Arguments for God

[hackenslash]

Believe me, I am playing nice. Ask Tank what happens when the gloves come off.

Edit: It has been requested of me that I tone it down a bit, so that people can see how this progresses, and I have agreed. I would like it made absolutely clear that I have in no way attacked the poster, I have only attacked his ideas. That some have difficulty separating their ideas from themselves is an issue, but it isn't really mine. Bad ideas exist only to be destroyed.

[humblesmurph]

Believe me, I am playing nice. Ask Tank what happens when the gloves come off.

 If you and I ever disagree about something, feel free to call my ideas drivel and fuck wittery.  The shit is funny as hell actually.  I personally appreciate your colorful language. However, you can make the same arguments without it.

It appears that Jac3510 ain't getting in the ring unless you don some gloves with a little more padding.

[i_am_i]

I don't get the slightest impression that what you came here for is "interesting, respectful, and engaging discussion so that everyone comes away better off than they were before." You want to play by your rules and yours alone, and I do not intend to   accept homework assigments from you or anyone else, I'm not here for that.

Your high-minded approach is very off-putting. It makes you seem pretentious. If you could drop all the highfalutin rhetoric and just say what's on your mind...but you can't, or won't. You've already said that you don't do plain English. That being the case - cash me out. This game is fixed.

If not treating you like a child is fixing the game, then I'm guilty as charged. You are asking me to have a technical discussion without appealing to technical concepts, which is impossible. I've offered to state things plainly, at which time you can question that is unclear. It's up to you if you want to engage in discussion.

As far as your opinion of me, I'm terribly sorry to hear it, but the rules I want to play by aren't mine. They are the rules of civil discourse. Nothing more and nothing less.

I'll tell you what, Chris. How about you and I start all over again. Let's wipe the slate clean and start over, what do you say?

I'll list your Argument from Subsistent Existence, and then I'll ask two questions and then you answer them. Surely that's okay, right? Surely that's allowed.

So here we go:

An Argument from Subsistent Existence

1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
6.   There cannot be an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
7.   Therefore, for any series of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings, there must be a first causal being.
8.   A first causal being cannot receive its being from outside itself.
9.   Therefore, there must be a being which does not receive its being through efficient causality, but for which being is its essence. Being which exists in itself is called subsistent existence.
10.   A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
11.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
12.   All non-subsistent being is part of an essentially ordered efficiently causal chain of being.
13.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all things.
14.   All perfections must have an efficient cause.
15.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.
16.   The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.
17.   Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.
18.   A perfection is obtained in being.
19.   Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
20.   A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, God.
21. Therefore, God exists.

What is "God," and why do you spell it with a capital G?

[Sophus]

The mistake you are making is to confuse deductive conclusions with correspondence. You can give me a set of data and I can create any number of possible stories to explain how the data came to be the way it is. The story may be internally coherent, and it may be coherent with the evidence, but the question remains, why should we believe this story to be true? Different disciplines answer that question in different ways. Science answers by saying, "This story, if true, makes these predictions. If this is true, the it should mean that is true about that issue. Is it?" That's the principle of prediction leading to falsification. Many disciplines, however, can't use that same principle. History is one example. You can develop a story to explain the historical data, but you can't make predictions based on that story, because you are studying a one-time event. This is the difference between forensic and operational science.

Yes and no. Operational science* plays a role in forensic science. Often claims about what has happened in the past can be tested for truth value. Naturally, Wagner's theory dealt with a very long history which is still in the process of being made; thus can be observed.  Same with evolution. In quantum physics too you will see scientists testing, experimenting and making predictions so as to make conclusions about what has happened in our universe's past. That is to say the means by which they occurred are still occurring, not one time events. And I believe you stated the Prime Mover is something that is existing.

*- A suspiciously Creationist like term.

[deekayfry]

Why does it take a list of 21 points to prove a God?

Because if they were condensed into three, you would complain that I was making too many assumptions. Observe:

1. That which contains all perfections is God.
2. The First Cause contains all perfections.
3. Therefore, God exists.

You will ask me to justify both of these statements. That's why it takes 21, because that breaks it down into the necessary points in which the underlying issues can be properly discussed.

I am not asking you to justify nothing.

My questions were rhetorical.

