tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13119076.post115778225213078909..comments2022-11-25T22:02:45.189-06:00Comments on Little Endian: Found: Two GoalpostsAlan Lundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05175526514562663282noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13119076.post-1158068984265967892006-09-12T07:49:00.000-06:002006-09-12T07:49:00.000-06:00Hi Alan,Yeah, I am asserting that God exists with ...Hi Alan,<BR/>Yeah, I am asserting that God exists with a comparable level of "fidelity" to the way physicists believe quarks exist. Fair enough?<BR/><BR/>Plus, the reason I haven't provide strong justification for my assertions before is that I wasn't clear i) which ones you had strong counter-assertions for, and thus ii) which would actually further the debate if I "proved" my case. Now I do, thanks.Dr. Erniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937284969266444762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13119076.post-1158036657403806542006-09-11T22:50:00.000-06:002006-09-11T22:50:00.000-06:00Regarding naturalism, yes, that is essentially wha...Regarding naturalism, yes, that is essentially what I mean. <BR/><BR/>In some ways, I think the terms "natural" and "supernatural" can be misleading. I have come to think of "natural" as that which operates according to known or suspected regularities; what is supernatural is that which is completely beyond explanation (in terms of mechanism). According to this view of nature and supernature, the boundary can shift as we learn, and the existence of the supernatural is no more than the existence of our ignorance. If we could detect a deity or deities and explain (at some level) how they interact with the universe as we presently understand it, they would become part of nature.<BR/><BR/>But when I wrote "a theory built on naturalism", I <B>did</B> mean to imply something along the lines of "no measurable theistic activity in the universe", <B>not</B> that I expect we will discover and describe (and theremore make natural) an agency that we would presently describe as a supernatural deity.<BR/><BR/>As far as your two assertions go and whether they are sufficient to "prove" your case, well, it depends on how you develop them. For instance, as I have stated before, I assert that beliefs can have transformative power even when false. Religious faith can therefore be shaped by the Biblical narrative without that narrative being true. Now if I am parsing your statement correctly, you are in fact asserting that God exists and that the Bible describes his role with a fairly high degree of fidelity.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I am certain that a successful defense of those two statements would be a significant achievement, sufficient to force me to re-evaluate my conclusions, though not necessarily to abandon them, depending on how things go. (I do not understand your explanation for avoiding justification in the past, however.)Alan Lundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05175526514562663282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13119076.post-1157993006101140752006-09-11T10:43:00.000-06:002006-09-11T10:43:00.000-06:00Hi Alan,Great to be back in DiaBlogue. Two quick ...Hi Alan,<BR/>Great to be back in DiaBlogue. Two quick questions:<BR/><BR/>a) We've stumbled before on the definition of "naturalism" -- do you simply mean there is no measurable theistic activity in the universe?<BR/><BR/>b) Would you concede that if I succesfully defend these assertions, I will have 'proved' my case? That's why I've avoided going from assertion to justification in the past.<BR/><BR/>Thanks -- no need to email, I'll check back in 24 hours. :-)Dr. Erniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937284969266444762noreply@blogger.com