Andrew_theist

Hello Vorkosigan,

... Secondly how can there be a decisive victory?

First, I was referring to claims in BOTH informal and formal debate that had been refuted. For example, you constantly use "atheism" when you mean "metaphysical naturalism." Although this has been pointed out to you by several people, you continue to do it. Not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

The entire point of this thread was asking about the metaphysical credo of this website so I think I am well in bounds and your point moot.

Second, we don't need "smoking gun evidence" that the natural world is all there is. If you want to say that science is wrong and there is more, supply the evidence.

Science is not making a scientific statement that the natural world is all there is. There is a philosophy, which suggests such, and science subscribes to it. Let me see if I have this right. If as a theist I claim there is a God the onus of proof is on the claimant. If science declares the natural world is all there is the onus is not on the claimant but those who think otherwise. And this is your idea of objective inquiry?

In any case, given that Young Earth Creationists ignore decisive evidence in favor of an old earth, it is clear that no amount of evidence or rational argument will move people with faith-commitments to unreality.

As there are people who believe man never landed on the moon and natural world is all there is. Now c’mon Vorkosigan lets dispense with the red herrings.

The smoking gun evidence is out there, it has been out there for a century at least. Why do you think so few scientists subscribe to the more orthodox forms of religious faith, and why so many are atheists?

That is a good question. I think for many such as yourself they have blurred the line into thinking the success of MN is validation of the philosophy of naturalism. Secondly scientists are just as susceptible to being indoctrinated into a point of view as anyone else. Nonetheless though in a clear minority there are scientists in cosmology, physics and even biology who are giving design theory some thought.

But Andrew, if you didn't want to include those beliefs, why did you choose terminology that did? This is what I was talking about before with refuted claims....you still write "Theism is____" as if there were some form of "theism" that all "theists" subscribed to. There is no such thing. All theisms are unique.

There is much theism that holds basic tenets. For clarification I will define my brand of theism as the belief that the universe was created by a transcendent being.

Since you mean "christianity" why don't you just say it?

There is no point in defending particular brands of theism if the belief of God is in doubt. After all if there is a God or personal creator of some sort than all forms of theism are at least partially right. If there is none than none are right. So why put the horse ahead of the cart? I suspect your motive is to get me into some long debate over particular beliefs for the sake of obscuring the issue.

Because the teleleological argument is like puzzling over how fortunate it is the Seine runs right under those bridges in Paris. It gets everything backward. Many people puzzle over it, until they understand how selection processes under natural law work, and then it is no longer a mystery. It is the things in the universe that are fine-tuned, by natural laws and constraints, to fit the universe.

This is an example of where you have allowed your philosophy of naturalism to blur the line and allow you to make unscientific statements based on concluding the truth of the position you are arguing for. You are asserting the laws of nature have to be this way and no other. You point out I have no other universes to compare to as if my lack of evidence is proof of your contention. The most prevalent theory if we rewind all of history the universe shrinks down into a singularity a phenomenon where the laws of physics (and the natural world you speak of) are non-existent. There is no recipe written into the singularity that tells it to create a universe with the laws of physics we now observe. There can be no law of nature dictating the configuration of the universe since those laws as yet have yet come to be. The mystery you refer to above is solved when people come to the fundamental position you have on a priori grounds. This is really naturalism in the gaps.

Again, you are arguing that the universe was created to fit the things in it. I am arguing that the things in the universe evolved to fit the natural laws of that universe. Your position is that the things in the universe existed in some form prior to the creation of the universe. When you think about it, that is awful odd....

You are arguing that the laws of nature existed prior to their creation. As a result you are personifying nature with divine attributes, namely unchangeable and eternal. I think in part both of our positions require some uncreated agency upon which all other contingent events flow from. Again this thought is key to your philosophy for you realize that if the laws of nature are not eternal or unchangeable then this universe could have come in any of an infinitude of ways which would result in our not being here. Since we are here it would be vastly more probable that the laws of nature were designed as we observe them. Which of course is unthinkable.

Methodological naturalism is successful at producing knowledge about things without reference to whether such objects are one’s of actual or apparent design.

That is very true. The problem is, it is also useful in determining whether things were designed or not. So far no evidence has emerged to show that living organisms were designed. That is why design has disappeared among working scientists.

