[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[Paul E. Michael]

A fact is something observable.

Is that a fact? Is it a fact that a fact is something observable?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

"Change in allele frequency in a population over time."

I don't think that you, by your phrase, "change in allele frequency in a population over time," are referring to anything. What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that you are referring to something by it?

Such changes happen continuously and are repeatedly observed to do so.

What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that you, by your word, "changes," are referring to any changes that happen?

It's easy to do this. The Grants on Daphne Major, in the Galapagos, did a nice long-term study of such changes.

Then why are you failing to provide evidence to back up your assertion that you, by your word, "changes," are referring to changes that happen? If it's easy to back up your assertion, then let's hear your "evidence".

The observation that allele frequencies change over time in populations.

What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that you, by your phrase, "the observation that allele frequencies change over time in populations," are referring to an observation?

The observation of such allele frequencies changing.

What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that you, by your phrase, "the observation of such allele frequencies changing," are referring to an observation?

Stuff like the findings of the Grants, studying finches in the Galapagos.

What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that you, by your phrase, "stuff like the findings of the Grants, studying finches in the Galapagos," are referring to findings?

 

[Barbarian]

Is that a fact? Is it a fact that a fact is something observable?

It's a definition

Definition of definition:​

a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol dictionary definitions ​

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition​

​

I don't think that you, by your phrase, "change in allele frequency in a population over time," are referring to anything.

I'm referring to a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Would you like to learn how that happens?

​

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Populations evolved into other populations.

VS​

"Change in allele frequency in a population over time."

I'm having a difficult time seeing that your phrases, "into other populationS" and "in a populatioN," comport with one another.

Would not a population that changes in this or that way over time still be itself, and not another population/other populations? Yet, out of the other side of your mouth, you say that a population "evolved into" one or more other populations.

Out of the one side of your mouth, you say evolution is something that occurs between one population and one or more other population(s): "Populations evolved into other populations." Whereas, out of the other side of your mouth, you say evolution is something that occurs "in a population over time".

By the way, I've meant to ask you:

• Is the population constituted of individuals A, B, C, and D the population constituted of individuals B, C, D, and E? Yes or No?
• Is the population ABCD the population BCDE? Yes or No?
• Is ABCD one population, while BCDE is another population—a population other than ABCD? Yes or No?

 

[Runner]

For the record:

1. I have no idea whether someone can delete one of his own posts. I've never tried. If it can't be done - OK, it can't be done.

2. If the post by Paul E. Michael that I reported was deleted by the moderators, as it seemingly was, they apparently agreed it violated the terms of service. My guess is, a dozen others by PEM could be reported with similar results, but sometimes it's more instructive for the community to allow this sort of stuff to remain on full display.

3. Barbarian's post #381 included quotations from Young Earth Creationist scientist Dr. Kurt Wise. As anyone can see from my post #389, this provoked a response from PEM referring to Barbarian and his "Darwinism-shilling buddies whom you're fond of quoting)." PEM now insists "I never called anyone a "Darwinist shill."

Dr. Wise is about as far from "Darwinist-shilling" as it is possible to be. The fact that even he acknowledges the strength of the evidence for macroevolution is obviously why Barbarian quoted him.

4. Alvin Plantinga is recognized even by secular philosophers as one of the greatest philosophers of the past 100 years. See https://www.encyclopedia.com/humani...acs-transcripts-and-maps/plantinga-alvin-1932 ("Alvin Plantinga is one of the most important and influential philosophers of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries."). He is the father of Reformed Epistemology. His thesis is that theistic belief and specifically Christian belief are "properly basic" and can have epistemic justification (warrant) without any evidence whatsoever by the operation of the sensus divinitatis and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

I am confident PEM has no clue what I'm talking about. PEM characterizes the views of one of the greatest philosophers of the past 100 years as "irrational." 'Nuff said.

5. PEM says "Only irrationally-thinking people could say that one can be/is justified in believing something that is not true." This is laughably incorrect. "Justification" and "truth" are distinct concepts. Knowledge is typically defined as "justified true belief." One may indeed have epistemic justification for a belief that is not true. One may lack epistemic justification for a belief that is, in fact, true.

PEM has shown throughout this thread, and demonstrates once again here, that he is clueless about epistemology and the critical concept of "epistemic justification."

Just ... stop. This is silly. I'm reminded of the old saying that when you wrestle with a pig you both end up covered with mud - but the pig enjoys it.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Barbarian asserted:

A fact is something observable.

So, I asked him a Yes/No question:

Is that a fact? Is it a fact that a fact is something observable?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Either YES, it is a fact that a fact is something observable, or NO, it is not a fact that a fact is something observable. Weasels, even, would be astonished at the spectacle of your unswerving commitment to trying to evade even the most elementary questions, Barbarian.

Instead of answering the question I asked Barbarian, he said:

It's a definition

Sorry, Barbarian, but I did not ask you "Is it a definition that a fact is something observable?" Rather, I asked you "Is it a fact that a fact is something observable?"

Is it a fact that a fact is something observable, Barbarian? Yes or No?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

One may lack epistemic justification for a belief that is, in fact, true.

How, according to you, may one who believes the true proposition, P, be not justified in his/her believing P?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Knowledge is typically defined as "justified true belief."

Your pop phrase, "justified true belief," is no definition—of anything—since no thing is both true and belief, and since no thing is both justified and true.

• What is true is not/cannot be/is not amenable to being justified.
• Belief can be/sometimes is justified, but belief is neither true nor false.
• All belief is believing; belief is not that which is believed.

Knowledge is belief of true propositions (a.k.a., belief of truth/truths, belief of fact/facts), and belief of true propositions is always justified.

"Justification" and "truth" are distinct concepts.

If, by that, you mean that justification is not truth, and that truth is not justification, then you are preaching to the choir, here.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You said this thing:

A fact is something observable.

Referring, by your pronoun, "it," to that thing you said, you say:

It's a definition

Barbarian, all you are doing is telling me that you use your word, "fact," interchangeably with your phrase, "something observable".

So, when you say things like this:

But these tautologies are based on observable realities. So, for example, a fact must be observable. If you can't actually observe it, it's something else.

...all you are saying is "[something observable] must be observable. If you can't actually observe it, it's something [not observable]."

Thanks for that amazingly profound insight, Barbarian!

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian, all you are doing is telling me that you use your word, "fact," interchangeably with your phrase, "something observable".

By George, I think he's got it!

 

[Paul E. Michael]

By George, I think he's got it!

So, since you refuse to answer the question I've been asking you ("Before humans ever began to live on the earth, was it a fact that the earth is round? Yes or No?"), perhaps you'll have fun with this question:

Before humans ever began to live on the earth, was it something observable that the earth is round? Yes or No?

 

[Barbarian]

4. Alvin Plantinga is recognized even by secular philosophers as one of the greatest philosophers of the past 100 years. See https://www.encyclopedia.com/humani...acs-transcripts-and-maps/plantinga-alvin-1932 ("Alvin Plantinga is one of the most important and influential philosophers of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries."). He is the father of Reformed Epistemology. His thesis is that theistic belief and specifically Christian belief are "properly basic" and can have epistemic justification (warrant) without any evidence whatsoever by the operation of the sensus divinitatis and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.

Yes. I don't agree with everything Plantinga has written, but no one with any understanding of epistemology can deny his contributions to the field.

I am intrigued by Plantinga's argument that one cannot consistently accept evolution and be a naturalist (in the sense of one who thinks nothing but nature exists)

(long discourse showing that some false beliefs can very well have a high survival value)
Now, if humans simply evolved from natural selection, that means we can’t trust our brains to have very true beliefs. If natural selection doesn’t care about true or false beliefs, then who knows? Every belief we have would be around fifty/fifty, and we can’t trust our own reason.

That means that if you believe in evolution and naturalism, then you have a reason to be extremely skeptical about everything, even your own belief in naturalism!

When we don’t trust our own rationality, that’s broadly called skepticism, and if Plantinga is correct, this would entail a deep, “hard” skepticism.

However, believing in evolution and God, or just believing in God without evolution, is entirely rational. For instance, Alvin Plantinga thinks God orchestrates evolution, which allows humans to evolve with minds aimed at gathering truth.

Does evolution prove God? Alvin Plantinga’s Christian philosophy

By examining Alvin Plantinga and his evolutionary argument against naturalism, I'll try to show philosophy's worth for Christians.

www.denisonforum.org

I tend to believe that God merely created the universe "front-loaded" (as some IDers say) to produce the sort of being potentially capable of fellowship with Him. Which may be another way of saying what Plantinga writes.

 

[Barbarian]

Before humans ever began to live on the earth, was it something observable that the earth is round? Yes or No?

Unless you think we could observe that the Earth is round before we existed, the answer would be no.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Unless you think we could observe that the Earth is round before we existed, the answer would be no.

So omniscient God never observed/could observe that the earth He created is round?

 

[Runner]

Yes. I don't agree with everything Plantinga has written, but no one with any understanding of epistemology can deny his contributions to the field.

I am intrigued by Plantinga's argument that one cannot consistently accept evolution and be a naturalist (in the sense of one who thinks nothing but nature exists)

(long discourse showing that some false beliefs can very well have a high survival value)
Now, if humans simply evolved from natural selection, that means we can’t trust our brains to have very true beliefs. If natural selection doesn’t care about true or false beliefs, then who knows? Every belief we have would be around fifty/fifty, and we can’t trust our own reason.

That means that if you believe in evolution and naturalism, then you have a reason to be extremely skeptical about everything, even your own belief in naturalism!

When we don’t trust our own rationality, that’s broadly called skepticism, and if Plantinga is correct, this would entail a deep, “hard” skepticism.

However, believing in evolution and God, or just believing in God without evolution, is entirely rational. For instance, Alvin Plantinga thinks God orchestrates evolution, which allows humans to evolve with minds aimed at gathering truth.

Does evolution prove God? Alvin Plantinga’s Christian philosophy

By examining Alvin Plantinga and his evolutionary argument against naturalism, I'll try to show philosophy's worth for Christians.

www.denisonforum.org

I tend to believe that God merely created the universe "front-loaded" (as some IDers say) to produce the sort of being potentially capable of fellowship with Him. Which may be another way of saying what Plantinga writes.

Yes, I'm not convinced by everything Plantinga has written either (and I've read most of it). I just finished Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, and I was surprised that they weren't in complete agreement with Plantinga. As they point out, his epistemology can be used to give warrant to any theistic belief system. I think it's an apologetics sort of philosophy, aimed more at giving epistemic respectability to believers than convincing nonbelievers. Although, it has stirred up a lot of attention among secular philosophers.

 

[Barbarian]

So omniscient God never observed/could observe that the earth He created is round?

You've just discovered something important. You see, the round Earth was not a fact for people before we could get a view of the whole thing. But it's a fact for us. So "fact" depends on what? (think about it...) Yes. Having the evidence.
But there's something more important you've missed here. For an omnipotent Creator, everything true is also a fact. As you have learned, there are many things that are true, which are not facts for us.

Do you now understand why?

 

[Barbarian]

es, I'm not convinced by everything Plantinga has written either (and I've read most of it).

Well, I'm a biologist. So I'm not an expert in philosophy. But because of biology's "natural theology" roots in 18th century Europe, most biologists have a nodding acquaintance with things like ontological and epistemological issues.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Here, you're confusing science with facts. Facts just are. They are evidence.

So "fact" depends on what? (think about it...) Yes. Having the evidence.

I don't follow. Evidence "depends on having the evidence"??

 

[Barbarian]

I don't follow. Evidence "depends on having the evidence"??

It's not a fact if you don't have evidence. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me. But fact of a round Earth (for example) is not the same as having a view from space to see it. That doesn't seem like a difficult concept, either.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

It's not a fact if you don't have evidence. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me.

What's not a fact if you don't have evidence?

And "you," who?