Topic: A God Hypothesis - Christian (Read 10076 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** September 25, 2007, 07:56:17 AM »

This thread is inspired by a comment made by Benjdm in the 'Is Christian apologetics Necessary' thread. Among other things, Ben indicated that he much prefers issuing a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis against reality using methods, saying: "So my beliefs are the results of these kinds of methods. Scientific, mathematical, historical."

This is very much like my own approach, so I asked if he'd be willing to speak more along those lines, he said yes, and I have been thinking about how to do so. And here we are.
----------------------------------------------------------

First an observation. If we are in the business of proposing a hypothesis and testing it against reality, that means that we've already come to a place where we are prepared to operate on some basic assumptions about reality. Ie, we have dismissed solipsism and other self-defeating epistemological considerations. In this thread, I intend to stay above those questions and issues.

Now, we shall say that we find ourselves in reality, relatively confident that our senses give us good data and our minds generally process that data reasonably well, and, taking into account known flaws in each, we have found that utilizing methodologies can also produce good interpretations and applications of the 'data' gained by our senses and our mind. This is not an exhaustive caveat, but for the sake of brevity I end it there.

In this setting, I submit this 'hypothesis': God, a transcendental and immanent entity, at one time actualized a desire to have a relationship with his creatures, only to have the venture thwarted by certain creatures who continue to be at war with him. Still desiring a relationship, God set in motion a method for reconciling with mankind, culminating in his own participating in his creation.

Some opening comments by myself about some preliminary correlations to reality that this statement is supported by.

First, to speak to the 'desire.' This is one of those things that ultimately would be quite difficult to know apart from an entity such as the one I described revealing it. However, we can point to our system and note a few things about it that can be considered bare requirements for us to ever A. Detect a revelation and B. Detect 'desire.'

These would be derived via the scientific method.

1. Our system appears, in the main, to operate along consistent patterns.
2. We ourselves appear to be unable to deviate from these patterns.

I say that these come to us via the SM but of course these two facts have been known from time immemorial; the SM has only deepened our appreciation of these facts of our 'system.'

It is conceivable that God (as described) could have created along any number of lines, including systems that have no set 'natural' laws. In that scenario, it would be impossible to distinguish between the system's background 'patterns' (because there would be no pattern) and God's interaction into it. Thus, while not itself conclusive, the fact that we do observe a set pattern and our own binding to it offers a bare minimum requirement for detecting revelation in the first place: A 'patterned' system that we have no ability to modify or deviate from gives us a basis to detect a deviation from that pattern.

In other words, far from the SM showing that putative revelatory events are absurd on their face, the SM has made it possible to distinguish and discuss revelatory events at all.

At this point, it would be wise to point out that in our hypothesis we are seeing if reality matches up to whether or not there is a situation as described in the hypothesis, so we have to be wary that any objections at this point do not have as their basis the assumption that there is no God at all, for that would be to beg the question, assuming to begin with that there is no God just as you evaluate the claim that there is one.

Now, a second point and then I turn it over for comments.

Because our ability to reliably detect revelation will require being able to see natural 'patterns' and then, in theory, their exceptions, it follows that the revelation itself cannot be too common or persistent, or else it would be construed simply as aspects of the pattern itself. In order for an intervention to be reliably detected at all, it will have to be rare.

Ie, if people were always walking on water, then if God came to our planet and walked on the water we would not think this is noteworthy at all. If people always resurrected after dying, if God died and rose we wouldn't have any reason for thinking that God was anything more than a common member of the 'system.'

The necessary rarity of the revelations means that it cannot be expected that every person in every generation will receive or discern such revelations. That means that we will be compelled to rely on the testimony of others who have lived before us, unless, of course, we come to find that we live in a generation where God has again done something amazing. This again calls for us to be wary of our question begging. The very question being examined is whether or not there is a God such as the one I've described, so discounting testimonies from the past merely because they record revelatory events would be begging the question, circular reasoning.

We may find good reasons to discount them, but it can't be because they are fantastic. We are expecting genuine events to be fantastic. Aware, again, that people can lie, or be deceived, or that records can be incomplete, or come to us that way, our reasonable route is to apply the method most appropriate for evaluating such claims, and that would be the historical method, not the scientific method.

