1. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    31 Mar '24 08:44
    @lemonjello said
    @KellyJay

    KJ, I am checking back in after a lengthy respite and see that you are still up to your usual shenanigans. Up to no good. 😀

    I think Dr. Lennox’s arguments on this are highly unpersuasive and half-baked. He makes two claims here. First, he claims his conception is not a “god of the gaps” and that scientific advancements (whatever they be) would not serve ...[text shortened]... irically evidenced, such as humans’ desiring coffee. Where is prior evidence for the agency of God?
    Why is the water boiling, the first explanation it has to do with the thermal activity of the stove transferring the heat into the pot and agitating the water causing it to boil, the second explanation is I wanted some coffee, well truthfully, an expresso. Now I could ask you to pick only one but, why would only one be true?

    That was the point of the talk, looking for more and not seeing it is because it was limited to this point.
  2. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    02 Apr '24 06:17
    @kellyjay said
    Well, let me begin by saying is nice seeing your name again even if we disagree. 😉

    No matter what explanation you get or give for either that God is responsible for everything, or that nothing was at the foot of it all, both are always going to be speculative and will be taken on faith. Which is the best explanation is the only thing we can look for, and that was not th ...[text shortened]... e. What was in this talk was explanations, there are two types under discussion agency and science.
    Please do not project the faith inherent to theistic “explanation” onto the subject of explanation simpliciter. Religion and science are of the same type of faith just as Grizzly 399 and Walter Payton are of the same type of bear. You have to prevaricate grotesquely to make the point.

    I’m not sure why you think I was commenting on something imaginary and not put forth in the video by Lennox. I outlined two claims, both of which are explicitly put forth by Lennox in the video, and I restricted my response to showing that both claims are disingenuous. Nothing more than that.

    Regarding the subject of explanation, of course it can aptly proceed through many different levels, some more fundamental, some more emergent. If I want to explain to you how a car gets from one place to another, I can talk to you about internal combustion and its movement of parts, I can talk to you about the intentions and movements of a human driver, and theoretically I could talk to you about the core theory of Physics although that would be inefficient to say the least. We do not need Lennox to tell us any of that.

    I’m addressing what he did say about his own God and his own theistic “explanation”. I can only put that in quotes because what he described was not a form of explanation at all. He described a form of non-explanation where he simply engages in ad hoc stipulation in service to a God beyond falsification. It explains precisely nothing.
  3. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    02 Apr '24 06:22
    @kellyjay said
    Why is the water boiling, the first explanation it has to do with the thermal activity of the stove transferring the heat into the pot and agitating the water causing it to boil, the second explanation is I wanted some coffee, well truthfully, an expresso. Now I could ask you to pick only one but, why would only one be true?

    That was the point of the talk, looking for more and not seeing it is because it was limited to this point.
    Again, yes emergent level explanation can proceed aptly through talk of agency. It works fine for the coffee example, since we have good evidence for the agency of humans and its relation to objects of desire. So, again: where is the evidence for the agency of God?
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    02 Apr '24 09:28
    @lemonjello said
    Please do not project the faith inherent to theistic “explanation” onto the subject of explanation simpliciter. Religion and science are of the same type of faith just as Grizzly 399 and Walter Payton are of the same type of bear. You have to prevaricate grotesquely to make the point.

    I’m not sure why you think I was commenting on something imaginary and not put fort ...[text shortened]... gages in ad hoc stipulation in service to a God beyond falsification. It explains precisely nothing.
    Please don't project your denial of this, do you think if it doesn't fit your worldview, therefore, it must simply be wrong or out of bounds? Faith is simply our trust in the fidelity of something you have to trust from driving over a bridge, walking on the ground, putting your money in a bank, loaning a friend money, putting medicine in your body, and allowing someone to cut you open in surgery. We are creatures of faith, it is not just a word tied to religious notions.

