Re: Dennett / Ruse Tiff Continues

catshark wrote:
Chimp wrote:
catshark wrote:

Either the "God hypothesis" cannot make falsifiable predictions,
in which case we reject it in favor of theories with predicitive
power; or, if the "God hypothesis" _can_ make falsifiable
predictions then we simply test it like any other theory.

That is enough. It is clear that you advocate scientism. It doesn't
make you a bad person but it is a very restricted philosophy, IMHO.

You asked how science could address the possibility of
a "divine designer" so I told you. I do not agree that there
are avenues of exploration that science should decline to
follow.

And it has been previously agreed on this thread that merely
_attempting_ to explore some area in a scientific way is
_not_ "scientism", but that "scientism" is the assertion that
one will always succeed.

And you have not shown that the philosophy I have outlined
is in any way restricted -- saying it is is an empty assertion.

You are then assuming that anything a human can't
observe is unreal.

For the EIGHTH time it is a _definition_ not an assumption.

Just because you call it a definition does not mean it is true and you
have given no reason to accept your personal defintion, [. . .]

That is false, I have _repeatedly_ given reasons for that
stance; every time I have stated it in this thread I have followed
it by a reason for that stance. E.g.:

"If "God" or anything else is, ex-hypothesis, incapable
of affecting any observable feature of the universe,
by direct or indirect means, then yes, that "God" does
not "exist" -- that is the only sensible meaning of the
word "exist", since otherwise it is indistinguishable
with "doesn't exist"."

and

"I am saying if there is no possible way for a "thing" to
influence any part of the observable universe -- even
through indirect means via beings that have capabilities
way beyond ours -- then that thing doesn't "exist" as
far as our universe is concerned. [Though it may be
part of some seperate reality.]

You are effectively claiming that something "exists"
even though the difference between its existence and
its non-existence could never been distinguished
(even in principle) by any being that has any causal
connection with our observable universe.

And I have repeatedy asked you what is wrong with
this definition, and invited you to tell us what _you_
mean by "real", if you reject my definition. E.g.:

"You are asserting that something can be "real "
despite its existence being conceptually indistinguishable
from its non-existence. I'm just interested by what
_you_ mean by "real" in that usage."

[. . .] except that it is your preference for how the universe
should work. In my book, that counts as an assumption.

Wrong, I have never said that that is my preference for
how the universe should work. A _definition_ of terms
does not alter how the universe works. Thus my using
terms as above is _not_ a statement about how the
universe works.

Your problem is that you persist in using the word
"real" in a way that, quite literally, has no meaning.

So, I ask you again, what is the difference between
a "mutation" and a "whibble-whibble mutation" where
(a) "whibble-whibble mutation" is defined as
not-a-"mutation", and (b) a "whibble-whibble mutation"
is conceptually indistinguishable from a "mutation"
in all possible cases?

In that scenario, what do the words "whibble-whibble"
mean? [Of course, this scenario is identical to your
use of "supernatural mutation".]

Chimp

.

Relevant Pages