From all of this, I draw one straight forward and simple prediction based on the hypothesis:

If we are reasonably confident of the 'patterns' of our system, and we aren't question begging, and we are expecting that we will have to use the HM, we shall find (if the hypothesis is true) that there are revelatory events with strong historical credentials. So, we should look for and give more credence (at least initially) to putative revelatory events* that have the best historical credentials. And, given the hypothesis, we should find such instances.

*revelatory event- can be a vision, a prophecy, a 'miracle', literally anything that might be construed as a break from the pattern we observe and find ourselves bound to.

benjdm · « **Reply #1 on:** September 25, 2007, 03:21:46 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 25, 2007, 07:56:17 AM

First an observation. If we are in the business of proposing a hypothesis and testing it against reality, that means that we've already come to a place where we are prepared to operate on some basic assumptions about reality. Ie, we have dismissed solipsism and other self-defeating epistemological considerations. In this thread, I intend to stay above those questions and issues.

I would phrase it very differently. I haven't dismissed solipsism. I have recognized that if solipsism is true, then what I call reality will only be a simulation. There is no way, even in principle, to determine anything more than that. So I accept that limitation and move on.

Quote

Because our ability to reliably detect revelation will require being able to see natural 'patterns' and then, in theory, their exceptions, it follows that the revelation itself cannot be too common or persistent, or else it would be construed simply as aspects of the pattern itself. In order for an intervention to be reliably detected at all, it will have to be rare.

Ie, if people were always walking on water, then if God came to our planet and walked on the water we would not think this is noteworthy at all. If people always resurrected after dying, if God died and rose we wouldn't have any reason for thinking that God was anything more than a common member of the 'system.'

The necessary rarity of the revelations means that it cannot be expected that every person in every generation will receive or discern such revelations.

Baloney. 'Rare' does not apply only to time. If Jesus maintained a continuous presence here, batting 1.000 in the Majors, demonstrating superhuman abilities under rigorous observation, etc., he could communicate this much better. He would be quite the rare human among the 106 billion that are estimated to have ever lived.

Quote

From all of this, I draw one straight forward and simple prediction based on the hypothesis:

If we are reasonably confident of the 'patterns' of our system, and we aren't question begging, and we are expecting that we will have to use the HM, we shall find (if the hypothesis is true) that there are revelatory events with strong historical credentials.

That's your prediction ? That is not a prediction, unless you are talking about writings of the events that we have not yet found. Before the gospel of Judas in the 1970s was found, you could have made predictions about what would be contained in it. Afterwards, not so much.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** September 25, 2007, 03:39:14 PM »

"'Rare' does not apply only to time. If Jesus maintained a continuous presence here, batting 1.000 in the Majors, demonstrating superhuman abilities under rigorous observation, etc., he could communicate this much better. He would be quite the rare human among the 106 billion that are estimated to have ever lived."

I don't agree, but I don't think the objection is without merit, either. You are agreeing, however, that rarity will be a critical component here?

"That's your prediction ? That is not a prediction, unless you are talking about writings of the events that we have not yet found."

We've come across this objection of yours before. I don't agree at all that it is not a prediction unless we're dealing with future discoveries of, say, writings. Or, even future empirical observations. I am quite certain that as research scientists develop hypotheses they do not consider their 'predictions' only 'predictions' pending the results of future studies.

A hypothesis can make a prediction, and then you can check the data that has already been acquired- and if you're hypothesis is right- you'll predict that you will see such and such. If this were not the case, there wouldn't be legions of graduate assistants poring over various studies trying to make themselves famous.

The 'prediction' of course, is that an examination yet to come will confirm the hypothesis. So, I predict that when you make the examination of the historical data, you will find that my hypothesis is sound.

I will grant, however, that in a strictly scientific sense, we usually use the term 'prediction' to speak to a future observation from an experiment, or what not. But that would be an arbitrarily narrow use of the term given the fact that we are not only talking about the scientific method, but also the historical method, where 'prediction' as I'm using it would fit within the scope of argument to the best explanation.

