Some Flaws in Creationist Epistimology
Creationists reason as if there were a binary choice:: Currently Accepted Scientific Theory vs. Biblical Literalism. This dichotomy is irrational, and it's at the heart of why nobody who understands science takes Young Earth Creationists very seriously in intellectual terms
( Read more... )
There is also no evidence that there is any god or gods who are sapient and capable of creating anything
Oh, rubbish. Complete utter hogswallow. This is exactly what I meant in my post about category errors and unacknowledged presuppositions. There is ALL SORTS of evidence of the supernatural. There is no evidence of the supernatural that is provable by natural physical science. Natural things that are claimed to be the results of supernatural causes can be evaluated by science, but about the supernatural causes themselves, natural science must be silent. The category mistake is this: why should (and indeed, how can) the supernatural be evaluated by a scientific method designed to evaluate natural things? Your unstated presupposition is: "Only natural things, which can be evaluated by natural science, exist." It's fine if you want to believe that, but (a) you should admit it openly, and (b) this belief, in itself, cannot be proven by natural science alone.
The reason why, faced with a gap in our knowledge, we choose to imagine Zeus or Yahweh filling it [...]
I specifically said earlier: That's a long way from saying what exactly that supernatural cause is. How is your exercise in pop psychoanalysis pertinent to what I said?
Not necessarily -- though I incline to that -- it may be that what we think of as a "universe" may occur as a quantum fluctuation in a larger and longer-lasting Universe of, mostly, Nothingness.
This assumes that "outside our Universe" is identical to "not natural."
No. This is what I meant in my post about failure to understand metaphysics. I am talking about things that do not originate within or conform to the laws of matter, energy, space and time with which we are familiar. I am asking about the efficient causes, and ultimately the first efficient cause, of the universe -- whatever "level" that includes, be there one "Universe" or a "Multiverse." But you answer me with nothing but material causes.
If there are multiple Universes -- a theory for which we are starting to see astrophysical evidence
What evidence? Not that this strictly applies to my point, but I am unaware of any.
I attribute it to most of them being aware that the argument you presented is based on unproven, and in some cases disproven, assumptions of the Medieval Scholastics.
Please point me to this disproof of Scholastic philosophy and even one example of a physical scientist citing it.
Reply
Leave a comment