Re: Methodological Materialism and Philosophical Materialism


dkomo wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:

Evolutionary science has no business deciding between philosophical
materialism or theism or any other option. However, scientists can form
interdisciplinary perspectives about philosophical materialism or
theism or any thing else.

"All philosophical materialists are methodological materialists, but
not the converse."
Eugenie C. Scott
<www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/528_science_religion_and_evoluti_6_19_2001.asp>

James Goetz


Good article, but I think it contains a lot of pabulum intended to win
over religionists. Here's an opposing point of view which doesn't mince
words and doesn't hedge all over the place, which I originally posted as
"God: a failed hypothesis" back on June 21:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Science takes on the Big Guy as Victor Stenger kicks some ass:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/godless.html

"If God is the intelligent designer of life on Earth, then *we* should
find evidence for that in observations of the structure of life. *We* do
not.

"We" = atheists/Darwinists. Also, everytime an atheist makes this type
of "open minded" claim he never specifies a prediction that would
support an IDer. Irreducible complexity does just that which proves the
"open minded" claim deserves the quote marks.

Evidence of Designer:

Everyone else agrees that the world looks designed (= work of invisible
Designer). No one can thumb through any edition of National Geographic
and deny the genius design of the inhabitants of nature dissected
therein. Darwinists refuse to connect the observations to a Designer
for anti-religious reasons.

If God has endowed humans with immaterial souls and is the source
of morality, then we should find evidence for that in observations of
human behavior. *We* do not.

"We" = atheists. How could an atheist ever admit to that which
falsifies his worldview ?

The existence of the soul is a fact, and is only ascertainable by
persons who are alive spiritually. We know atheists are spiritually
dead (by their own admission). This explains their belief that the soul
does not exist.

Morality is best evidenced by the fact that IF Islamic nations had our
power (nuclear) and wealth western nations and Israel (who has the
bomb) would have ceased to exist long ago.

Lack of morality is best evidenced by the fact that the "great"
atheist/communist nations of the 20th century (Soviet Union, Eastern
Bloc, China, Cuba, and Southeast Asia Communist/atheist regimes
murdered at least 500,000,000 million people that were guilty of the
crime of disagreeing with them. These regimes had no conscience or
morality because the Bible was banned, and because they were
evolutionists who believed Darwin ("we are apes") and selected their
enemies for extinction.

If God answers prayers, then we should see
miraculous effects of prayer. *We* do not.

The only people who do not believe in the fact of miracles are persons
who have never had one (atheists, apostates, Darwinists). The most
basic claim of Christians is "He is risen" = millions of individual
pieces of evidence supporting a miracle.

Thousands of persons, including myself, have received miraculous
healings and intervention from God FOLLOWING faith.

Atheists and Darwinists are blind (= Biblical explanation for their
reality defying beliefs).

If God has revealed truths to
humanity, then those truths should be empirically verified. They are
not.

Science has verified Biblical claims ad nauseum. Only atheists and
Darwinists deny for obvious reasons, and because the are blind. If they
did agree then the Bible would be proven false.

If God is the creator of the universe and the laws of nature, then
we should find evidence for that in astronomy and physics. *We* do not. If
humans are a special creation of God, then the universe should be
congenial to human life. It is not.


"We" = atheists and Darwinists. When we continually point out that "we"
= atheists and Darwinists lunatic comments like the one above are
instantly explained.


The universe and life look exactly as they can be expected to look if
there is no God."


Or if the Biblical blinding fact is true, which explains your beliefs.

"The order and magnificence of the world and the universe just happened
by chance and the laws of physics had no "Causer"" = atheist
buffoonery. Everyone else plainly sees the cosmos reflect a Designer
and not an antithetical mindless sock puppet of their own private
imagination (natural selection) that atheists speak through and steal
the credit of creation from the Creator.


Moreover:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/ImpGodChapter.htm

"Presented here is an argument based on modern physics and cosmology
against the existence of a God who created the universe. It can be
summarized as follows:

1. Hypothesize a God who is the highly intelligent and powerful
supernatural creator of the physical universe.

2. We can reasonably expect that empirical evidence should exist for a
purposeful and supernatural creation of this cosmos, such as the
observed violation of one or more laws of physics.

3. No empirical evidence for a purposeful creation of the cosmos can
be found. No universal laws of physics were violated at the origin of
the universe in which we reside.

4. Modern cosmology indicates that the initial state of our universe
was one of maximum chaos so that it contains no memory of a creator.

5. Scientists can provide plausible, purely natural scenarios based in
well-established cosmological theories that show how our universe may
have arisen out of an initial state of nothingness.

6. We can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God who is the
highly intelligent and powerful supernatural creator of the physical
universe does not exist."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


--dkomo@xxxxxxxx

Items #1 through #6 contain an assumption (God does not exist). Once
the assumption is made it cannot ever be overcome (even by evidence).
False assertions faithful to assumption support assumption.

Or, to say it bluntly: could we expect atheists to conclude anything
else ?

Ray Martinez

.

Relevant Pages