Theism and Explanation

Post Reply New Topic

You chose to stop. Congratulations on your will power and wisdom.

ruveyn

That is a complete failure. If we took this idea seriously, we would have to claim that almost all events are a result of the ongoing actions of God.

Leejosepho, this is a philosophical thread. In fact, the title is actually the title of a work by philosopher Gregory Dawes. While I am fine questioning and criticizing ideas, your contributions do not seem to have any philosophical depth or thought, and as such, it almost appears that you are spamming.

Leejosepho, I don't think you have the philosophical abilities to even defend your claim. Naturalplastic's claim is that anything inexplicable by natural laws would be best considered an anomaly, not an act of God, simply because God as an explanation is so questionable. I'll try to press naturalplastic on the issue, but you haven't really engaged the matter.

In any case, if you want to make your point, construct a model by which we can distinguish amazing but physical events, anomalies and God from each other. Once again, this is a philosophical thread, I don't want to put up with your spam on this thread, so if you want to participate, start engaging the matter. Start talking about how to avoid false identification of divine actions, such as disease and lightning, or what set of principles can identify God's actions compared to natural laws that are not know to this date.


Given the nature of disease, this is probably also insufficient, however, given that he was going to a group with a strategy designed to end alcoholism, I would think the clearer explanation is that AA has a method that engages the mind in a manner to get it to stop. After all, the idea that AA exploits a mental quality makes more sense of reality than to say that there is a purposive supernatural actor who goes around fixing alcoholism, while leaving the poor and starving to their fates.

I think that leejosepho will probably fail to engage these matters though, as his general posting style on the matter has indicated that he is either unwilling or unable to think clearly on the matter, as his rebuttal isn't "Well, this is why God makes the most sense by these standard explanatory principles" so much as "Why not God?" and "Can you give me a clear and complete naturalistic explanation?", both of which would be considered failures in any other subject matter.

I'd like you to elaborate on your conclusion. What elements to it being God make him unacceptable as a conclusion? I just want this as a clarification, because to a theist, this could look like you are being unfair, but I think there is an underlying reasoning. I think it needs to be removed from the black box of God, as I am not certain that any invocation of God would HAVE TO BE a problem, and that miracles are literally impossible to identify.

^^ Greetings AwesomelyGlorious. I personally feel that this sufficiency may differ greatly between each individual. If you perhaps predicted where fire would rain correctly many times, then this would certainly suggest that you have the ability to predict this, but, in itself, does not suggest the source of such power. However, we may perhaps also consider usual weather predictions. Since these are often very nearly correct, many humans assume that meteorologists may predict the weather. In addition, these humans also assume that the methods (the source of the predictions) that the meteorologists claim they have used allow them to predict this (Mathematics etc.). Although, in many cases the humans shall not have seen any "evidence" for these claims, yet believe them all the same.

I do hope this is alrighty that I have included a little link to my bloggy friend below. Here I attempt to demonstrate that many humans do indeed believe in many Scientific findings without convincing themselves that all of the prerequisites are satisfied, quite simply because this is not possible. The point at which a human begins believing in the proposed fact, in this case, the existence of God based on your claims, is in many ways the choice of the human. There may be many more conditions that must be satisfied before a given human believes your claims - for instance, if many other humans believe your claims or if there exists many individuals similar to yourself who appear to have such powers and claim that they have this power due to God.

Little Aside

I am very sorry if this is silly of me.

That is not true, and I think you know that.


Yes, I understand: Your mind is made up and you do not want to be confused by any facts!

Either way, I was merely pointing out the error of any mere assumption of "random act of nature".


I need to construct nothing to make my point: There are some things God alone can do.


Are you sure this thread is meant to be so limited?


That might be said of today's AA, but not of the original A.A.


Ah now, that is funny!


Once again, just show me how either man or any "random act of nature" could have produced my permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism.

Note: It is not that I want to de-rail this thread, but that I would like to maintain at least a modicum of reality within it.

Well, I can see the point that sufficiency may vary, but I think if we press to mere subjectivism, then all notions of standards and "you only believe X for poor and generally insufficient reasons" doesn't work. So... I can see your point, and we can put your point into a right framework, but I'd want to build on part of it.


Right, well, the issue is that this person has an idea that they apparently can use predictively for events only suggested by this notion of reality, where this works consistently, and where the method they provide seems give a very clear and economical explanation of how this happens.

Evidence for what? Mathematics? Usually math is tied to logic.