There is no question that no matter how long we discuss there will never be a day when you concede I have refuted you. However given the tremendous amount of respect you have for you, you might concede you have refuted yourself. Above you argued that SETI has no methodology to determine if transmissions are from an intelligent source. You claimed that intelligent design could only be determined if done by humans with which we are familiar. However in a 180 degree about face you boldly declare we can make such determinations decisively provided they concur with your naturalist faith. The facts be damned, what I say be damned, ultimately even what you say be damned as long as you can lead up to the conclusion you hold immovably in advance that this natural world is all there is world without end amen. I would say most scientists have abandoned design because they subscribe to the same faith you do that you scorn derisively in the case of theists such as myself. You see the problem is not faith...its having the wrong faith.

The rest of your post is an apologetic for evolution and the supposed evidence poor design offers for our existence being the result of the laws of nature, which you hold to be eternal and unchangeable. All of this depends on which Vorkosigan we are talking to the one who says we can discern design or the one who says we can’t (depending on the outcome). This argument is theological. It states that if this is a case of design it isn’t what you would have in mind therefore it must not be design. It assumes a particular nature of God that is irrelevant at least to the question of design.

They certainly wouldn't give up a cure for cancer or AIDS. Although they might wonder why anybody would design a disease like cancer or AIDS that ensures a lingering and painful death, with much pain and suffering for the person and their family. AIDS is a fabulous piece of design, deliberately targeting the cells that would otherwise help destroy it. Look at leprosy, river blindness, AIDS, cancer, elephantiasis and other hideous, murderous diseases. You claim that those were Designed by a loving deity? I wouldn't give a street dog AIDS.

As you can see this is an attack of design on theological grounds. It is the classic pain and suffering argument on which people say if God exists he is unworthy of worship or is a tyrant. It has nothing to do with the existence of God. In fact the argument is predicated on the existence of God. If you wish to concede the existence of God I would be happy to discuss theology with you. I will provide this link for others interested in my opinion regarding pain and suffering.
<a href="http://www.challenging-atheism.com/classic_argument_of_pain_and_suf.htm" target="_blank">http://www.challenging-atheism.com/classic_argument_of_pain_and_suf.htm</a>

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

Liquidrage

Science is not making a scientific statement that the natural world is all there is. There is a philosophy, which suggests such, and science subscribes to it. Let me see if I have this right. If as a theist I claim there is a God the onus of proof is on the claimant. If science declares the natural world is all there is the onus is not on the claimant but those who think otherwise. And this is your idea of objective inquiry?

This alone is a huge subject and deserves much attention.

First, it must be noted that there is a branch of science that subscribes to the theory that the natural world is not all there is. This theory can even be found in the current issue of Discover magazine under the title "Does the Universe Exist if We Don't Observe it?".
I have many issues with the article, far too many to get into here. Though, it is worth mentioning that the article exists.

The theory was first put forth by Neils Bohr with contributions from Max Born and Werner Heisenberg amonst others. The theory is called the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

I will try not to get too long winded on the details as anyone can find this information on their own.

Using the interpretation, some claim that any matter (matter being just another wave), animate or inanimate can collapse a wave while some claim only consciousness can collapse a wave.
Regardless which viewpoint, if one accepts the Copenhagen Intrepretation, there must be an observer outside of the universe to collapse the wave function of the universe.

There are many alternatives to this theory. Myself, I do not subscribe to this theory for a reason very relevant to the latter part of the quote I am replying too.

If we start with a base of nothing, and claim 1, the onus of proof falls onto the supporting the claim of 1.
This is analogous to "If as a theist I claim there is a God the onus of proof is on the claimant".

If we start with a base of nothing and make no claim, then there is no onus of proof because there is no claim.

However, if we start with a base of nothing and claim nothing is all there is, then there is a onus of proof because a claim was made.

Claiming there is nothing, is not the same as not making a claim.

In this context I would have to agree with Andrew. There was a claim and thus proof is required. Even if the claim is that there is nothing.

Thankfully, I believe science is supplying the proof that the natural world is all there is and it is sufficient unto itself.

Synaesthesia

The theory that an intelligent observer is required to collapse the wavefunction has been conclusively debunked.

More sophisticated models of quantum systems have been made with computers. They have shown clearly that the wavefunction collapse is a result of the equations of QM, and have to do with macroscopic disturbance, not consciousness.

Liquidrage

Would you mind providing references for the debunking of the CI?

