agapeo

What happened to Bede's other three points? His didn't add up to ten as the other two judges did.

faded_Glory

Read his judgement. He did not allocate all of his points on purpose.

fG

Mike Montgomery

MadMax defines his view of naturalism as follows: Much of the debate hinges on whether a debater is free to define his views in this manner, and then refuse to defend any other view of naturalism. In my experience with debate in college, we would not be allowed to redefine a topic of debate in such a manner that mainsteam sources on the topic would not apply. We would be required to stick with a dictionary definition of the topic, such as the American Heritage definition of naturalism: "The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws".

The remainder of MadMax's working definition about "highly evolved or technologically advanced beings with unusual and fantastic capabilities, other universes, other dimensions, and other types of energies that are currently unknown to us" does not reflect a mainstream view of naturalism. Given such an addition, what is god but a "technologically advanced being with unusual and fantastic capabilities, other universes, other dimensions, and other types of energies that are currently unknown to us". Basically, MadMax has absorbed God into his definition of naturalism. If he is permitted this defintion, then what is left to debate?

Did they exchange these definitions ahead of time? If so, had I been Andrew, I would have refused to debate, since there is actually nothing separating theism from this view of naturalism.

If not, the judges should have intervened and asked MadMax to defend a mainstream view of naturalism. Otherwise, the debate is meaningless in view of the actual topic that was supposed to be debated.

MadMax further said in his definition that "naturalism must be unable to explain it, even in principle" if evidence is supposed to be presented against naturalism. I defy anyone to even make up a scenario which could then be presented as evidence against this view of naturalism. This makes a mockery of the debate topic: "WHERE DOES THE EVIDENCE POINT?"

Would Andrew have been permitted to present and defend a view of theism where "theism must be unable to explain it, even in principle" if evidence is supposed to be presented against theism? And then refuse to argue against any other view, saying that he only has to defend his view of theism?

MadMax concedes that there is obviously evidence that has no known natural explanation, even after exhaustive attempts at providing a natural explanation. Any rational person should take this as potential evidence of unnatural causes. To persist in presuming a naturalistic explantion MUST be cause of the evidence after exhaustive attempts at providing a natural explanation is an irrational view. But since MadMax's definition of naturalism includes beings with powers equal to any theistic god, no cause could be considered unnatural.

So with MadMax given a pass to present a view of naturalism which potentially encompasses all of the power that could be attributed to a theistic god, what was the point of this debate again?

faded_Glory

Mike,

I do have some sympathy for what you are saying, and said as much in my judgement. However, I think the entire point is moot since Andrew actually never gave any positive evidence for the existence of the Supernatural (I have explained why his two examples are in my mind not necessarily supernatural in the theist sense of the word).

Had he come up with some concrete evidence we might have seen how Max would have responded. If Max and Andrew would have agreed that certain 'miraculous events' have indeed a historical basis, and if Max's refutation had been no more than "we might be able to explain this in the future" the weakness of his position would have been more obvious. As it was, Andrew offered preciously litle evidence at all, and certainly not enough to set aside Occam's razor.

fG

Mike Montgomery

The term I used was SPECIFIC COMPLEXITY. If you are at all familiar with the science of intelligent design, you would understand this term, which explains your boomerang and tools examples. As for an ecosystem, we have no positive proof that the ecosystem was not designed. Indeed, the balance of the ecosystem is spoken of by evolutionist in terms of 'apparent design', something which appears to be designed but actually has a naturalistic explanation.

Your post indicates that you are not actually familiar with the science of intelligent design, or you would have understood the term Specified Complexity. (This is like someone dismissing Evolution as hogwash but being unfamilar with the term Natural Selection.)

The fact that evolution apologists accept that many things have 'apparent design' indicates that intelligent design is not complete nonsense. The evolution apologists try to show why some things seem to be designed, but actually have naturalistic explanations. But one must actually weigh both explanations, and see which one seems most plausible. As well as consider examples of 'apparent design' where no natural explanation yet has been forthcoming.

One cannot dismiss intelligent design as nonsense based on the current evidence. The current explanations for apparent design are inadequate for this conclusion. If one dismisses intelligent design as nonsense, it must be done on philosophical grounds, not based on the evidence.

joedad

Are you simply making a case for orthodoxy?