BTW, pardon the pun  

[deekayfry]

An Argument from Subsistent Existence

1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
6.   There cannot be an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
7.   Therefore, for any series of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings, there must be a first causal being.
8.   A first causal being cannot receive its being from outside itself.
9.   Therefore, there must be a being which does not receive its being through efficient causality, but for which being is its essence. Being which exists in itself is called subsistent existence.
10.   A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
11.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
12.   All non-subsistent being is part of an essentially ordered efficiently causal chain of being.
13.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all things.
14.   All perfections must have an efficient cause.
15.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.
16.   The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.
17.   Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.
18.   A perfection is obtained in being.
19.   Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
20.   A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, God.
21. Therefore, God exists.

What is "God," and why do you spell it with a capital G?

UHHHHHHHHH  

This all reads like a fricken' advanced calculus problem!

If A is in B and B is in C
 and we take D' to be the greatest upper bound
 such that the subset of all real numbers lie on the imaginary Fourier Plane in Langrangian space,
 C shall only exist when the Ordinal Numbers are less than equal to the root of 66

(I dropped out of that course within a few days, btw)

UHHHHHHHHHHHH

Plain English, Spanish, Italian, Japanese whatever...

Why can't anyone tell me about God like a pen?  Rather why can't anyone take God to me?

If you sit a pen on the desk in front of me, I can observe that said pen is of a certain length and width and circumference and has weight.  It has a certain color or several colors.
If I bite on the pen I get the taste of plastic and ink.
If I take it and melt it down and put in an x-ray florescent I can determine its compounds.

Any reasonable man or woman will be able to fundamentally understand the basic premise and properties of a pen in terms of color, weight, and dimensions.  Taste certainly, compounds?   Not so much.

Yet it when it comes to proving divinity, in my mind it doesn't matter what religion it is at this point, when it comes to proving it we get

Accidental property
Causal being
Essence
Subsistence existence?

Ergo, I am serious when I asked if someone can call God up and have her come over and drink a cup of coffee.  It isn't about convincing me to believe or not to believe.  Habeus Corpus is what I am asking for, not an intellectual alphabet soup.

[Recusant]

I don't blame you for your position regarding hackenslash's posts, Jac3510.  Mixing invective with philosophy is entertaining for the writer, and sometimes for readers, but for the one whose arguments are the subject of such an approach, it's a bit frustrating.  Trying to wade through the vituperation to apprehend the actual content is no doubt an unsatisfying experience.

I usually enjoy well written screeds, and in fact enjoyed the anti-apologetics portions of your posts, hackenslash.  I did notice before it came up in this thread that you'd done a very skillful job of avoiding any insults aimed directly at Jac3510. Though others who have argued in a similar fashion, and indeed their (and his) arguments themselves weren't spared. The extensive use of "fuckwit" is somewhat tedious, however. I'd enjoy seeing you clothe your scorn in more varied raiment.  Many epithets come to mind; "dullard," "boob," "dolt," "dope," "puddin'head," "grifter," "mountebank," "clown," "charlatan," "quack," "fraud," "con artist," "noxious gas bag," and so on...  

I do think that the telling punctures which your arguments seem to inflict should have the desired effect of producing dismay in your opponent, with only a sprinkling of tasty polemics when you absolutely can't resist. This and the above are not even suggestions, merely observations.

I've been enjoying this thread a lot, but as a philosopher, I'm not a bad carpenter, so I don't have any laser bright insights to offer.

A couple of  points I'd like to make, though. One is that philosophically, perhaps, there is no way one might profitably think about "nothing," but to extend that to the field of physics, especially quantum mechanics, is a dubious proposition.  Physicists are only beginning to understand what exactly "nothing" actually means. It seems right now that it's entirely possible for something to come from nothing. (As it's currently understood by physicists.) If the fabric of space-time is constantly in a flux of virtual particles popping in and out of existence, then there needs to be compelling reason to assume that "previous" to the existence of our universe a similar sort of thing could not occur.  I have not heard one yet.  Hawking said something along the lines of, "Talking about 'before the universe existed' is like talking about 'what's south of the South Pole.'" If that analogy were only carried a step further, one thinks of interplanetary space and other planets...
From the perspective of the current state of knowledge, we cannot know with any certainty what the situation was at the very moment our universe came into existence.  At that point, reality as we understand it did not even exist. So right now, and for the foreseeable future, in my opinion there is simply no definitive statement that can be made, other than "The evidence seems to strongly suggest that our universe had a beginning." (Including, "Something cannot come from nothing.")  On the other hand, perhaps it's true that there is no such thing as nothing.  Maybe something has always existed ("interplanetary space," in the above extended analogy), and our universe is only a manifestation of whatever that something is. Call it the Prime Mover, or the Multi-verse, or any number of other names. When we get to that point, it's a matter of conjecture versus faith. Jac3510, you can dismiss the subject if it seems to help your argument, but I, for one, simply write off your write-off, so to speak.  