Which is not to say that I don't think I could in some areas make 'predictions' in the narrow sense you are demanding. But I think it is unwarranted for you to demand a narrow sense of the word. I think you know exactly what I mean and if you want to call it something else, do so, but I trust that checking the hypothesis against the facts and finding them corroborated is a significant boost to the hypothesis whatever you want to call it. Don't you think?

cutupmaster · « **Reply #3 on:** September 25, 2007, 06:03:43 PM »

Why does rarity imply divinity?

benjdm · « **Reply #4 on:** September 25, 2007, 06:16:28 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 25, 2007, 03:39:14 PM

"'Rare' does not apply only to time. If Jesus maintained a continuous presence here, batting 1.000 in the Majors, demonstrating superhuman abilities under rigorous observation, etc., he could communicate this much better. He would be quite the rare human among the 106 billion that are estimated to have ever lived."

I don't agree, but I don't think the objection is without merit, either. You are agreeing, however, that rarity will be a critical component here?

Hmmm. I agree in some sense. Given that our universe does appear to follow so many laws without exception, the ability to violate these laws would necessarily be rare. I don't agree necessarily when you make the universe very different (like giving everyone the ability to walk on water or resurrect, as you conjectured earlier.) If Jesus was here granting and withdrawing abilities to huge swathes of people - making those abilities less rare - that would still favor it.

Quote

"That's your prediction ? That is not a prediction, unless you are talking about writings of the events that we have not yet found."

We've come across this objection of yours before. I don't agree at all that it is not a prediction unless we're dealing with future discoveries of, say, writings. Or, even future empirical observations. I am quite certain that as research scientists develop hypotheses they do not consider their 'predictions' only 'predictions' pending the results of future studies.

Yes, absolutely, they do. That's inherent in the very meaning of the word prediction. It's the whole point. If an idea is right, it should hold in situations we have not yet observed.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predict - all of them refer to the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Quote

Predictions from the hypothesis

Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by reasoning including deductive reasoning. It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature. The prediction can also be statistical and only talk about probabilities.

It is essential that the outcome be currently unknown. Only in this case does the eventuation increase the probability that the hypothesis be true. If the outcome is already known, it's called a consequence and should have already been considered while formulating the hypothesis.

You may give me grief over my understanding of Christianity, but your understanding of science and cognitive errors that make the method necessary is at least as bad. Humans are incredibly good at fooling ourselves. We can maintain confidence in wrong ideas for thousands of years (heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects) just because it makes sense and some observations confirm it.

Quote

A hypothesis can make a prediction, and then you can check the data that has already been acquired- and if you're hypothesis is right- you'll predict that you will see such and such. If this were not the case, there wouldn't be legions of graduate assistants poring over various studies trying to make themselves famous.

A conjecture must already accommodate all the data that has already been acquired in order to get to the status of hypotheses. Until it makes a whole bunch of predictions, it will not be given much confidence, and will not advance to theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Quote

In framing a hypothesis, the investigator must not currently know the outcome of a potentially falsifying test or that it remains reasonably under continuing investigation. Only in such cases does the experiment, test or study potentially increase the probability of showing the truth of a hypothesis. If the researcher already knows the outcome, it counts as a "consequence"

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** September 25, 2007, 06:17:46 PM »

Quote

Why does rarity imply divinity?

I didn't say it did. Read it all again.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #6 on:** September 25, 2007, 06:21:24 PM »

You certainly implied it.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** September 25, 2007, 06:44:09 PM »

"Given that our universe does appear to follow so many laws without exception, the ability to violate these laws would necessarily be rare."

No, I don't think you're understanding me, here. I once met an atheist that argued that the resurrection could be discounted because the odds were that after 10 billion humans, it would make sense that one of them would resurrect (this followed a discourse on the odds against unguided abiogenesis... I guess I 'won' that argument). That is not what I'm arguing here.

My point is rather is that if there were constant 'violations' of the laws of nature you would be hard pressed to classify anything as a law of nature in the first place. It is only because you have a consistent pattern that you could detect and attribute significance to an exception.