    The rest of your post I simply feel your were and are reading into it something not there so you can complain about so we disagree.
  5. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    02 Apr '24 09:32
    @lemonjello said
    Again, yes emergent level explanation can proceed aptly through talk of agency. It works fine for the coffee example, since we have good evidence for the agency of humans and its relation to objects of desire. So, again: where is the evidence for the agency of God?
    Well, a natural explanation of evolution and DNA, we can read the genetic code, which is different than just recognizing what one tree is compared to another, so within the genetic structure are syntactic and semantic information that directs forms and functions in life, information processing takes place where stored information as we find in seeds and eggs produce whatever life forms are associated with that life as they start to grow after their own kind. Nothing about these processes is haphazardous caused by indifferent, uncaring mindless directions built up over time, which would be completely unnatural. Evidence is there, blinders of those who only look at the universe through only those things that comply with their worldviews will always miss it, it is a faith thing.
  6. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    03 Apr '24 06:37
    @kellyjay said
    Please don't project your denial of this, do you think if it doesn't fit your worldview, therefore, it must simply be wrong or out of bounds? Faith is simply our trust in the fidelity of something you have to trust from driving over a bridge, walking on the ground, putting your money in a bank, loaning a friend money, putting medicine in your body, and allowing someone to c ...[text shortened]... feel your were and are reading into it something not there so you can complain about so we disagree.
    Well, there you go prevaricating around the term ‘faith’ precisely as I predicted you would have to in trying to make any point there.

    This really is amusing. The video that you posted had nothing to do with the term ‘faith’. Lennox employs the term precisely zero times by my count. Rather, Lennox makes specific claims about his conception of God and about theistic explanation running parallel to scientific explanation — exactly the sorts of claims I outlined and addressed. So I was exactly on topic. Then you tried to derail the discussion by bringing faith irrelevancies in while accusing me of being off script. When I brought the focus back to the content of what Lennox actually said, you again chide me for being off topic and go right back to the faith drivel, which is the only part that is actually off topic. Just cannot make this stuff up.

    We can leave the word ‘faith’ out of the discussion just as Lennox did. Let us look at the details of Lennox’s theistic “explanation” so that you’ll not again make the mistake of conflating it with actual explanation, of which scientific explanation is a form. Lennox begins by pulling out of his arse an unfalsifiable pet theistic theory that invokes the existence of a mysterious agent that has no empirical evidential basis whatsoever and violates rules of parsimony and all that; then, whenever scientific advancement happens and actually explains some phenomenon, Lennox foists his pet view of agency onto the back of this finding by stipulating that this agent intended things to be and work as such; then Lennox declares that this has enhanced our overall understanding. This should all be very funny if he were not so serious about it. It should be clear that this process adds no explanation at all. As I tried to point out before, his example about gravity basically makes my case, not his. Lennox claims that for all our scientific endeavor, it does not really give us any idea what gravity is, and his further implication is this is where his program of theistic explanation helps out. This is insulting to the intellect. This is akin to saying that the idea that gravity is a geometric feature of spacetime is just impenetrable; but, don’t worry, the idea that gravity is a geometric feature of spacetime that was intended to be as such by a mysterious supernatural agent whose existence has no evidential basis is crystal clear.
  7. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    03 Apr '24 06:43
    @kellyjay said
    Well, a natural explanation of evolution and DNA, we can read the genetic code, which is different than just recognizing what one tree is compared to another, so within the genetic structure are syntactic and semantic information that directs forms and functions in life, information processing takes place where stored information as we find in seeds and eggs produce whatever ...[text shortened]... hrough only those things that comply with their worldviews will always miss it, it is a faith thing.
    Derailing the thread again with faith nonsense.

    Please try addressing the actual criticism I raised toward Lennox’s boiling water example within context.
  8. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    03 Apr '24 08:301 edit
    @lemonjello said
    Well, there you go prevaricating around the term ‘faith’ precisely as I predicted you would have to in trying to make any point there.

    This really is amusing. The video that you posted had nothing to do with the term ‘faith’. Lennox employs the term precisely zero times by my count. Rather, Lennox makes specific claims about his conception of God and about theistic ...[text shortened]... as such by a mysterious supernatural agent whose existence has no evidential basis is crystal clear.
    Yawn
    Explanations were the topic, he was pointing out that more than one was possible. You want to add more to that and complain. Have at it.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    03 Apr '24 08:38
    @lemonjello said
    Derailing the thread again with faith nonsense.

    Please try addressing the actual criticism I raised toward Lennox’s boiling water example within context.
    Cannot derail a thread I started.
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    03 Apr '24 08:50
    @lemonjello said
    Please do not project the faith inherent to theistic “explanation” onto the subject of explanation simpliciter. Religion and science are of the same type of faith just as Grizzly 399 and Walter Payton are of the same type of bear. You have to prevaricate grotesquely to make the point.