Second, if there was an irrefutable philosophical proof of a "Prime Mover" or any other variety of deity, then pretty much all  honest philosophers would be theists.  That is not the case.  I want to be very clear, though.  I think that you are an honest philosopher, Jac3510, but there are others with at least your level of expertise in the field who don't find your arguments persuasive.

[Tank]

rants

Hey, congratz. You are one of the few people on this planet who has earned a permignore.

I'm perfectly content to have civil conversation. I won't waste my time with that kind of ranting. If anyone wants to wade through all the name calling and rhetoric and find something that resembles a rational point and raise it, I'll be glad to address them. Not you. Consider this the last word of communication between us.

edit: foe'd

Very unimpressed and disappointed by this Chris, please engage with hack again. Just because hack has a rather abrasive delivery does not allow you to dismiss his points out of hand. He is new here and is getting used to the way things are done around here. Address hack's points please and concentrate on the discussion not the personalities.

Hack, you need to think whether your message or your style is more important to you and this forum, I for one think your message is way, way more important than your normal style which does not suit this particular forum very well. It took me a while to get used to it, but it is worth it.

This is a discussion the like of which I have not witnessed on the internet before and I want to see it carry on with all participants adding their particular views.

I know we have two adults here with diametrically opposed views and I'm sure that each of you is capable of behaving in an adult manner. I know it's difficult to ignore the sparks of a flame war sometimes but please, please do try to get back to discussing the issue and not sniping at each other as there is simply no need.

Regards to both
Chris

[Tank]

Believe me, I am playing nice. Ask Tank what happens when the gloves come off.

Edit: It has been requested of me that I tone it down a bit, so that people can see how this progresses, and I have agreed. I would like it made absolutely clear that I have in no way attacked the poster, I have only attacked his ideas. That some have difficulty separating their ideas from themselves is an issue, but it isn't really mine. Bad ideas exist only to be destroyed.

I can confirm that hack's rhetoric can be exquisite to read as he demolishes the ignorant, foolish and unintelligent 'flock follower' theist who is really utterly clueless about the arguments they are spouting.

However I am very, very much looking forward to Chris and Hack have at it in a gentlemanly manner with no or if at all possible.

[chrisbellekom]

Hello all and hello Jac3510

It seems that the discussion is moving towards form rather than content.

I'd like to get into the originally posted content.

In my opinion there may be a slight flaw in your reasoning.

It apears to be a line from point a to point b, but it isn't, it's circular

Look:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2. through 17.
18. A perfection is obtained in being.
19. Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
20. A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, [strike:hcls331f]God.[/strike:hcls331f] still a being
21. Therefore, [strike:hcls331f]God exists.[/strike:hcls331f] beings exist.

and that brings you back to:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).

What you did manage to do is prove in a sufficient matter that with the existance of one god there must be a varitable multitude of them.

Regards,

Chris B.

[Jac3510]

I'll tell you what, Chris. How about you and I start all over again. Let's wipe the slate clean and start over, what do you say?

I'll list your Argument from Subsistent Existence, and then I'll ask two questions and then you answer them. Surely that's okay, right? Surely that's allowed.

That's all that's expected.

What is "God," and why do you spell it with a capital G?

A "being" (in the popular sense of the word - in the technical sense, see the simplicity thread) in which dwells all perfections. In other words, that which is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes and no. Operational science* plays a role in forensic science. Often claims about what has happened in the past can be tested for truth value. Naturally, Wagner's theory dealt with a very long history which is still in the process of being made; thus can be observed.  Same with evolution. In quantum physics too you will see scientists testing, experimenting and making predictions so as to make conclusions about what has happened in our universe's past. That is to say the means by which they occurred are still occurring, not one time events. And I believe you stated the Prime Mover is something that is existing.

*- A suspiciously Creationist like term.

Meh, the term is one I picked up from Geisler. I couldn't care less what you call it. The distinction is valid. You can't do a test in the lab to find out if America invaded Iraq. You can put together all the data, and it conclusively points in that direction, but there is no repeatable formula (nothing operable) that can be done in a lab setting to demonstrate it.

