Wouldn't mind a second opinion on this.
Strangely, and annoyingly, my answer to this post which took some time to compose, is AWOL... I'll try again.
Yes, it could be false, if any of the symbols 1,2,+ and = didn't mean what we commonly agree that they mean.
Our thoughts about the laws, and the physical manifestation of those laws, are not the same thing.
As explained, they're interchangeable for the purposes of this discussion. You simply need to understand that I don't accept spiritual, immaterial or non-physical and I do believe that there is only the physical, material, natural universe..
Yes, it does, and no I'm not. There may be people who use what I consider to be a corrupted version of methodological naturalism to reconcile it with their spiritual views but IMO that renders it virtually useless. How can they trust their scientific explanations/results if the explanation might actually be something supernatural that they haven't tested for, because you can't test for it.
Science considers that gravity is a property of mass, but that's only true in a physical, natural universe. If we include supernatural, spiritual explanations, then gravity might be god pressing stuff down, and now we have no way to understand it we can only observe it.
It's a good example of how useless the immaterial/spiritual/non-physical is to us. No more useful or explicable than the FSM, or fairies or any of the gods posited by humans. This is why I reject it.
Not really. That you think you would undermine God's existence through an argument that doesn't actually invoke God is similar to how you think that somehow the argument that there could exist something immaterial is somehow some sort or argument for God. It's like you don't actually understand the arguments you're creating.
You've misunderstood what's happening here, I'm not arguing for the existence or not of god, I'm highlighting a conflict between two arguments that use the same premise in the context of a claim about free will.
My OP contains an argument given to me by an apologist.
No problem, the standard way to resolve the infinite regress. But, this guy also claims that God gives us free will. Now there's a problem because the following argument against free will uses the same 'efficient cause' premise.
To defeat this new argument, we would have to undermine the premise of efficient cause, I don't see another way to do it, and if you do that, you've now undermined the argument for god that uses it.
Science considers that gravity is a property of mass, but that's only true in a physical, natural universe. If we include supernatural, spiritual explanations, then gravity might be god pressing stuff down, and now we have no way to understand it we can only observe it.
It's a good example of how useless the immaterial/spiritual/non-physical is to us. No more useful or explicable than the FSM, or fairies or any of the gods posited by humans. This is why I reject it.
Not really. That you think you would undermine God's existence through an argument that doesn't actually invoke God is similar to how you think that somehow the argument that there could exist something immaterial is somehow some sort or argument for God. It's like you don't actually understand the arguments you're creating.
My OP contains an argument given to me by an apologist.
Premise one: Everything that comes into existence has an efficient cause.
Premise two: The universe came into existence 13.8 Billion years ago.
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has an efficient cause.
Premise two: The universe came into existence 13.8 Billion years ago.
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has an efficient cause.
(P1) Every human choice or action is an event
(P2) Every event has an explanatory efficient cause
... (C1) Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P3) Every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P4) To have explanatory efficient cause is not to be free
... (C2) Therefore, human choice or action is not free.
(P2) Every event has an explanatory efficient cause
... (C1) Therefore, every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P3) Every human choice or action has its explanatory efficient cause
(P4) To have explanatory efficient cause is not to be free
... (C2) Therefore, human choice or action is not free.
Our thoughts about the laws, and the physical manifestation of those laws, are not the same thing.
As explained, they're interchangeable for the purposes of this discussion. You simply need to understand that I don't accept spiritual, immaterial or non-physical and I do believe that there is only the physical, material, natural universe..
Yes, it does, and no I'm not. There may be people who use what I consider to be a corrupted version of methodological naturalism to reconcile it with their spiritual views but IMO that renders it virtually useless. How can they trust their scientific explanations/results if the explanation might actually be something supernatural that they haven't tested for, because you can't test for it.
Simply put, you lack intellectual humility. Because of your arrogance, you think you have the power to redefine the terms ("theism" is a "method of knowledge acquisition"), you refuse to differentiate between *easily* differentiable terms (materialism vs naturalism), and you essentially claim to be smarter than a large number of scientists by thinking that they are thinking incorrectly on the basis of things that you've simply declared to be true.
There's a reason you haven't learned anything, and until you break your own arrogance, you will continue down your path of ignorance. There's simply no way around it. You might as well be a flat earther as far as the quality of your argument is concerned. And you might as well be a flat earther as far as your ability to understand other people's arguments is concerned. This is literally just you being too stubborn and too intellectually dishonest to have this conversation. You're all about trying to defend your beliefs rather than analyze and assess them to become a better thinker.