How do you go about identifying the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" separate from the design itself?

I'm just curious. "Intelligent" in intelligent design, appears to me to be identical to "Super" in supernatural. Why not just call it super design and be accurate about it? You appear to simply be using different words to convey the same idea. Am I missing something?

joe

Mike Montgomery

I think sometimes we sometimes get confused as to what is meant by evidence, and think of evidence only to mean rationally compelling evidence. American Heritages Dictionary defines evidence as "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis." Note that the broken window could have been causes by something else other than a burglary, such as a baseball accidentally hit into the window. But this does not stop the broken window from being evidence for as burglary.

Evidence is something helpful in forming a conclusion. Most evidence is not rationally compelling, but pieces of evidence for and against a hypothesis are weighed.

When MadMax conceded that there was obvious phenomenon which defied naturalistic explanation despite serious attempts at finding a naturalistic explanation, this IS evidence of the supernatural, in that it is consistent with a supernatural hypothesis (and other hypothesis as well). (I won't rehash the whole argument here; see earlier posts.)

Andrew's argument that the universe was caused is also evidence. (Astronomical observations and thermodynamics makes it improbable that the universe has always existed or is cyclic.) As counterargument shows, it is not compelling, but on the balance, I would weigh the current evidence as favoring that the universe was caused.

Andrew's argument about apparent design also provides evidence. No one refutes the data here, but the counterargument is that it only appears to be designed, and there is natural explanation. Each person can judge which seems more credible.

Andrew's arguments about objective morals and free will also provide evidence.

I can see the objections forming already, and to reiterate, if these arguments are consistent with Andrew's hypothesis or position, then they ARE evidence, even if they could also be construed as evidence for another view as well.

In conclusion, Andrew did provide positive evidence for the existence of the supernatural from these (and other) arguments. One may not buy this evidence, but it incorrect to say that no positive evidence for the supernatural was provided.

On the other hand, MadMax provided a viewpoint that by definition was not falsefiable. One could not even imagine evidence that would be conflicting with his hypothesis. However, in espousing such an inclusive view, MadMax had a responsibility to provide positive evidence as well. And not just the standard evidence for naturalism, but he needed to provide positive evidence for his view that "naturalism is compatible with highly evolved or technologically advanced beings with unusual and fantastic capabilities, other universes, other dimensions, and other types of energies that are currently unknown to us." I doubt if he would find many mainsteam advocates of naturalism who would agree with him.

If MadMax is to gain the advantages of such an inclusive view that cannot be falsified, he also picks up the burden of positive evidence for that view as well. Based on his view of naturalism, I can't see the difference between "advanced beings with unusual and fantastic capabilities" and god, so MadMax must show how naturalism is compatible with god, or these "advanced beings with unusual and fantastic capabilities". I saw little positive evidence by MadMax supporting this view.

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

In spite of the negative outcome I will continue to debate in the future. I find it far more stimulating than board discussions with no time limit and no rules of engagement and no clear winner. I was going to say where people can't quote only themselves as authorites but we know that isn't so.

In the future I will definitely make sure a realistic definition of a topic is given in advance. Max and I did have a conversation to that effect and I felt his definition was so far from mainstream that it would hurt and not help his cause. I mistakenly thought he would have to defend with reason his version.

I also believe this debate turned into an assumption of naturalism unless theism can be proven. Therefore out of the starting gate I was on a steep uphill climb. Yet that was not the title of the debate. In my opinion Max didn’t provide any really good evidence why we should think naturalism is more than a philosophy but is actually the truth of reality that all phenomena can or will be explained naturally. Faded_glory confirms this thought by saying I didn’t provide evidence of supernaturalism,

I think the entire point is moot since Andrew actually never gave any positive evidence for the existence of the Supernatural (I have explained why his two examples are in my mind not necessarily supernatural in the theist sense of the word).

Since I gave four examples I assume at least two of them were compelling. Notice how Max need not provide evidence of natural causes for the examples I provided. After all unless we assume naturalism it should have as good or better evidence for itself. True? It is ironic that Faded_glory docked me a point for my conclusion when in fact I think he fell victim to sham reasoning I complained about. I won't whine to much since he scored it close.