Now, certainly, operational science plays a role in getting our historical data together. I just finished watching season four of Dexter. He does a great deal of this kind of work. He tests things in a lab. DNA swabbing is certainly operational. But the statement, "Your DNA was found on the victim, and therefore, you are guilty" is not operational. It is forensic. That doesn't make it invalid. It means that the way you know someone is guilty is different from the way you know that E=MC^2. The latter can be confirmed at any given moment in a lab. The former is a historical matter that is confirmed by necessary logical deduction, in this case:

1. The DNA found on the victim belongs to the killer;
2. John's DNA is found on the victim;
3. Therefore, John is the killer.

(1) and (2) have to be proven, but if they are, (3) is the necessary conclusion. My argument works precisely the same way. To ask me for evidence would be like asking a prosecutor for evidence of the above.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why can't anyone tell me about God like a pen?  Rather why can't anyone take God to me?

Because a pen is a sensible being, meaning it can be observed by the senses. God is not. Rather than being technical and telling that's a category mistake, let me give you an example.

Suppose you give me a tour of Harvard. Yous show me all the buildings, tell me its history, introduce me to the faculty and staff, we meet various students, and we and even have a lunch with the president. Now, at the end of this, suppose I looked at you and said, "That is all very nice. Can you show me the college now?" That would be absurd. That is what you have been doing the whole time. It's an inappropriate question to ask because the college is not a singular thing; it is a collective thing made up of all the things you showed me, but I asked you a question that assumed the college was like a pen--something that could be singularly observed.

God is not a sensible thing. You don't sit in front of Him or beside Him. You don't measure Him. You can't go "to" Him or "away from" Him, because He stands in no relations to anything. You have to get at Him another way, which is the way I've been offering.[/quote]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of  points I'd like to make, though. One is that philosophically, perhaps, there is no way one might profitably think about "nothing," but to extend that to the field of physics, especially quantum mechanics, is a dubious proposition.  Physicists are only beginning to understand what exactly "nothing" actually means. It seems right now that it's entirely possible for something to come from nothing. (As it's currently understood by physicists.) If the fabric of space-time is constantly in a flux of virtual particles popping in and out of existence, then there needs to be compelling reason to assume that "previous" to the existence of our universe a similar sort of thing could not occur.  I have not heard one yet.  Hawking said something along the lines of, "Talking about 'before the universe existed' is like talking about 'what's south of the South Pole.'" If that analogy were only carried a step further, one thinks of interplanetary space and other planets...
From the perspective of the current state of knowledge, we cannot know with any certainty what the situation was at the very moment our universe came into existence.  At that point, reality as we understand it did not even exist. So right now, and for the foreseeable future, in my opinion there is simply no definitive statement that can be made, other than "The evidence seems to strongly suggest that our universe had a beginning." (Including, "Something cannot come from nothing.")  On the other hand, perhaps it's true that there is no such thing as nothing.  Maybe something has always existed ("interplanetary space," in the above extended analogy), and our universe is only a manifestation of whatever that something is. Call it the Prime Mover, or the Multi-verse, or any number of other names. When we get to that point, it's a matter of conjecture versus faith. Jac3510, you can dismiss the subject if it seems to help your argument, but I, for one, simply write off your write-off, so to speak.  

Second, if there was an irrefutable philosophical proof of a "Prime Mover" or any other variety of deity, then pretty much all  honest philosophers would be theists.  That is not the case.  I want to be very clear, though.  I think that you are an honest philosopher, Jac3510, but there are others with at least your level of expertise in the field who don't find your arguments persuasive.

I agree with most of what you said in the first part, Rec. For what it is worth, most of your observations, while correct, would apply more of a discussion to the Kalaam CA, which takes its main evidence for God the coming into existence of the universe and then demanding an explanation for that, which obviously, by definition, cannot be within the universe. Aquinas rejected it, as he should have given the state of knowledge in his day. It has gained some strength today with the standard BB model, but it's hardly definitive, as anything in science can change tomorrow. All scientific conclusions are always tentative for that very reason. We'll explore that one in more detail later, though. My argument, in this thread, is not scientific. It is philosophical, in that I'm not requiring us to go back in time for the FC. The universe could be eternal for all I care. That doesn't change my argument one iota.

As for your second point, I both agree and disagree. The problem with philosophers is not that they don't find the argument convincing. Most would agree that it is in every way. The problem, as penfold is getting at in the simplicity thread, is that this proof starts from a particular position that most philosophers reject. Specifically, this proof starts with ontology, which, to use pen's words, other philosophers find "shockingly naive." The reasons are more historical than philosophical and trace back through Descarte and the world in which he found himself. In many ways, the history of philosophy is like a bad horror movie, or better, a collection of bad horror movies. The same plot keeps being replayed over and over, including the same silly mistakes that, you would think, no rational person would make. And yet in each movie, the same thing happens each time. So whether Abailard, Descarte, Kant, or a host of any others, the problems remain. People confuse some discipline such as math for philosophy. Today, the current breakdown is thanks to the fact that we have confused physics and linguistics for philosophy, and that thanks to Kant and Wittgenstein. All that is to say an analytical philosopher would reject my argument not on logical grounds, but on the entire notion that it can't get off the ground because (1) speaks about something we can't speak about, namely, reality; and secondarily, because it relies on the  notion of causality in reality which, thanks to Hume, they believe we cannot posit.

So the problem, for them, is with the starting point, not the argument itself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very unimpressed and disappointed by this Chris, please engage with hack again. Just because hack has a rather abrasive delivery does not allow you to dismiss his points out of hand. He is new here and is getting used to the way things are done around here. Address hack's points please and concentrate on the discussion not the personalities.

Not nearly as disappointed and unimpressed as I was by his remarks, Chris. You can fault me if you like, but I don't tolerate that kind of discussion from anyone on either side. It's his choice how he wishes to conduct himself. It is my choice what kind of conduct I will entertain. I wouldn't put up with someone talking about my wife that way. I wouldn't put up with someone talking about my friends that way. I don't put up with Christians talking about atheists that way. It is disrespectful of the highest order, and, in my mind, where there is no respect, there is no discussion. Preaching, perhaps. Entertainment, always. The rational exchange of ideas? Never.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion there may be a slight flaw in your reasoning.

It apears to be a line from point a to point b, but it isn't, it's circular

Look:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2. through 17.
18. A perfection is obtained in being.
19. Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
20. A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, [strike:1r85lo3b]God.[/strike:1r85lo3b] still a being
21. Therefore, [strike:1r85lo3b]God exists.[/strike:1r85lo3b] beings exist.

and that brings you back to:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).

What you did manage to do is prove in a sufficient matter that with the existance of one god there must be a varitable multitude of them.

Hey, Chris.

I would encourage you to read through the simplicity thread. I've been asked more than once to avoid technical language, but this is the very reason. This argument employs quite a bit of technical language, but I spent a great deal of time simplifying it before posting. One of the "common" words I used was "being," and because of that usage, there is an apparent problem.

In the strictest of sense, God is not a being. If you look at the argument very carefully, you will notice that at the end of (9), the definition of "subsistent existence is" being which exists in itself." It is not proper to call subsistent existence a being, and strictly speaking, we can't even call it being. It is, rather, the cause of being. I can recast the argument to more technically reflect this distinction, but it will be even more difficult to follow that it is now.

Now, this is evident in the very part you quoted. Notice in 18 that we are not talking about "a" being, but being--that is, the act of being. This is where the technical distinction begins. The perfection of being is different from the substance of being, except in the FC, in which the perfection is the property (although, still more technically, the FC is not a property at all--we can explain if necessary; we should say, the perfection is the essence). Thus, it is evident that "being" in the sensible world, be it the act or the property, is, at best, only analogically related to being in the FC, for the simple reason that, in us, being is diversified, whereas in it, being is united. In other words, we have no comprehension of being in this matter. We only know of it through necessary deduction.

Now, if (18) does not speak of "a" being, then the subsistent existence in (19) is not "a" being, either, which comports with the end of (9). (20) uses the words "a being" in the common sense. It could be better read, "We call that in which all perfections obtain God."

I don't know how much clearer this is, but it certainly addresses the issue of circularity. As for your argument that there must be no god or many gods, Leibniz' law of identity disallows it. A thing must differ by something to be different, yet since being makes all that is real (without being, something is not real), then the cause of being is the cause of all. Thus, the cause of being cannot be "incomplete" in any way, because that would imply that there was some thing it lacked, which would be impossible, since it is the cause of all things. Thus, if there were two FCs, they would be identical in absolutely every way, including their existence, meaning there would, in fact, only be one.

[Sophus]

Yes and no. Operational science* plays a role in forensic science. Often claims about what has happened in the past can be tested for truth value. Naturally, Wagner's theory dealt with a very long history which is still in the process of being made; thus can be observed.  Same with evolution. In quantum physics too you will see scientists testing, experimenting and making predictions so as to make conclusions about what has happened in our universe's past. That is to say the means by which they occurred are still occurring, not one time events. And I believe you stated the Prime Mover is something that is existing.

*- A suspiciously Creationist like term.

Meh, the term is one I picked up from Geisler. I couldn't care less what you call it. The distinction is valid. You can't do a test in the lab to find out if America invaded Iraq. You can put together all the data, and it conclusively points in that direction, but there is no repeatable formula (nothing operable) that can be done in a lab setting to demonstrate it.

Now, certainly, operational science plays a role in getting our historical data together. I just finished watching season four of Dexter. He does a great deal of this kind of work. He tests things in a lab. DNA swabbing is certainly operational. But the statement, "Your DNA was found on the victim, and therefore, you are guilty" is not operational. It is forensic. That doesn't make it invalid. It means that the way you know someone is guilty is different from the way you know that E=MC^2. The latter can be confirmed at any given moment in a lab. The former is a historical matter that is confirmed by necessary logical deduction, in this case:
1. The DNA found on the victim belongs to the killer;
2. John's DNA is found on the victim;
3. Therefore, John is the killer.

(1) and (2) have to be proven, but if they are, (3) is the necessary conclusion. My argument works precisely the same way. To ask me for evidence would be like asking a prosecutor for evidence of the above.

This is a bit of an oversimplified example but I know what you mean. I think we're on the same page that there are ways for science to gaze into the past and explain historical and pre-historical events though. The Ice Age as one example. That being said, where is our disagreement?  

[Tank]

Very unimpressed and disappointed by this Chris, please engage with hack again. Just because hack has a rather abrasive delivery does not allow you to dismiss his points out of hand. He is new here and is getting used to the way things are done around here. Address hack's points please and concentrate on the discussion not the personalities.

Not nearly as disappointed and unimpressed as I was by his remarks, Chris. You can fault me if you like, but I don't tolerate that kind of discussion from anyone on either side. It's his choice how he wishes to conduct himself. It is my choice what kind of conduct I will entertain. I wouldn't put up with someone talking about my wife that way. I wouldn't put up with someone talking about my friends that way. I don't put up with Christians talking about atheists that way. It is disrespectful of the highest order, and, in my mind, where there is no respect, there is no discussion. Preaching, perhaps. Entertainment, always. The rational exchange of ideas? Never.

You read my posts you will have noticed I also took Hack to task for his behaviour. Now are you going to engage with a 'new improved polite Hack' and get on with the discussion or not? That's the point isn't it? Are you going to un-foe Hack and engage in a meaningful discussion if he will?

Edit: Took out 'If' as it sounded like I was having a dig at Chris ignoring something which I doubt he did.

[Jac3510]

You read my posts you will have noticed I also took Hack to task for his behaviour. Now are you going to engage with a 'new improved polite Hack' and get on with the discussion or not? That's the point isn't it? Are you going to un-foe Hack and engage in a meaningful discussion if he will?

I've already stated that I am willing to have a meaningful conversation with anyone. It must be noted, though, that just because you or anyone on this board tells him to "play nice" doesn't mean he will. That is a decision he has to come to himself.

So, put it this way: until he tells me that he wants to "play nice," there won't be any discussion between the two of us. It is, again, a simple matter of respect. It isn't personal. I will un-foe him and allow him to make that statement publicly, if he likes, as he has not taken the opportunity to do so privately. It's completely his choice. If he wants to engage my positions in a mutually respectful manner, I am game. If not, the foe button still works.

edit: took out the "master" comment as, in this context, it could be taken negatively.

[Tank]

Hack and Jac3510

I doubt that either of you will change the mind of the other on this issue. However it is highly interesting, entertaining and informative to watch this joust even though it will end in a 'victory' for both of you, as neither is going to admit defeat. The best that we can hope for is that you agree to differ and at the end of the day there is nothing, absolutly noting, wrong with that. It's the adult thing to do.

I want to watch this contest of world views and I want to be able to make my own mind up about what I read.

Please re-engage and continue and let the memes do the fighting, not the egos.

Regards
Chris