Many interpretations of QM exists. And like much of science there are multiple ways of describing systems that are all equally valid even if only one can be true (which isn't always the case).

I don't subscribe to the CI interpretation because I feel there are other interpretations that are just as valid and yet are simpler not to mention testable. Such as a variant of the MWI.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Liquidrage

double post

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andrew_theist:
[QB]Hello Vorkosigan,

Not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

The entire point of this thread was asking about the metaphysical credo of this website so I think I am well in bounds and your point moot.

Later on, you used your favorite stock argument of "theists vs. atheists," so point not moot.

Science is not making a scientific statement that the natural world is all there is. There is a philosophy, which suggests such, and science subscribes to it.

This is backward. Science utilizes the methodological assumption or stance that there are no supernatural entities or processes. This is called "methodological naturalism." This assumption has been confirmed by the last 500 years of successful western science. This success has in turn given rise to Metaphysical Naturalism, a philosophical position with methodological naturalism at its heart.

Let me see if I have this right. If as a theist I claim there is a God the onus of proof is on the claimant. If science declares the natural world is all there is the onus is not on the claimant but those who think otherwise. And this is your idea of objective inquiry?

You're all confused. Science does not "declare" that the world is all there is, metaphysical naturalists like myself (who are not theists, though some metaphysical naturalists ARE theists) believe that based on the findings of science. Science assumes as a methodological stance that the world is all there is.

If we are discussing an empirical claim like "The Canaanite Sky God Ya exists and is the Universal God" then you are doing the asserting. Just like Hindus, Japanese, Bumba, and all other people making supernatural claims. For any claim the claimant is required to submit evidence and argument. Fortunately for us metaphysical naturalists, we can submit the success of science, and the failure of all supernatural systems.

Objective inquiry puts all truth-claims on an equal footing. It does not privilege yours over others. When you say YHWH exists, you are on the same level with those who claim Odin, and Tsai Shen, and N'gai exist. You must prove your claim, and rule out theirs.

That is a good question. I think for many such as yourself they have blurred the line into thinking the success of MN is validation of the philosophy of naturalism.

Well, you're stuck here Andrew. If MN is wrong, why is it so successful?

Secondly scientists are just as susceptible to being indoctrinated into a point of view as anyone else.

So you are saying that the widespread rejection of the supernatural among scientists (and to a lesser extent, among all educated people) reflects indoctrination, and has nothing to do with the success of methodological naturalism....

Nonetheless though in a clear minority there are scientists in cosmology, physics and even biology who are giving design theory some thought.

Out of several million US scientists, that number appears to be less than 100. An insignificant minority, and none of the most widely cited and influential scientists are IDers.

There is much theism that holds basic tenets.

Theisms agree on only one tenet: that there are gods

For clarification I will define my brand of theism as the belief that the universe was created by a transcendent being.

Thanks.

There is no point in defending particular brands of theism if the belief of God is in doubt. After all if there is a God or personal creator of some sort than all forms of theism are at least partially right. If there is none than none are right. So why put the horse ahead of the cart? I suspect your motive is to get me into some long debate over particular beliefs for the sake of obscuring the issue.

No, my purpose is to point out to you that your ideas of "theism being X" are vapor. For any assertion you make about theism, I can find numerous theists who disagree. Theism simply says that a belief system incorporates gods, nothing more. The same is true about atheism -- for any assertion you make about atheism, I can find some atheist POV that disagrees. Atheists are united on one point only, as are theists. You speak of "theism" as if it were a distinct philosophy, instead of a descriptive term.

This is an example of where you have allowed your philosophy of naturalism to blur the line and allow you to make unscientific statements based on concluding the truth of the position you are arguing for.

Wrong....as we shall shortly see.....

You are asserting the laws of nature have to be this way and no other.

Actually, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, I am asserting that any universe that runs on natural law and selection processes will appear fine-tuned. Fine Tuning is the result of selection processes operating under natural laws. Far from asserting that the laws of nature have to be this way, I am asserting that they can be any way, and still result in a universe that appears Designed.

You point out I have no other universes to compare to as if my lack of evidence is proof of your contention.

No, you were making statements about probability. You cannot make statements about probability without a population to run statistical studies on. The lack of other universes supports neither of our points of view, but it does prevent you from making any statements about probability.

The most prevalent theory if we rewind all of history the universe shrinks down into a singularity a phenomenon where the laws of physics (and the natural world you speak of) are non-existent. There is no recipe written into the singularity that tells it to create a universe with the laws of physics we now observe. There can be no law of nature dictating the configuration of the universe since those laws as yet have yet come to be. The mystery you refer to above is solved when people come to the fundamental position you have on a priori grounds. This is really naturalism in the gaps.

No, this is the position that naturalism will solve this problem too, just like all the others. And naturalistic frameworks for the development of natural law do exist, contrary to your claim.

You are arguing that the laws of nature existed prior to their creation.

I have never, ever argued this.

As a result you are personifying nature with divine attributes, namely unchangeable and eternal.

Never, ever argued this. I do not think that the universe is eternal.

I think in part both of our positions require some uncreated agency upon which all other contingent events flow from.

No, since I do not believe anything you claim above.

Again this thought is key to your philosophy for you realize that if the laws of nature are not eternal or unchangeable then this universe could have come in any of an infinitude of ways which would result in our not being here.

I agree with the second half. Our being here is an accident of the laws of nature and selection processes.

Since we are here it would be vastly more probable that the laws of nature were designed as we observe them.....

Do you have a data set of other universes for comparison? If not, then stop speaking of probability. How do you know the universe was designed for "us?"

....Which of course is unthinkable.

Not to mention completely wrong.

There is no question that no matter how long we discuss there will never be a day when you concede I have refuted you. However given the tremendous amount of respect you have for you, you might concede you have refuted yourself. Above you argued that SETI has no methodology to determine if transmissions are from an intelligent source. You claimed that intelligent design could only be determined if done by humans with which we are familiar. However in a 180 degree about face you boldly declare we can make such determinations decisively provided they concur with your naturalist faith. The facts be damned, what I say be damned, ultimately even what you say be damned as long as you can lead up to the conclusion you hold immovably in advance that this natural world is all there is world without end amen. I would say most scientists have abandoned design because they subscribe to the same faith you do that you scorn derisively in the case of theists such as myself. You see the problem is not faith...its having the wrong faith.

Andrew, you're so intent on catching me out somehow, anyhow, that you constantly miss what I have written. Let's replay that paragraph that set you off like this:

• That is very true. The problem is, it is also useful in determining whether things were designed or not. So far no evidence has emerged to show that living organisms were designed. That is why design has disappeared among working scientists.

Note that word in bold, "useful." It does not mean "perfect" or "100% accurate." Science can aid us in our attempt to show whether things are designed or not. But you wrote:

• Above you argued that SETI has no methodology to determine if transmissions are from an intelligent source. You claimed that intelligent design could only be determined if done by humans with which we are familiar.

But what I actually said, if you go back to my favorite example referenced several posts above, was that Design is difficult to infer even if we know that humans did the Designing. To show that, I referenced the controversy over the stone tools at the Calico Site. Since Design is sometimes difficult to detect even with humans whom we know well, how much harder can it be with non-humans, whose behavioral principles we do not know at all? That has always been my position with respect to ID in general and SETI in particular.

In other words, I said the exact opposite of what you claim I said.

The rest of your post is an apologetic for evolution and the supposed evidence poor design offers for our existence being the result of the laws of nature, which you hold to be eternal and unchangeable. All of this depends on which Vorkosigan we are talking to the one who says we can discern design or the one who says we can’t (depending on the outcome).

Actually, it depends on the Andrew we know and love, who misreads my arguments in hope of catching me out in a contradiction of some kind.

This argument is theological. It states that if this is a case of design it isn’t what you would have in mind therefore it must not be design. It assumes a particular nature of God that is irrelevant at least to the question of design.

The problem with ID advocates, Andrew, is that they DO make claims about Design -- it is, minimally, INTELLIGENT. That is why the demonstration of Really Dumb Designs constitutes strong evidence against INTELLIGENT design. It may not refute other forms of Design, but IDers do not advocate those forms of Design.

Vorkosigan: Look at leprosy, river blindness, AIDS, cancer, elephantiasis and other hideous, murderous diseases. You claim that those were Designed by a loving deity? I wouldn't give a street dog AIDS.

Andrew: As you can see this is an attack of design on theological grounds. It is the classic pain and suffering argument on which people say if God exists he is unworthy of worship or is a tyrant. It has nothing to do with the existence of God. In fact the argument is predicated on the existence of God. If you wish to concede the existence of God I would be happy to discuss theology with you. I will provide this link for others interested in my opinion regarding pain and suffering.