And go ahead and block me. It's not like anything I say influences your thinking at all. You just fall back to your memorized statements without taking the time to reassess any of it.
I'll continue to pick away at your statements, but it's not because I have any illusion that you will read them or learn from them. You have had years on this forum to grow and learn, but you've shown zero meaningful progress.
You also have to adequately define "free will" for your context.
Here's the basic idea:
A parent offers a child the choice between cereal and eggs for breakfast. The child chooses cereal. Which is the "efficient" cause of the child eating cereal? Was it the child for choosing it or the parent for providing that option?
You also have to adequately define "free will" for your context.
Here's the basic idea:
A parent offers a child the choice between cereal and eggs for breakfast. The child chooses cereal. Which is the "efficient" cause of the child eating cereal? Was it the child for choosing it or the parent for providing that option?
Here's the basic idea:
A parent offers a child the choice between cereal and eggs for breakfast. The child chooses cereal. Which is the "efficient" cause of the child eating cereal? Was it the child for choosing it or the parent for providing that option?
* Cause and Effect
* Efficient cause
* Transcendent cause
Nowhere do I see "explanatory cause." So it seems that the argument does not use "explanatory cause" at all, but does use "efficient cause." So I don't see how you "added" it. Also, the word "explanatory" only appears in your summary of the argument.
How should I read this in a way that doesn't make it look like you're being disingenuous?
Are you arguing that every human choice and event does not have an explanatory cause? I think that's trivially true. I would have expected you to go after "To have explanatory efficient cause is not to be free".
You now have a definition of "efficient cause" as "an agent that brings a thing into being or initiates a change."
What is an "explanatory cause"? What is an "explanatory efficient cause"? What does it mean to be "free"?
Just as with many of your other posts, it's really, really important for you to get your definitions clear and accurate.
Our thoughts about the laws, and the physical manifestation of those laws, are not the same thing.
The physical laws of the universe would exist without or without a human to perceive them, they describe the properties and behaviour of the physical. Maths would not, it's a purely abstract thing that exists only in our minds which is a physical process occurring in our physical, material brain.
I think that it would be neither true nor untrue, it simply wouldn't be a thing. Ditto for the question. No brains no minds, no minds no maths. Just because our minds are capable of imagining abstract properties of the universe doesn't make those properties independently present.
Maths is abstract, but without a human brain to consider it, it's not even a thing, no material brains means no maths, so unless it can be shown that thoughts are immaterial I'm going to continue to believe that thoughts are actually material, just chemical sequences, molecules and energy, physical.
Worse for you, even if you could persuade me to accept anything beyond the physical, material, natural universe, you'd only have done half the job, because that thing still isn't necessarily the god that you believe in, or anyone else's.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. In the part that is quoted in your OP, I see the following uses of "cause":
* Cause and Effect
* Efficient cause
* Transcendent cause
Nowhere do I see "explanatory cause." So it seems that the argument does not use "explanatory cause" at all, but does use "efficient cause." So I don't see how you "added" it. Also, the word "explanatory" only appears in your summary of the argument.
* Cause and Effect
* Efficient cause
* Transcendent cause
Nowhere do I see "explanatory cause." So it seems that the argument does not use "explanatory cause" at all, but does use "efficient cause." So I don't see how you "added" it. Also, the word "explanatory" only appears in your summary of the argument.
I
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just pointing out that the framework of the question requires definitions. The question was intended to point out that you need to describe your terms in a way that allows us to understand what you're saying. I can't even address the basic scenario that I've laid out because I don't know what you mean by the words you're using.
You now have a definition of "efficient cause" as "an agent that brings a thing into being or initiates a change."
What is an "explanatory cause"? What is an "explanatory efficient cause"? What does it mean to be "free"?
Just as with many of your other posts, it's really, really important for you to get your definitions clear and accurate.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm just pointing out that the framework of the question requires definitions. The question was intended to point out that you need to describe your terms in a way that allows us to understand what you're saying. I can't even address the basic scenario that I've laid out because I don't know what you mean by the words you're using.
You now have a definition of "efficient cause" as "an agent that brings a thing into being or initiates a change."
What is an "explanatory cause"? What is an "explanatory efficient cause"? What does it mean to be "free"?
Just as with many of your other posts, it's really, really important for you to get your definitions clear and accurate.