This is what I mean by 'rare.' From an epistemological point of view, your only hope of having a reliable revelation from the entity described in the hypothesis is to have a 'background' against which to recognize the revelation.

This does not mean, as cutup somehow gathered, that 'rarity implies divinity.' Rather, a consistent pattern is a pre-requisite for a revelation to be reliably detected. The 'rarity' comes into play in the sense that if the message occurs too often there is a proportional drop in our knowledge of the pattern.

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A There is a Message Here A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

a T U b q s T u p y R T A I R V S A M P P P E S Q C Q E B P D s H R E S H I R E b t H E r E 5 2 I s h 2 A 6 M 3 s S a 8 E b 9 H E r E R B n s p P G E

Is there a message in the first line? What about the second? It is much easier to see the message in the first one because it stands out against the pattern. Is the second one random gibberish?

"Yes, absolutely, they do. That's inherent in the very meaning of the word prediction. It's the whole point. If an idea is right, it should hold in situations we have not yet observed."

And have you yet observed the historical data?

"You may give me grief over my understanding of Christianity, but your understanding of science and cognitive errors that make the method necessary is at least as bad."

Your error is that you invoke the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I specifically suggested that you were not being reasonable to constrain us to that lingo. You don't think historians make hypotheses?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Yes, and another quote:

"In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit needs evaluation."

And I am completely within this use of the term. Are you seriously going to quibble about this rather than proceed to substance?

"There is little, if any, prediction in the historical method."

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Perhaps instead of invoking the Scientific method on me you should have invoked the HM, eh?

"The historical method primarily looks at source reliability, etc. It also relies on the scientific method to inform us of what is possible. Given that the historical consensus of documents about Jesus is that NONE of them are primary sources, there is no good reason to think anything in the gospels or apocrypha is records any violations of natural laws. If I were to grant secondary sources so much authority about what happened, I would have to believe so many miracles that I would believe contradictory things."

Wow, look at you go. Why don't you just slow the train down just a bit. Let's find out just how good your knowledge of the historical basis of Christianity really is. But at least recognize that the HM, by virtue of it being a study of the past, is never going to be able to offer 'predictions' as in the sense for many scientific inquiries, but that doesn't mean that we can't use the word nor test our hypotheses, or, according to your own wiki source:

"In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit needs evaluation."

I offered you a provisional idea and we are evaluating the merit of it.

And I'm watching you closely about your notions about the SM telling us what is possible. If it is true that you cannot even hope to detect an intervention unless it is highlighted against a pattern of regular laws, then there are some limits on what we can say is really possible according to the SM. The very think you are invoking as though it might disprove the hypothesis is in fact the one thing you need in order to 'prove' it.

""and if you want to call it something else, do so, but I trust that checking the hypothesis against the facts and finding them corroborated is a significant boost to the hypothesis whatever you want to call it. Don't you think?""
"No, it just makes the hypotheses not yet wrong."

Now you're just playing hard to get. Which hypothesis do you think is stronger? The one corroborated at no points, the one at one point, or the one at a thousand points? Be honest.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #8 on:** September 25, 2007, 06:53:00 PM »

Sntjohnny, your position seems to be: any rare event that can't be explained by current science is probably a divine event. Is this not your view?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** September 25, 2007, 06:58:17 PM »

cutupmaster · « **Reply #10 on:** September 25, 2007, 07:02:08 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 25, 2007, 06:58:17 PM

No.

Then why do you believe that the resurrection was a divine event? It's both (a) rare and (b) inexplicable by current science. What else is there for you to deem it a divine event?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** September 25, 2007, 07:10:20 PM »

Your question here is inconsistent with your previous two questions. I suggest you go back and re-read my OP and my last post to Ben. No where am I saying that rarity establishes something as divine. Strictly speaking, every event is rare. Time passes, it cannot be repeated. Only our recollection of the event- if even that- remains. I won't ever live this moment again. Does that make it divine? The key word here is prerequisite.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #12 on:** September 25, 2007, 07:35:32 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 25, 2007, 07:10:20 PM

Your question here is inconsistent with your previous two questions. I suggest you go back and re-read my OP and my last post to Ben. No where am I saying that rarity establishes something as divine. Strictly speaking, every event is rare. Time passes, it cannot be repeated. Only our recollection of the event- if even that- remains. I won't ever live this moment again. Does that make it divine? The key word here is prerequisite.

