Re: The thing about ID...


<carlip-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dl2so3$keg$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Denis Loubet <dloubet@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Could you answer me a question: If you accepted as fact that there was
>> a supernatural being whose motives were inscrutable, and that could
>> arbitrarily alter all evidence and observations at will at any moment,
>> or on a continuing basis, would you consider evidence and observation
>> to be valid?
>
> As a working physicist who doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about
> epitsemology, I would treat this in much the same way I would treat
> the possibility of a rival sneaking into a lab and screwing around with
> the equipment in order to publish first.

The difference is that you can apply controls to make that possiblity less
and less likely.

No such controls supposedly exist for supernatural intervention, thus the
likelyhood of such intervention cannot be determined.

> That is, if I got consistent,
> repeatable results that could be reproduced by others, I wouldn't worry
> about it. A supernatural being who alters all evidence and observations
> consistently is indistinguishable from a law of nature; one that alters
> evidence and observations capriciously would presumably show up as an
> inherently unpredictable fluctuation in results.

You base your conclusions of consistency upon evidence and observation. If
you posit a being that can alter evidence and observation, you cannot then
draw conclusions of consistency from them. That would be circular.

> We observe the Universe to be regular and consistent, with complex results
> having their explanation in simpler underlying regularities.

Again, you say that the universe being regular and consistent is a
conclusion drawn from observation. But how can that conclusion be valid if
the observations can be altered by the supernatural being?

> Presumably
> if a putative supernatural being is around, we can use this fact to deduce
> something about his/her/its/their behavior.

Not if our observations are suspect.

> Of course, that behavior might
> change tomorrow; but so might the laws of physics.

There is a mechanism posited for such change in the case of the supernatural
being -- whim -- and so it must be accounted for.

There is no mechanism posited for an arbitrary change in the laws of
physics. With nothing posited, there's nothing to account for.

> As a scientist, I make
> a working assumption that tomorrow will be pretty much like today, but
> this
> is independent of any belief in a god or gods.

That makes perfect sense, unless you believe in a god that can interact with
the universe.

Thank you for your answer. Is there a hole in my logic?

--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@xxxxxx
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why is it that mainline Christians, Catholics in particular (I am one) support God & Evoluti
    ... voluninous evidence to the contrary. ... One can believe in God, and in the Bible, ... The Bible teaches Jesus died and 3 days alter arose. ... Consistent with reality? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Blog: The Scars of Evolution.
    ... speculate about the mind of God, then I say back to the drawing board ... The evidence is consistent with, ... establishing, decent with modification from common ancestors, ... the data is consistent with that conclusion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mr Dawkins new book?
    ... And I see a problem with it, there is NO evidence, no god ... interfering shaped hole in the data. ... and they are consistent because God is consistent. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: 7 Days
    ... 7-day creations, despite the fact that that the evidence shows this ... You are right in one sense, the evidence does seem to suggest its ... given that it was created by God ... Did God "alter" the evidence or not? ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Jimi or Jerry?
    ... You say that as if its a fact, but I see no evidence of its truth. ... objective perspective Bob was the most consistent guy I saw on stage ... Edwin holds the same opinion I do: Bob was the most consistent guy ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
Loading