Oh please. If I argue that Rohan represents Germany, am I accepting the existence of Middle Earth?

The argument from evil is not predicated on the existence of god, but on the existence of claims about god.

Vorkosigan

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Andrew_theist

Vorkosigan,

I have time only for a brief reply. First I was not hell-bent on finding some contradiction to nail you with. To ignore the one you left in your post I would have to walk around it about half a mile to avoid running over it. As to the validity of the contradiction I’ll leave that to others who read this post, as I was not expecting any retraction or admission on your part.

In the hopes our discussion can actually achieve something I want to address the issue of naturalism and methodological naturalism. I took some time in the debate to study those issues yet I will revisit the issue for the sake of our discussion. My research indicated that much scientific progress was made under the assumption the universe was designed by a creator and therefore knowable. It didn’t surprise scientists that they would find ever-simpler laws to describe reality because they assumed that ultimately intelligence was responsible. Further more many scientists believed a deity was responsible for the creation of the universe but was not actively involved in it’s maintence so they had no reason to think they would actively witness miracles taking place. They assumed naturalistic explanations would prevail. Taking it further they realized that the search for ultimate explanations or answers to what is ‘behind’ it all would elude scientists even if there were such explanations. As a result they conceded certain brute givens or philosophical presuppositions of science. This gave science a platform to run off without delving into the stickier issue of ultimate origins. In short ultimate origins and theology would be left the philosophers and theologians. You continue to assert that it is the success of MN that has led to the adoption among many scientists to believe in naturalism as a worldview. One, I think this is revisionist history. Secondly I think it is circular reasoning. As you agreed earlier whether I employ MN on something created by design or something of a known natural origin I should still expect successful results. So why should I think it has validated my assumption of naturalism? If I came across 50,000 deaths of natural causes I could adopt the philosophy that all deaths are natural causes. If so no matter how painfully obvious design evidence might be I would explain that away and construct natural causes just the same. I also think your premise is false. Scientists could continue as they had for many years assuming the ultimate origin of things is design by a creator and have just as much if not more success. Would that be a vindication that my brand of theism is correct? Not to atheists I am sure.

Bottom line I will revisit this issue. I may even end up reading some of the books on your list. I will keep an open mind and if I am wrong I will retract my statements and publicly admit my mistakes. If I am right or partially right I will let you decide what to do.

E_muse

Andrew

I haven't yet responded to you personally but wanted to encourage you.

Firstly I am grateful that you raised this topic, not simply because you raised it, and not just that it was an issue that I felt needed raising but also that your post came as an answer to prayer.

A couple of days before you raised this topic I had been reading the 'about' section of this site. Whilst reading, it suddently hit me that to state that the natural world doesn't need an explanation but then to go on to say that one wants to promote the avid (eager or greedy) pursuit of philosophy and science is intellectually incoherent and contradictory. How do you encourage the eager and greedy pursuit of disciplines that seek to explain the universe if you also feel that it has no need of an explanation?

On top of this, it also grieves me that when theists on these boards show any level of intellectual inconsistency (arguing from tautology, circular arguement, a priori assumption and what have you), I often see them become bait and there is no hesitation to rip them apart. I have even seen atheist posters pointing other athesits to Christian websites when there hasn't been many Christians here so that they can satiate this desire.

Both of these factors fuelled my desire to discuss the issue on these boards.

I could have raised the apparent inconsistency in the site's mission statement myself but rather chose to pray instead. I prayed that God would stir one of his people to raise the topic giving me an opportunity to air my concerns. I could have raised it myself but I suppose I wanted to take the opportunity to put God to the test - or just give him a chance to prove himself. To be honest, I wasn't expecting an answer.

I couldn't get onto the boards for a couple of days after that, but when I returned there was the topic openener.. asking opinion of the opening declarations of this site and quoting from it. Discussion was already a couple of pages long when I hopped in. As expected, none of the atheists were pointing out the apparent contradiction as they would if it were a Christian statement of faith.

I have been on these boards for a while and had never seen the topic disussed or even raised so thought it a suitable 'test'. I was surprised by this as, as I have already commented, inconsistencies is theistic arguements are pounced on without hesitation and the one on the opening page of this site suddenly seemed so apparent.

I was thrown by the speed at which my prayer was answered and also the fact that it was raised by a Christian as a new thread, not interjected into an existing one.. just what I had prayed for.

I could take issue with some of your arguements and I do think that Vorkosigan has a point regarding your equivocation of 'metaphysical naturalist' and 'atheist' now that he has pointed it out. However, this website has aligned the view of metaphysical naturalism with atheism in a strong way by saying that it is the view that the natural world is all that there is and so I think the misapprehension is not entirely your fault. The statement clearly declares that metaphysical naturalism is an atheistic worldview. For this reason, you should not become a scapegoat .. as though the misunderstanding is entirely your fault.

If a community of unbelievers states that metaphysical naturalism is an essentially atheistic viewpoint then I think there is every reason to assume that they have done their homework and are making a truthful declaration. Vorkosigan has stated that theists can also be metaphysical naturalists but this would only serve to emphasise the misleading nature of this site's mission statement regarding this particular world view and I think you could be forgiven for disagreeing with one person who appeared to be dissenting. I can't see why the blame is being piled on you. Again, another case of unfair treatment IMO.

Thanks Andrew.. and God bless. I hope you hang around.

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

The Other Michael

Hi E_muse,

are you SURE Andrew believes in the exact same diety you do? And are you SURE that it was your prayer/magic ritual that prompted this supposed supernatural diety to inspire him to post? And wouldn't your diety moving him in that way be a violation of Andrew's free will?

I'm willing to accept a 98% probability as meeting the definition of "SURE" in this case.

cheers,
Michael

E_muse

Hi Michael!

He is open to the possibility of God's existence as am I and has an understanding of what God may be like based upon his experiences. We can only appeal to God on the basis of our understanding of him, which is faulty. We struggle to understand that which we can see.

Whether God inspired it or not, the post was still an answer to prayer and I wanted to let Andrew know as it gave me an opportunity to say lots of things I wouldn't have otherwise said. Andrew has come under a lot of criticism in this thread and I wanted to give him some encouragement.

I also thought that the answer to the prayer might make more sense in the light of any reply that Andrew might give.

I don't consider a prayer a magic ritual. It is simply being prepared to be foolish enough to talk to a God who may exist in order to test the reality of his existence or whether he is prepared to interact with you. It is simply an expression of the heart's longing and doesn't require any ritual.

If I only experienced one such coincidence then I would have every right to be doubtful. I haven't. When I pray these things seem to happen, when I don't they don't. The result - I consider it silly to not pray.

If I clean my teeth in the morning and the 'phone then rings I would be foolish to assume that my teeth cleaning excercise was the cause of the 'phone ringing. Was it the breakfast eating, putting my shoes on, opening the mail... I just don't know?!

If I pray something specific that is then apparently answered in accordance with the request, I don't consider it such a post hoc fallacy to make a connection.

Only if:

a) Andrew didn't want to post.
b) He would be offended at the though of his post encouraging another poster.

Only he can answer that question! You should be asking him!

Again, to respond to this here would take the thread off-topic.

However, are you suggesting that we must validate whether or not something is an answer to prayer on the basis of methodological naturalism? How would that be done? If it can't be done, does this mean that prayers are not answered or that methodological naturalism isn't ominipotent with regard to its explanatory power?

You mention probability. Even if we can demonstrate that the cause of the answer being God is highly improbable does that automatically mean that it wasn't God? Would a higher probability of it being God prove that it was God? It certainly couldn't remove that annoying 2%.

This ties in to the question regarding, "Does the universe have a purpose?". If methodological naturalism is unable to unearth such a purpose, does this mean there is no purpose, or is it a comment regarding the method?

Lastly, my post was a personal one to Andrew and to discuss this would detract from the main topic which is metaphysical naturalism. I didn't intend my comments to be taken as a topic starter within the context of this thread.

This may be a subject for another thread. Shifting the focus onto prayer, or my inadequate logical defence of it, would be a complete aside from the topic under discussion, which is metaphysical naturalism and could be misconstrued as an attempt to shift the burden of proof. I am really looking for responses to the comments I have made regarding the topic and the objections I have raised concerning this site's representation of metaphysical naturalism and the subsequent logical consequences.

However, if you are requesting validation from a methdological naturalistic approach with regard to prayer, please start another thread and include such a method in your OP so that I am aware where you are coming from. I couldn't possibly defend my belief that a prayer had been answered on the basis of one incidence.

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>