Secondly when I debate again I will draw up some rules for judging the contest. I am going to investigate and find out what are some basic criteria for evaluating debates. For instance all judges should have the same point system. I haven’t heard much from Dave other than to say he felt it was my fault that Max was on the defensive much of the debate. I was under the impression that putting your opponent on the defense was a good tactic. Instead according to Dave it cost me the debate. I find it hard to imagine that if Richard Carrier put some theist on the defensive an entire debate he would lose as a result. Secondly faded-glory said two of my arguments didn’t persuade him they were evidence of the supernatural. I don’t think supposedly impartial judges are supposed to worry about whether arguments personally persuade them or not. If I make a poor argument and my opponent capitalizes on it then of course point should be awarded. I don’t think the judge should shore up the opponents argument for him in case he fails to. In other words the contest is between the two participants.

As for Bede’s judging I am still at a loss. Apparently my opening was irrelevant in his eyes. If so my opponent should have capitalized and made hay of it. True? If not is it Bede’s job to measure it by how he would have done it? Since most people’s opinion of naturalism stems from science I thought it was highly relevant to show that science operates and assumes the truth of naturalism. So that such evidence would be a result of circular reasoning. Amazingly my opponent didn’t seem to think there was anything wrong with my opening.

In any event I am still satisfied with my effort and I will chalk this up to a valuable learning lesson.

For sprited but friendly discussion Please visit <a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

Mike Montgomery

I really don't like the term 'intelligent design'. I would rather just use the term 'design', implying intelligence. However, since some naturalists argue for 'natural design', i.e. design by forces undirected by intelligence, the term 'intelligent design' is used in contrast for design directed by intelligence. Thus a crystal in an example of 'natural design', while an arrowhead made from the crystal is an example of 'intelligent design'.

Intelligent design applies to more than just origin. The statistical measures can be used to examine anything, to determine if it more probably intelligently designed or not. This applies to radio transmissions, i.e. SETI program, as well as spying, determining whether intercepted transmissions are noise or whether they likely contain code to be sent for cryptographic analysis.

Sometimes an artifact could have had intelligent origin but be heavily eroded, or it may have just eroded naturally into a certain shape. Intelligent design can be used to determine the probability of each explanation.

I don't need much in the way of mathematics to show that there is a high probability that the computer that you are typing on is a product of intelligent design, rather than undirected natural causes. This is NOT equivalent to saying that your computer had supernatural origin.

No one really has a problem with intelligent design as applied to these fields, i.e. radio transmissions and non-living materials, nor can anyone really argue with the conclusions reached (most of which don't really need formal mathematics, but are pretty obvious about what is designed and what is not). But the math/logic does help clarify why a crystal or snowflake is not a product of intelligent design, and why a boomerang is.

When one attempts to apply the measures of intelligent design to living materials, suddenly intelligent design is called nonsense, because it shows a statistical likelihood that life is the result of intelligent design. This should be no surprise to an objective observer. DNA has a tremendously large non-random information content. Microbiology shows us that the very simplest single celled life has enormously complex DNA, and tens of thousands of components. Indeed, no one has postulated a minimal life form that does not at least have systems to handle gathering energy or nutrients, expelling waste products, and reproduction. The minimal complexity postulated for reproduction is enormously high. One must postulate that all of these systems become present at the same time for the simplest creature to be viable.

Is formation of first life from random chemicals followed by evolution a satisfactory explanation for life? Intelligent design shows where that explanation is weak, and where it needs to be shored up by further study and experiments if evolution is to credible. Indeed, this is why evolution apologists spend quite a bit of time explaining why some things only have the appearance of design, rather than actually being the product of intelligent design. The apologists acknowledge apparent design, indicating it is not outrageous for a rational person to acknowledge the possibility of intelligent design based on the evidence.

Intelligent design does not imply supernatural origin. One does not have to believe in theism to acknowledge evidence for intelligent design, any more than one has to believe in naturalism to acknowledge the evidence for evolution.

Mike Montgomery

Regarding Faded_glory's judgement:
I reread Andrew's closing to try to find the attack, and I could not be sure what Faded_glory was referring to. Faded_glory, could you please quote what attack you were referring to?

If one was going to deduct for unnecessary attacks, I view MadMax's attack much more personal and self-defeating.

This is not an implicit attack on his opponent, this is a direct one. I can't really see deducting for Andrew's implicit attack, and yet ignoring Madmax's explicit attacking.