believers, they believe that the Gospel message can save lives on a level that exceeds temporal existance, and not only have died in the past for those beliefs, but do so on a daily basis today in modern times.

So would you risk your life for the benefit of scientific progress?

People DO risk their lives for science in the way that counts: they spend their finite time on this Earth studying the things that bring them closer to the truth.
Many find out their beliefs are completely wrong, but the learned the truth, and that was always the main goal.
Some thought they found the truth, and hundreds of years later it was shown they were wrong. That's the way it is.

Ranger, I'm not seeing you debate the topic as much as assert your beliefs.

[S.T. Ranger]

How invested are you in your belief system? If you knew that you could conduct research that would cure a disease, though you risked death...would you do it?

1. So, if you could fly planes into buildings, knowing it would topple the economic system of "the Great Satan, and you would go to HEaven for it, ....

Christians are commanded to obey the word of God.

Can you show me in the Christian scriptures where we are commanded to kill, and then explain why the command not just to not kill, but to love our enemies...corresponds to the goofiness of your question? lol

2. IF you knew you could kill children and they would go to Heaven, while you might have to sacrifice your own eternal life...

You present this as though it may be a hidden knowledge for Christians to discover when not only is this ludicrous...it is specifically denied the CHristian as an option. What, love your enemy but it is okay to kill your children? I know you feel this is a good argument, but it has about as much relevance to Chirstianity and it's teachings as BBQ sauce has to those of hindu faith.

You might as well ask the hindu, "If you knew you could free your dead father who you think is the cow walking down the street by having him as the main course for a barbeque...would you do it?"

See how this is a non sequitur to the question?

Not really, no. I asked a simple question which you seem unwilling to answer. The answer given does not repond personally, but points to what others have done. And even that is in error.

For believers, they believe that the Gospel message can save lives on a level that exceeds temporal existance, and not only have died in the past for those beliefs, but do so on a daily basis today in modern times.

So would you risk your life for the benefit of scientific progress?

People DO risk their lives for science in the way that counts:

Correction, Ooberman...some people do. Astronauts come readily to mind. But as to how many scientific minded adherents would be willing to risk their lives falls into too much speculation. And when one dies for science...was that a known factor that thy embraced as an acceptable risk?

they spend their finite time on this Earth studying the things that bring them closer to the truth.

And this is equated to threat of death such as those that embrace faith in Christ are faced with?

Alrighty then.

Many find out their beliefs are completely wrong, but the learned the truth, and that was always the main goal.

Correction: for some...not all, Ooberman. It is rather naive to view science as free of politics, agenda, and dishonesty. Making money is not just something limited to false teachers in religious circles.

Some thought they found the truth, and hundreds of years later it was shown they were wrong. That's the way it is.

Agreed. That IS the way it is.

And our knowledge level will directly impact our understanding and the conclusions we come to, and what we call...truth.

But when we make conclusion and then seek out evidence we lack the integrity necessary to represent truth.

Ranger, I'm not seeing you debate the topic as much as assert your beliefs.

Nonsense. If I wanted to evangelize you, my friend, you would find it a little more agressive in nature than just fielding posts. There is much concerning salvation I wuld love to share with you, yet you have already shown a limited attention span concerning things that do not fall into your own reality. Seems like to me you told me that you would not waste one more second on me, or something to that effect. I guess you are an incredibly fast typist. lol

I supplied a few links which I think evidence a flood, would you care to respond to that part of my post?

God bless.

[Ooberman]

Ranger, when I say "Many" or "Some" don't correct me for not saying "some" as if I implied all.

That's not a correction, it's annoying.

I'll respond again when you seem to understand the arguments.