Hence, my question: why do you believe that the resurrection was a divine event? It's both (a) rare and (b) inexplicable by current science. What else is there for you to deem it a divine event?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** September 25, 2007, 07:44:52 PM »

You're not going to trick me into giving you here what you hoped to extract me in the other thread. Clever, clever boy. I will no doubt eventually come to deal with your question, or at least similar ones, but they will be under my terms, not yours. You know what I think of your terms.

You're just going to have to be patient. You've still got Doc.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #14 on:** September 25, 2007, 07:49:53 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 25, 2007, 07:44:52 PM

You're not going to trick me into giving you here what you hoped to extract me in the other thread. Clever, clever boy. I will no doubt eventually come to deal with your question, or at least similar ones, but they will be under my terms, not yours. You know what I think of your terms. You're just going to have to be patient. You've still got Doc.

I don't understand. This thread is about "a God hypothesis," right? You are trying to suggest the conditions under which we would be justified in attributing to an event divine causality. Rarity is a necessary condition; being inexplicable by current science is a necessary condition. What else is there?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** September 25, 2007, 08:00:39 PM »

Patient, young Jedi. Or, are you a Sith? hmmmmmmmmmm

benjdm · « **Reply #16 on:** September 25, 2007, 08:03:01 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on September 25, 2007, 06:44:09 PM

"Given that our universe does appear to follow so many laws without exception, the ability to violate these laws would necessarily be rare."

My point is rather is that if there were constant 'violations' of the laws of nature you would be hard pressed to classify anything as a law of nature in the first place. It is only because you have a consistent pattern that you could detect and attribute significance to an exception.

Isn't that what I said in different terms ?

Quote

This is what I mean by 'rare.' From an epistemological point of view, your only hope of having a reliable revelation from the entity described in the hypothesis is to have a 'background' against which to recognize the revelation.

I'm not 100% sure about that, because it is difficult to imagine myself in a universe where we didn't have such a background. In any case, though, we do have such a background.

Quote

"Yes, absolutely, they do. That's inherent in the very meaning of the word prediction. It's the whole point. If an idea is right, it should hold in situations we have not yet observed."

And have you yet observed the historical data?

A decent portion of it, yes.

Quote

Your error is that you invoke the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I specifically suggested that you were not being reasonable to constrain us to that lingo. You don't think historians make hypotheses?

I don't think they make many predictions. You seem to think they do.

Quote

And I am completely within this use of the term. Are you seriously going to quibble about this rather than proceed to substance?

Well, when you use 'prediction' to mean something other than what it means in English and still won't tell me what you mean by it, I wouldn't call it quibbling.

Quote

"There is little, if any, prediction in the historical method."

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Perhaps instead of invoking the Scientific method on me you should have invoked the HM, eh?

I also re-read and searched the Wikipedia article on the Historical Method. There is no mention of 'predict' or 'predictions.' Similarly, mathematics doesn't use 'predictions.' Of the three methods outlined at the beginning of this thread, only scientific methods do. Therefore...

Quote

"The historical method primarily looks at source reliability, etc. It also relies on the scientific method to inform us of what is possible. Given that the historical consensus of documents about Jesus is that NONE of them are primary sources, there is no good reason to think anything in the gospels or apocrypha is records any violations of natural laws. If I were to grant secondary sources so much authority about what happened, I would have to believe so many miracles that I would believe contradictory things."

Wow, look at you go. Why don't you just slow the train down just a bit. Let's find out just how good your knowledge of the historical basis of Christianity really is.

I would put it in the top 5% of the population, easy. Of course, with the U.S. population, that's not saying much.

Quote

But at least recognize that the HM, by virtue of it being a study of the past, is never going to be able to offer 'predictions' as in the sense for many scientific inquiries, but that doesn't mean that we can't use the word nor test our hypotheses, or, according to your own wiki source:

"In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit needs evaluation."

If it doesn't offer predictions, then no, you can't use the word. Why would you use the word prediction to mean something other than prediction ? <scratching head> You could definitely call it a hypotheses - I definitely grant that - but predictions talk about currently unknown things. Look up the word.

Quote

""and if you want to call it something else, do so, but I trust that checking the hypothesis against the facts and finding them corroborated is a significant boost to the hypothesis whatever you want to call it. Don't you think?""
"No, it just makes the hypotheses not yet wrong."

Now you're just playing hard to get. Which hypothesis do you think is stronger? The one corroborated at no points, the one at one point, or the one at a thousand points? Be honest.

The one that is corroborated at a thousand points, of course. But without anything else going for it, it is still almost certainly wrong. The FSM hypotheses has the FSM going around and re-arranging evidence to make the world look old and hide himself. It is corroborated at every point, but still very, very, very likely to be wrong.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #17 on:** September 25, 2007, 08:03:28 PM »

Okay, I'll be patient. But, in the meantime, I'll make a prediction: you won't answer my question*.

*Why do you believe that the resurrection was a divine event? It's both (a) rare and (b) inexplicable by current science. What else is there for you to deem it a divine event?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** September 25, 2007, 08:46:57 PM »

"I'm not 100% sure about that, because it is difficult to imagine myself in a universe where we didn't have such a background. In any case, though, we do have such a background."

Yes. If you're with me that far, we're doing well. Not sure we're together on rarity, but if you think so, I'll proceed.

"I don't think they make many predictions. You seem to think they do."

I don't think they are predictions in the same sense as the SM, but nor do I feel constrained to utilizing the SM. Also, there is an awful lot of contention even about elements of the SM (and even the HM). It's not written in stone.

"I also re-read and searched the Wikipedia article on the Historical Method."

If you looked at the wiki on the HM you would have seen that it spoke about Arguments to the Best Explanation, which I already alluded to. I just checked it out myself, so I know you did. What I said:

Quote

From all of this, I draw one straight forward and simple prediction based on the hypothesis:

If we are reasonably confident of the 'patterns' of our system, and we aren't question begging, and we are expecting that we will have to use the HM, we shall find (if the hypothesis is true) that there are revelatory events with strong historical credentials. So, we should look for and give more credence (at least initially) to putative revelatory events* that have the best historical credentials. And, given the hypothesis, we should find such instances.

We should find. That's future. And very similar to the concept in the wiki:

Quote

The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. (We will henceforth call the first statement 'the hypothesis', and the statements describing observable data, 'observation statements'.)

I think that 'predict' is a perfectly fine word to use in this context as a realization of the term 'imply' here, but I hardly think the argument matters. I don't really care about it. I am only invoking the concept described here in this first description of An Argument to the Best Explanation. My hypothesis implies other statements describing present, observable data... that we, if the hypothesis is any good, shall find. And if we don't find, that's bad for my hypothesis.

"I would put it in the top 5% of the population, easy. Of course, with the U.S. population, that's not saying much."

Well, we're going to have some good fun. If this conversation has any positive effect, it will be to give us both more knowledge.

"The one that is corroborated at a thousand points, of course. But without anything else going for it, it is still almost certainly wrong."

If it has a thousand points going for it, I'd say that is quite a bit going for it.

We should prefer it over the one that is scant corroborated. I again point you to your wiki article on the HM. See points 2, 3, 7 and 6, I think.

"The FSM hypotheses has the FSM going around and re-arranging evidence to make the world look old and hide himself. It is corroborated at every point, but still very, very, very likely to be wrong."

But that argument is basically the argument you dismissed when cutup used it. Is it in fact the case that the FSM is really corroborated at every point? Se HM point #5. Sure, we can create hypotheticals endlessly. Who is denying that? But not all of them have the same evidential basis. We are not being irrational and arbitrary if we choose to examine those with evidence and leave aside those clearly invented to make a point.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #19 on:** September 25, 2007, 09:32:48 PM »

At what point does "divine causation" become the best explanation? Rare event + being inexplicable by current science + (insert condition)?

Author Topic: A God Hypothesis - Christian (Read 10076 times)