Home » Forums » Religion and Irrationalities » Kill 'em with Kindness

where / how do you draw the line between empirical observation and ad hoc explanations based on God's attribute of 'personality'

Posted on: September 1, 2007 - 10:12am
Crockoduck_Dembski
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-09-01
User is offlineOffline
where / how do you draw the line between empirical observation and ad hoc explanations based on God's attribute of 'personality'

The attribute of personality allows things to take place (through human agency) that would otherwise require a complicated causal chain (how did this cave come about? Was it ultimately formed because of natural causes, or did someone decide to dig it out, install fake stalagmites, etc.)

But once we observe a causal chain, we can exclude an explanation by the direct action of a personal agency. My question - what grounds do theists have to short circuit observed natural mechanisms by appealing to God's attribute of personality? For example: light reaches us from stars that would have taken billions of years to reach us (not thousands as YECs would have it). Al Mohler explained this by saying the universe could have been created (like Adam) with the appearance of age (IOW, God being personal could have just decided to do it that way).

Or that God could have created initial proportions of C-14 in rocks that gives the appearance of billions of years of age.

What are the limits (are there any boundaries or limits) to applying this sort of ad hoc explanation to an observed phenomena?

‹ Motivations to believe in, and worship God. Musings of an insomniac ›

Posted on: September 1, 2007 - 12:36pm #1
LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
In accordance with

In accordance with Crabtree's Bludgeon, there are no limitations on just how ad hoc you can go with an argument.


Posted on: September 1, 2007 - 8:11pm #2
Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome,

Welcome, Crockoduck_Dembski.

When you get a chance, we'd love it if you'd hop over to the General Conversation, Introductions and Humor forum and introduce yourself. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Posted on: September 2, 2007 - 1:20am #3
Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: My question - what

Quote:

My question - what grounds do theists have to short circuit observed natural mechanisms by appealing to God's attribute of personality?

 

 

None. Nothing indicates that you even have to.


Posted on: September 2, 2007 - 2:51am #4
Crockoduck_Dembski
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-09-01
User is offlineOffline
But cpt_pineapple, if the

But cpt_pineapple, if the 'days' in genesis are literal, then the phenomenon of light seemingly billions of years old reaching us does require an appeal to 'God just did it that way, as he can since he's omnipotent'. I've heard it argued that the Genesis days MUST be literal since the association of a number with the word 'day' means it's literal.


Posted on: September 2, 2007 - 2:58am #5
Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Crockoduck_Dembski

Crockoduck_Dembski wrote:
But cpt_pineapple, if the 'days' in genesis are literal, then the phenomenon of light seemingly billions of years old reaching us does require an appeal to 'God just did it that way, as he can since he's omnipotent'. I've heard it argued that the Genesis days MUST be literal since the association of a number with the word 'day' means it's literal.

 

You should have labeled the question 'creationists' insted of 'Theists'. Creationists must make this argument, but not all Theists do. 


Posted on: September 2, 2007 - 3:10am #6
Crockoduck_Dembski
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-09-01
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06,  You can

LosingStreak06,

 You can go that far, but what would be your justification? If it is axiomatic that distance = rate x time and that light reaching us is therefore billions of years old, why would you say, "I can synchronize this by introducing the following distinctions...". ?


Posted on: September 2, 2007 - 3:24am #7
Crockoduck_Dembski
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-09-01
User is offlineOffline
"You should have labeled

"You should have labeled the question 'creationists' insted of 'Theists'. Creationists must make this argument, but not all Theists do. "

sorry, I'm new here - I was sloppy with my terms.


Posted on: September 2, 2007 - 12:00pm #8
LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Crockoduck_Dembski

Crockoduck_Dembski wrote:

LosingStreak06,

You can go that far, but what would be your justification? If it is axiomatic that distance = rate x time and that light reaching us is therefore billions of years old, why would you say, "I can synchronize this by introducing the following distinctions...". ?

Were I a creationist making that argument, my justification would be that the Bible is correct, thuse requiring a rethinking of reality. That's the whole point of ad hoc. Its justification is irrelevant.


Posted on: September 2, 2007 - 12:03pm #9
todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Crockoduck_Dembski wrote:

LosingStreak06,

You can go that far, but what would be your justification? If it is axiomatic that distance = rate x time and that light reaching us is therefore billions of years old, why would you say, "I can synchronize this by introducing the following distinctions...". ?

Were I a creationist making that argument, my justification would be that the Bible is correct, thuse requiring a rethinking of reality. That's the whole point of ad hoc. Its justification is irrelevant.

 

Well said. Rational thought requires abandoning a conclusion and clinging to reality. Ad hoc thinking requires abandonging reality and clinging to the conclusion. 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'