Explanatory cause is the unexplainable cause that requires no choice in the event. Explanatory is better defined in terms of syllogism first and second. First syllogism states that 1. Every event has an explanatory cause; every human choice or action is an event; therefore human choice or action has its explanatory cause. 2. Every human choice or action has its explanatory cause; to have explanatory causes is not to be free; therefore no human choice or action is free
There are two distinct lines of inquiry: Physical laws and mathematics.
Physical Laws:
Our thoughts about the laws, and the physical manifestation of those laws, are not the same thing.
The physical laws of the universe would exist without or without a human to perceive them, they describe the properties and behaviour of the physical. Maths would not, it's a purely abstract thing that exists only in our minds which is a physical process occurring in our physical, material brain.
Mathematics:
Maths is abstract, but without a human brain to consider it, it's not even a thing, no material brains means no maths...
1+1=2 is a contingent truth.
Thanks for pointing out my error, I meant that it's a necessary truth.
Yes, it could be false
So at this point, it's far from clear that you even have a coherent concept of necessary and contingent truths.
Worse for you, even if you could persuade me to accept anything beyond the physical, material, natural universe, you'd only have done half the job, because that thing still isn't necessarily the god that you believe in, or anyone else's.
Are you actually not familiar with this argument? I'm surprised.
Do you have any more questions or are we at a point where you can address my point about the conflict?
You have no good reasons because you haven't even addressed the question.
There are two distinct lines of inquiry: Physical laws and mathematics.
Physical Laws:
The question is not about our "thoughts" about the laws, but of the laws themselves. You stated "The physical laws of the universe would exist without or without a human to perceive them." Okay, so you've established that these "physical laws" (whatever they are) exist without humans. So what are they and in what sense do they "exist"? Is that existence material or immaterial?
Mathematics:
So here, I think you've clearly decided that 1+1=2 is a necessary truth. Is that correct? Because you later make this claim:
This is not the behavior of necessary truths. A truth is a necessary truth if it is true for all possible universes. And it's important here that we are not discussing the question of whether specific symbols might be different, but the underlying content of the statement.
So at this point, it's far from clear that you even have a coherent concept of necessary and contingent truths.
Why do you think I'm trying to convince you of anything about God? I've been absolutely explicit that this isn't the goal. You are coming across as being simply disingenuous in your presentation. It's like you're not reading or analyzing anything that's being written, but rather are just focused on making sure you don't accidentally become religious.
There are two distinct lines of inquiry: Physical laws and mathematics.
Physical Laws:
The question is not about our "thoughts" about the laws, but of the laws themselves. You stated "The physical laws of the universe would exist without or without a human to perceive them." Okay, so you've established that these "physical laws" (whatever they are) exist without humans. So what are they and in what sense do they "exist"? Is that existence material or immaterial?
Mathematics:
So here, I think you've clearly decided that 1+1=2 is a necessary truth. Is that correct? Because you later make this claim:
This is not the behavior of necessary truths. A truth is a necessary truth if it is true for all possible universes. And it's important here that we are not discussing the question of whether specific symbols might be different, but the underlying content of the statement.
So at this point, it's far from clear that you even have a coherent concept of necessary and contingent truths.
Why do you think I'm trying to convince you of anything about God? I've been absolutely explicit that this isn't the goal. You are coming across as being simply disingenuous in your presentation. It's like you're not reading or analyzing anything that's being written, but rather are just focused on making sure you don't accidentally become religious.
In order to convince me that there is 'immaterial' you've offered maths, to which I replied 'just thoughts and thoughts are material', and then you offered 'laws of physics' to which I replied, 'the laws are thoughts, but those thoughts describe properties of the physical universe which do exist independent of thought, but thoughts and the physical things they describe are two different things'.
Is that correct?
And I am curious, given how often you claim not to be trying to convince me of god, where you think this can go? Why are you trying to convince me that there is 'immaterial'?
The apologist gives a first argument, quoted in my OP, that uses 'efficient cause' (which I've defined for you) to prove god', he also claims that God gives us free will
Then there is a second, separate argument, at the bottom of my OP, that also uses efficient cause (and also has the word explanatory which I've also defined for you) but this one is for Determinism.
It seems to me that to disprove the second argument and defend free will, you must show that the premise 'efficient cause' is false, and that then undermines the first argument for god.
Aaron I've explained this several times, if you don't get it this time I'll have to give up. Ok?
You've made it clear that you are going to use your own definitions for things. For example, see "theism" is a "method" and the unwillingness to separate "materialism" from "naturalism." Also see your understanding of "science." I'm waiting for you to own up to that and provide those definitions.
