JCS

I didn't say that I don't have presuppositions, I question why I had to assume the ones you chose and asigned specifically ahteists. I see you did change your position from atheists to everybody. I couldn't understand why I had to assume them because of no belief in a god but a theist was exempt.

theophilus

A naturalistic presupposition cannot provide any level of certainty. Untimately all knowledge, on this system, must be acknowledged as mere speculation.

This includes science. Unless you have some pre-existing basis for knowing that your "testing, prediction and evaluation" are true, you have only yourself as the standard.

theophilus

I'll just deal with this last part of your message - please reflect a little while on what I wrote and you'll see you haven't really dealt effectively with my argument.

Can't you see that these apparati are just extensions of our own senses? A telescope or microscope is just an extension of our natural vision.

How do you receive the data that these apparati provide if not through your sensory organs?

How do you evaluate this data except through your mental processes?

You cannot avoid the necessity of making some "pre" suppositions about the reliabiltiy of your senses and intellect which cannot be verified by evidence because all evidence must be filtered through these systems.

theophilus

I must correct this one mistake. The God of scripture does not have "physical characteristics." Though he often refers to himself in anthrpomorphic terms, scripture is clear that God is a spirit, i.e., an immaterial being.

He has attributes which can be expressed, but he does not exist as part of his creation.

Oxymoron

Says who?

Why 'must' it?

Non sequitur. In what sense can "testing, prediction and evaluation" be "true"? Can bananas be true? It makes no grammatical or logical sense.

There would seem to be an external world out there which I can test my ideas against. They either work or they don't. I know they don't when something informs me so, like "ooh that bright thing looks so good to touch OUCH!". The world provides feedback for our models of it gratis. It would seem rude to ignore it.

On a deeper level, our brains and minds provide us with such as rich simulation of reality by the very same processes of testing, prediction and evaluation. Science is just a refinement of the processes that make our cognition tick. So go on, undermine science and empiricism, but at the same time you deprive everyone, including yourself of saying anything valid about the world. Such as don't touch hot things.

Shadowy Man

I, as a scientist, appreciate the fervor with which you are defending science and the scientific method, but I think your view of how science is actually done by scientists is a bit simplistic.

Scientists make assumptions all the time. However, we acknowledge the limitations of these assumptions, and what effects they have on the outcome of our theories. Some assumptions are more warranted than others. Some end up being true. Some are made based on personal bias or sometimes a 'feeling' that a scientist has. But we have to be willing to let go of some of these assumptions, should the evidence move us so.

Also, if you believe that science must have control groups, then virtually all of astrophysics is not science.

theophilus

My argument really isn't that difficult and certainly isn't new; it is the stuff of which philosophic debates have consisted since before Socrates.

There are several fundamental questions which must be answered before discussion about science, evidence, etc. have any meaning, e.g., do I exist, is knowledge possible, if so, how?

Your arguments are based on your naturalistic, sense-dependent assumptions for which you have offered no independent justification.

Contrary to your final statement, it is naturalistic atheism which makes knowledge impossible; knowledge of ourselves and of our environment. Only when we presume the God of scripture can we "know" anything for sure.

Shadowy Man

How do you know this?

Hawkingfan

Thanks for your responses. I have no argument. But I did want to clarify the above. I wasn't speaking of astrophysics (I think you knew that, but I didn't make myself clear). I know that mathematics plays a crucial role in astrophysics and this is how the theories are "checked". The math has to objectively support the theory in order to believe it.

Hawkingfan

There are countless scriptures where someone sees the face of god and hears his voice aloud (as in the baptism of Jesus).
Also, consider the following (paraphrased by Donald Morgan at the Secular Web Modern Library):

GE 18:1, 7-8 God eats solid food with Abraham.

GE 32:24-30 God takes part in a wrestling match. He wins by injuring Jacob's hip.

GE 8:21 The odor of Noah's sacrifices was pleasing to the Lord.