I am not saying that this is all very silly of you. I will say that I don't think the opinion is elaborated enough. I also have to admit that I am very opposed to your thesis. You seem to assume a degree of equality between people, and I can't accept that premise. There are people who know better, and others who do not, and they are not necessarily equals. This is not to say that science is not built upon past science, but, while some have argued that science is arbitrary, I would tend toward distrust of this thesis, especially given that good theories not only have good interpretation of reality, but also good prediction of it.

No, the very assessment of something as valid depends upon the methodological issue at hand. This has nothing to do with "being confused by facts", you just don't seem to recognize the role of interpretation in the overall matter. You yourself seem obstinately opposed to the idea that interpretation is needed for reality, but every cognitive specialist, philosopher of science, hermeneutics expert, etc, recognizes the role of interpretation in reality. In fact, this entire thread is about interpretation. If you don't believe in interpretation, then I don't know what to say, other than that a LOT of people *INTERPRET* reality differently than you do on the matter, and that a non-interpretation standpoint can't account for that divergence.

I know nothing of the kind. If you were not tied down and medicated to stop drinking then you chose to stop. You may think Another Power Greater Than You was at work, but that is delusion.

I broke a two pack a day cigarette habit back in 1962. I stopped because I stopped. It was not the work of an unseen and unseeable deity. It was not easy, but it was I, not some cosmic spook that did the work.

ruveyn

ruveyn

... and that proves what about me?!


I have no need to impose anything into this thread -- no trolling or spamming from me -- and I will/would/could gladly submit my recovery experience to any methodology of your or anyone's choosing. I cannot prove "God did it", of course, but I certainly can prove nothing else did.

No, you really weren't.


Which includes curing alcoholism? Why not just a spiritual being having the ability to do that? Why can only God take this action, but not a spirit of great power but less than God's power? Why not a drug or neurological treatment? If there are some things that God alone can do, then here's what you need to construct:
1) Proof against any naturalistic or supernaturalistic idea other than God being able to do this. You haven't provided that though, and in fact, your method of "proving this" is incredibly dubious.

Given that I don't think that 1) will ever be forthcoming, the second way that you can establish that God did this is to construct a logical framework that shows that God is the most probable actor, and this both includes constructing a purposive model for God, and reasons why other possible entities wouldn't cut it.


I created the thread. The thread is all about method


Right......


No, it really isn't. You've proven in the past that you either lack the ability or are too dishonest to deal with higher level issues. In fact, your last post STILL shows that you have no freaking clue on what the heck you need to do in order to work something out philosophically.


leejosepho, prove that they couldn't first. We don't presume God did something just because we want it to be the case. If God is the last explanation to use, only to be used once others are discredited, then you've got to prove your point. Prove, using neuroscience, neurochemistry, etc, that no other source of recovery is possible.

Secondly, here is an argument:
1) Alcoholism is a part of the neurological functioning of certain brains.
2) Neurological functioning of the brain can be altered, or removed through physical processes. (lobotomies are physical processes, so are drugs)
3) Alcoholism can be altered or removed. (1 and 2)

If premises 1 and 2 are true, then I have proven that man or a random act of nature could have produced a permanent recovery from alcoholism. In fact, nature continually cures alcoholism. It kills folks, and once their brains stop functioning they cease to be alcoholics. Now, provide a counter-argument. Go ahead, don't just nitpick any of my arguments, prove that only God, not a spirit, not a drug, not anything else, could have cured your alcoholism.


You have no connection to reality, and you don't know what the heck you are talking about. I would doubt that any philosophy professor worth his salt would even take your attitude seriously.

It doesn't prove, it suggests.


Then leejosepho, prove it. Use scientific evidence to show that the recovery rate for alcoholism is 0% without divine intervention, and that the neurological processes cannot be altered through drugs or surgery. Provide a deductive proof that only God could cure this. and not an angel, demon, spirit, or anything else.

You said you could prove this, so go ahead. I want to see you attempt a proof.

I have made no such allegation.


... and neither have I said that.


You put up whatever you believe has made the difference for me, and I will prove it did not ... and that is the only thing I have claimed I could prove.

An empirical indication of something other than Divine Intervention.

Why invoke God, when purely natural processes can explain the thing.

ruveyn

Your quitting smoking proves nothing about me.


"Purely natural processes" do not explain my recovery ... but I do not mean to be stirring all of this up here. I am merely suggesting it is not unreasonable to suspect or consider the possibility of "God" when there is no other explanation.