I've provided my views on this so many times, including in the thread you kindly linked, that for you to pretend that you don't understand my position is baffling. I'm quite certain OrP or TD could explain my position to you, whether it's right or wrong, they understand it, how come you still don't know what it is after all these years?
...to which I replied 'just thoughts and thoughts are material'
...and then you offered 'laws of physics' to which I replied, 'the laws are thoughts, but those thoughts describe properties of the physical universe which do exist independent of thought, but thoughts and the physical things they describe are two different things'.
Is that correct?
And I am curious, given how often you claim not to be trying to convince me of god, where you think this can go? Why are you trying to convince me that there is 'immaterial'?
Okay. So you're saying that you just crammed that word into your own argument. Which is better, but still bad.
What's going on here is that you're fundamentally misrepresenting the terms of the argument. Here's the problem:
The quoted argument from OP *never* uses "explanatory cause." Your argument does, but you shoved in the word "efficient" in order to change the meaning of your argument. That's just not how this stuff works. You're clearly *not* using the same idea in your argument. You're using the concept of "explanatory" in your original argument. Simply relabeling the term to be "explanatory efficient" without addressing the change of the definitions is not how one constructs a successful argument.
Please show me where you've defined "explanatory" because I don't recall seeing it. I've seen your definition of "efficient."
What do you think a "paradigm" is? You're just throwing words around, but it's far from clear you understand what you mean by those words. Again, you've already shown that you're willing to redefine words and just replace one word with another at will.
I can explain your position. You're arguing that scientists cannot actually trust information that they've gathered using scientific methods if they also believe in God, as God can randomly change things and scientists wouldn't know it. I'm just telling you that it's wrong and a misrepresentation of scientific beliefs and the scientific method.
What's going on here is that you're fundamentally misrepresenting the terms of the argument. Here's the problem:
Then there is a second, separate argument, at the bottom of my OP, that also uses efficient cause (and also has the word explanatory which I've also defined for you) but this one is for Determinism.
Sure, theism is a paradigm, by definition, not sure what about that causes you a problem?
I'm quite certain OrP or TD could explain my position to you, whether it's right or wrong, they understand it, how come you still don't know what it is after all these years?
No. I asked you to consider the possibility of the immaterial by considering mathematics as an example.
Yes. It is true that you've said that. You have decided that math is reduced to simply thoughts and that there's no further structure to mathematics, though you have made a very confusing presentation about the nature of "truth" in mathematics, having first declared that it was contingent, then necessary, but then declaring contingency again. There's a lot here that can cause you to reconsider your understanding, or you can just blindly make assertions that show you haven't actually thought about this at all.
Right. Specifically, you claimed that "the physical laws of the universe exist with or without human brains." I'm asking you to describe the nature of that existence. Because so far, you've declared that everything that exists is physical. And so "the physical laws of the universe" are therefore physical. But physical how? Talking about it in terms of human brains doesn't work because you say that it "exists" in a manner that is independent of human brains. So what is the "existential nature" of the physical laws of the universe?
You're mostly wrong in your understanding of the issues being raised. You're factually correct about the things you've said, but you have not addressed the ways that those things have no bearing on what is being discussed.
I've said it several times over. I'm trying to get you to be a better thinker. You're clearly not a good one right now. You're not accurately representing the arguments that are being put forward, you're not being clean in your use of language, and you're not making meaningful responses to inquiry. It seems like you're trying your best to pretend that you know what you're talking about, rather than taking this as a learning opportunity to expand that knowledge.
Yes. It is true that you've said that. You have decided that math is reduced to simply thoughts and that there's no further structure to mathematics, though you have made a very confusing presentation about the nature of "truth" in mathematics, having first declared that it was contingent, then necessary, but then declaring contingency again. There's a lot here that can cause you to reconsider your understanding, or you can just blindly make assertions that show you haven't actually thought about this at all.
Right. Specifically, you claimed that "the physical laws of the universe exist with or without human brains." I'm asking you to describe the nature of that existence. Because so far, you've declared that everything that exists is physical. And so "the physical laws of the universe" are therefore physical. But physical how? Talking about it in terms of human brains doesn't work because you say that it "exists" in a manner that is independent of human brains. So what is the "existential nature" of the physical laws of the universe?
You're mostly wrong in your understanding of the issues being raised. You're factually correct about the things you've said, but you have not addressed the ways that those things have no bearing on what is being discussed.