    I’m not sure why you think I was commenting on something imaginary and not put fort ...[text shortened]... gages in ad hoc stipulation in service to a God beyond falsification. It explains precisely nothing.
    He didn't say God beyond falsification, merely staying on the point that more than one explanation was possible to explain a single event.
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    03 Apr '24 08:521 edit
    @lemonjello said
    Well, there you go prevaricating around the term ‘faith’ precisely as I predicted you would have to in trying to make any point there.

    This really is amusing. The video that you posted had nothing to do with the term ‘faith’. Lennox employs the term precisely zero times by my count. Rather, Lennox makes specific claims about his conception of God and about theistic ...[text shortened]... as such by a mysterious supernatural agent whose existence has no evidential basis is crystal clear.
    Why didn't you respond to this, and by responding to this, I mean the points?

    "Well, a natural explanation of evolution and DNA, we can read the genetic code, which is different than just recognizing what one tree is compared to another, so within the genetic structure are syntactic and semantic information that directs forms and functions in life, information processing takes place where stored information as we find in seeds and eggs produce whatever life forms are associated with that life as they start to grow after their own kind. Nothing about these processes is haphazardous caused by indifferent, uncaring mindless directions built up over time, which would be completely unnatural. Evidence is there, blinders of those who only look at the universe through only those things that comply with their worldviews will always miss it, it is a faith thing."
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    03 Apr '24 10:121 edit
    @lemonjello said
    Again, yes emergent level explanation can proceed aptly through talk of agency. It works fine for the coffee example, since we have good evidence for the agency of humans and its relation to objects of desire. So, again: where is the evidence for the agency of God?
    It points out that it is NOT an either-or having a science explanation does not do away with agency one, you didn't understand that talk did you?
  13. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    05 Apr '24 04:53
    @kellyjay said
    Yawn
    Explanations were the topic, he was pointing out that more than one was possible. You want to add more to that and complain.
    Wrong. Apparently, you have very little comprehension of the video that you yourself posted. Lennox does not merely point out that multiple explanations are possible (which is a trivial claim — as I said of course this is the case, as there are multiple levels of explanation with some being more fundamental, some more emergent). Rather, he goes on explicitly to put forth a particular program of divine agency as a respectable candidate for one such type of explanation. Problem is, he is simply wrong on that point. The program of theistic “explanation” he puts forth fails to qualify as explanation in any way, shape, or form for reasons I already outlined. You continue to ignore this and seem incapable of grappling with legitimate criticisms of the video’s content.
  14. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    05 Apr '24 05:091 edit
    @kellyjay said
    Why didn't you respond to this, and by responding to this, I mean the points?

    "Well, a natural explanation of evolution and DNA, we can read the genetic code, which is different than just recognizing what one tree is compared to another, so within the genetic structure are syntactic and semantic information that directs forms and functions in life, information processing ...[text shortened]... rough only those things that comply with their worldviews will always miss it, it is a faith thing."
    There simply are no substantive points in your response to my legitimate criticism of Lennox’s boiling water example. The point is, it is very disingenuous to suggest that post hoc “explanation” invoking the agency of God with respect to whatever the current deliverances of scientific discoveries happen to be (the details matter not since the God at issue is unfalsifiable on any such count — it would not matter if scientists discovered DNA or some radically different vehicle for explanation, this theistic program would judge God just as clever either way) is on par with explanation invoking human agency in regards to the object of recognizably human desires. In particular, there is a vast expanse of prior evidential basis for human agency; there is none for this God.

    Your response regarding evolution through DNA as replicator and natural selection, etc, had no substantive points to which to respond. You were supposed to provide prior evidence of the agency of God; instead, all you provided was evidence of your own personal incredulity that such a process can play out in the absence of a divine superintending mind. Sorry, but your incredulity does not constitute evidence for the agency of God.
  15. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    05 Apr '24 09:11
    @lemonjello said
    Wrong. Apparently, you have very little comprehension of the video that you yourself posted. Lennox does not merely point out that multiple explanations are possible (which is a trivial claim — as I said of course this is the case, as there are multiple levels of explanation with some being more fundamental, some more emergent). Rather, he goes on explicitly to put forth ...[text shortened]... ue to ignore this and seem incapable of grappling with legitimate criticisms of the video’s content.
    The thrust of the talk was explanation, given that He put forward why God is not dismissed from the discussion simply due to science's take on explaining why something works. You again, are pushing complaints about something you'd rather talk about than what is there.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree