Greetings from outside

There is much questioning on the topic of whether there is something beyond this life, beyond this world which we see. In essence, it is a question of whether there is an "outside." I actually believe that there is. I also believe that there is an intelligence behind the universe as a whole. (No, I can't prove it. It's just a gut-feel belief) Even though I believe these things exist, I believe it is useful to act as though they do not. I will attempt to explain by analogy. There are many games out there in which one plays a character that lives a life in a virtual world. We (on the outside) certainly know that those worlds have "outsides." In playing the game, however, people act as though there were no outside. I believe the world we experience here is similar to that. I also believe the organized religions (especially the ones whose members try saying they are not religions) are hogwash.

I suppose this comes as no surprise

Frank walton of the "atheismsucks" blog has seen fit to delete two of my posts at http://atheismsucks.blogspot.com/2007/12/common-objections-to-intelligent-design.html I think it is because they showed he was using a straw-man fallacy. (He was definitely using a straw-man fallacy; though the use may have been inadvertant.) Naturally, if asked, he will deny this. I will leave it to any readers of this post to come to their own conclusions.

A key point that I made in both posts was that I do not actually support macro-evolution as scientific and so do not support it being taught in public schools. Specificly, I do not believe that macro-evolution is falsifiable (by any techniques that we posess) and so does not qualify as a scientific theory. He was, of course, challenging me to show that macro-evolution was scientific, distracting from my actual claim that intelligent design is not.

"Or to put it another way, to affirm that: 1) there is real design in nature, but 2) deny that there is a real Designer who ultimately caused that design, while perhaps not logically inconsistent, would be practically inconsistent. That is, 2), the denial that there is a Designer ultimately behind the design, would in practice weaken one's argument for 1), that there is real design."

I pulled this quote from one of the links he posted. My purpose was to respond to his claim of, "It's obvious by now you haven't even begun to look up the links I provided." I also find it amusing that he says, "Virtually every time you're refuted you change the subject a bit. Or you dodge," considering he has not refuted my actual claims. He may think he refutes my assertion that ID postulates a designer when he says that it postulates no god; but he would be incorrect. I accept the claim by ID porponents that the designer need not be a god. Part of what it means to be designed is to have a designer. Something may look designed when it has no designer; but then the appearance is an illusion.

Now, you might expect better from a blog that boasts "The purpose of this blog is to promote reason and intellectual responsibility, and in so doing we aim to counteract the manipulative, dishonest, and fallacious tactics of atheist apologists." I, however, do not. I would like to see a christian blogger admit that some of his beliefs are based on faith or a "gut feel;" but it doesn't look like it will happen.

Identify the quote -- Revealed

The quote that I gave as a challenge was from The Problem of Pain by Clive Staples Lewis, Chapter 3, third paragraph (not counting the chapter's leading quotation.) In the printing I have, it appears on pages 28 and 29.

Human-caused global warming?

I can't get through a single month without running into something or someone that claims that "scientists all agree that people are causing global warming by putting greenhouse gasses into the air." I note, however, that what a man believes, he will act on. If these people really believe that "greenhouse gasses" in the air are causing global warming, why are they not looking for ways to remove the "excess" already present? It seems straightforward to me.

Let's hope he made an honest mistake.

I made this comment on one of the threads on atheismsucks.blogspot.com:

Pvblivs said...
Oh, it's quite true that we can't prove that we aren't a brain in a vat, or characters in a story, or shadows on a cave wall. The scientific method simply builds a model of the world in an effort to be able to make useful predictions. In that effort, it has been quite successful. So far, no testable predictions have been made by postulating a god.

"I just don't see how it makes any sense to think that an unintelligent process can bring forth intelligence."

I don't see how the god of the bible can possibly exist. Does that rule him out as a possibility? Not understanding something does not mean that it is not possible.

Here is the respone I got from the blog owner:

Frank Walton said...
Pvblivs,

Then show us through the scientific method that we are not just our brains in a chemical vat while having our brains wielded by a scientist who is giving us the reality we see today. You didn't even bother showing us any proof in your comment except to say, "oh, we can disprove it alright." so, I'm giving you a second chance to show us. Unless you're here to troll and hack away.

Frank

11:39 AM

Please note that in my original comment, I said that we could not do what he then challenges me to do. Now, maybe he misread what I wrote. That sort of thing happens all the time. I gave an additional post to call that to his attention in case it was an honest error. I'll wait and see if he lets that show or if he deletes it.

Identify the quote

"[I]f God's moral judgement differs from ours so that our 'black' may be His 'white', we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say 'God is good', while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say 'God is we know not what'. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) 'good' we shall obey, if at all, only through fear -- and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend."

Ten points for identifying the writer, 50 for a full citation.

At any rate, this parallels the reason why I left christianity. I came to the conclusion that the god of the bible is not good. Now, that is not the conclusion reached by the writer quoted above. That writer thought that god could be demonstrated to be good.

First entry

I have just recently started this blog, mostly to have an ID to use to respond on other blogs, but I will drop by from time to time to post some of the thoughts that go through my mind.