I've said it several times over. I'm trying to get you to be a better thinker. You're clearly not a good one right now. You're not accurately representing the arguments that are being put forward, you're not being clean in your use of language, and you're not making meaningful responses to inquiry. It seems like you're trying your best to pretend that you know what you're talking about, rather than taking this as a learning opportunity to expand that knowledge.
My reasoning isn't circular though. I have no reason to accept that immaterial is a thing, so I believe that thoughts have a material cause, and that includes maths. So, maths does not prove the immaterial, it's just a material thought like any other.
Well, there lies some of the confusion. Naturalism does not include the supernatural, hence the phrases being virtually interchangeable for me for the purposes of this discussion.
Naturalism - "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted."
In my opinion, your already persistent confusion isn't helped by using terms interchangeably that don't mean the same thing.
What's going on here is that you're fundamentally misrepresenting the terms of the argument. Here's the problem:
The quoted argument from OP *never* uses "explanatory cause." Your argument does, but you shoved in the word "efficient" in order to change the meaning of your argument. That's just not how this stuff works. You're clearly *not* using the same idea in your argument. You're using the concept of "explanatory" in your original argument. Simply relabeling the term to be "explanatory efficient" without addressing the change of the definitions is not how one constructs a successful argument.
The quoted argument from OP *never* uses "explanatory cause." Your argument does, but you shoved in the word "efficient" in order to change the meaning of your argument. That's just not how this stuff works. You're clearly *not* using the same idea in your argument. You're using the concept of "explanatory" in your original argument. Simply relabeling the term to be "explanatory efficient" without addressing the change of the definitions is not how one constructs a successful argument.
Again, really not sure you're reading my posts properly, these are basic factual errors about what I have and haven't said, it's not helping me and I don't have time or the inclination to constantly correct them.
In the 'god' paradigm, there's a god. In the scientific paradigm, there isn't. That makes a big difference to the questions that can be asked and the answers that can be accepted. Do you disagree?
I can explain your position. You're arguing that scientists cannot actually trust information that they've gathered using scientific methods if they also believe in God, as God can randomly change things and scientists wouldn't know it. I'm just telling you that it's wrong and a misrepresentation of scientific beliefs and the scientific method.
Gravity could have an entirely different explanation than being a physical property of mass if we factor in the supernatural, as I said, it could be god pushing everything down, so perhaps you could explain to me how we might test for that? Perhaps you could offer me a hypothesis and then we can devise a testing regime, a way to repeat that test, a way to falsify any results so that we can have confidence in the hypothesis as means of finding an explanation, and we can use the result to make useful predictions. Could you also include a means of correcting the hypothesis to improve it.
No, it simply excludes or ignores them. The end result is the same, an explanation that doesn't include the supernatural/immaterial or whatever word you prefer to use for what we're obviously discussing here.
The irony here is that despite me having decided that the scientific method is something that's useful and I reject the concept of immaterial simply because it doesn't explain anything usefully, I'm well aware that an empirical ideal is actually impossible. But you knew that already right?
1. A Theistic Paradigm (worldview) doesn't preclude science.
2. A "Scientific" Paradigm (whatever that is) would not preclude the existence of a god.
2. A "Scientific" Paradigm (whatever that is) would not preclude the existence of a god.
True: " being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false"
Source: dictionary.com
No, it simply excludes or ignores them.
I agree with the "ignore" part in most contexts.
The end result is the same, an explanation that doesn't include the supernatural/immaterial or whatever word you prefer to use for what we're obviously discussing here.
The irony here is that despite me having decided that the scientific method is something that's useful and I reject the concept of immaterial simply because it doesn't explain anything usefully, I'm well aware that an empirical ideal is actually impossible. But you knew that already right?
The irony here is that despite me having decided that the scientific method is something that's useful and I reject the concept of immaterial simply because it doesn't explain anything usefully, I'm well aware that an empirical ideal is actually impossible. But you knew that already right?
Also, you didn't answer my question about what 'true' means. You asked the question but if you want an answer then we need to agree that we understand the same things by words like 'true'.
Well, 'preclude' means "prevent from happening; make impossible.", and I've never said that, which makes me wonder if you know what the word preclude means. Do you?
Also, you didn't answer my question about what 'true' means. You asked the question but if you want an answer then we need to agree that we understand the same things by words like 'true'.
Also, you didn't answer my question about what 'true' means. You asked the question but if you want an answer then we need to agree that we understand the same things by words like 'true'.
Yes, I do know what "preclude" means.
Unlike certain persons in this thread that I won't name, I avoid using terms that I don't know the definitions of.
Edit: See #94 for my definition of TRUE.
Then I don't understand why you're using it because I haven't precluded anything.
However, perhaps, having cleared that up, we can move on to more useful things.
Thank you. Before I can answer your questions though we need to address that you're making a claim about 'reality', can you elaborate on what you consider that to be? And we should further examine 'true' because you might, for example, subscribe to Correspondence theory and consider something true only in how it "relates to the world and whether it accurately describes that world", or you might employ some version of pragmatic truth and believe things in terms of their utility.
Could you clarify what you consider truth to be beyond a dictionary.com definition?
What you have not yet realized is that you're not making a single argument for your position, but rather reiterating your assumption that it must be physical.
No I didn't do it to 'change the meaning of my argument', in fact, I've pointed out that I think that it doesn't change it.
Again, really not sure you're reading my posts properly, these are basic factual errors about what I have and haven't said, it's not helping me and I don't have time or the inclination to constantly correct them.
Can't find it, it must have been in one of the two posts I've made that never showed up on the thread and I had to rewrite them. so, my bad, I haven't defined it for you. I'm still quite surprised though that you're not familiar with this argument already.
There's a practice that I'm trying to get you into, which is to practice actually articulating your arguments. You pretend that since you've said it once, that everyone must be familiar with it, and in so doing you never go back to reevaluate it. Just stop being stupid that way.
Now, provide the definition and stop running away from these basic things.
Paradigm - an underlying idea or concept that determines what questions are relevant and what answers are meaningful.
In the 'god' paradigm, there's a god. In the scientific paradigm, there isn't. That makes a big difference to the questions that can be asked and the answers that can be accepted. Do you disagree?
In the 'god' paradigm, there's a god. In the scientific paradigm, there isn't. That makes a big difference to the questions that can be asked and the answers that can be accepted. Do you disagree?
Second, yes. I disagree. Fundamentally, all you're doing with "scientific paradigm" is assuming the answers. You have gained nothing from it. All you have done in your framework is assert "Because God, questions are stupid." It's intellectually dishonest and only serves to exemplify your arrogance.
Close enough. So, whilst I've provided reasons to support my view that a theistic scientist shouldn't be able or willing to trust scientific answers that don't address the supernatural, whilst I've explained the 'why'... you have provided nothing to show that they could or should accept those answers except your assertions that they can (and the trivially true fact that they appear to, you've said that in previous conversations about this) and that I don't understand what science is.
But to examine this more deeply, all you're saying with your "scientific paradigm" is that "it can be trusted because we assume it can be trusted." It's not saying anything useful at all. This stands in parallel to your idea that the "theistic paradigm" implies that "you cannot trust anything."
The earliest scientists were religious folks who were interested in the mechanics with which God established the universe. The idea that God created a sensible universe that *can* be understood, and so that the application of the minds that they have been given to do that understanding is a worshipful act towards God. And so they studied it.
Gravity could have an entirely different explanation than being a physical property of mass if we factor in the supernatural, as I said, it could be god pushing everything down, so perhaps you could explain to me how we might test for that? Perhaps you could offer me a hypothesis and then we can devise a testing regime, a way to repeat that test, a way to falsify any results so that we can have confidence in the hypothesis as means of finding an explanation, and we can use the result to make useful predictions. Could you also include a means of correcting the hypothesis to improve it.
The problem is that neither science nor a "theistic paradigm" makes an assertion that all information about the universe is attainable. You're fussing over a challenge that doesn't have any bearing at all on the methods or ideas, and you're holding it up as if it's some impenetrable barrier or something.
You're just too arrogant to have a meaningful conversation. These infantile objections are laughably bad and show that you really don't think carefully about this stuff. You don't realize how much you're just assuming your way through the conversation.
Also, I would strongly encourage you to reject your own definition of "theism" as "a method" because it's "a paradigm." All of your uses of these words show that you really have very little concept of what you're talking about. You're chasing yourself in circles in a way that is completely disconnected from reality. People are able to function in multiple "paradigms" in different arenas. I believe I've used this example with you before:
A psychologist does not apply physics knowledge in while working with patients. That doesn't mean that physics is not true while they're doing their work. It just means that it's not directly relevant to what they're doing. And the physicist does not apply psychology when they do physics. Your weirdly fundamentalist reading of these "paradigms" is an unnecessary barrier.
Things like this make your argumentation appear disingenuous and dishonest. And that you are trying to do the same thing while avoiding it in our conversation makes you a hypocrite.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE