Replies

“Well... you have now rather dramatically changed the subject, haven’t you? I was speaking of science, and you suddenly are switching to history.”

No, you switched to history when you decided to dismiss the events of Christ’s life as being anecdotal. There is nothing being measured there, it is a judgement that involves the rules of evidence. You quite obviously haven’t studied epistemology and you like to to scurry to the cover of “science” even when it’s not appropriate to the subject in question. Again it’s what Hayak criticizes as “scientism”, the inappropriate attempt to apply the tools of hard science to social phenomena, and history is social phenomena.

“And of course Jaki reached that intended conclusion precisely because he inserted that desired outcome into his assumptions”

Of course Jaki did nothing of the sort and I’m quite certain your sole familiarity with his work was to read his wikipedia page last night. Goedel’s Theorem demonstrates the necessity of mathematical systems to draw upon information outside of the system itself. The same mathematical systems are used in theoretical physics to describe the universe. Jaki pointed out that this necessitates that the universe draws upon information outside of itself, a fact that parallels Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover and theistic conceptions of God outside of creation.

“The methodology of science is applicable to everything. Some applications are just harder than others.”

Illustrating again that knowing nothing of epistemology you try to get by with scientism rather than science. The methodology of science is applicable to empiricism where we can observe and measure. It’s non-applicable and second order to disciplines like mathematics and logic.

"No, you switched to history when you decided to dismiss the events of Christ’s life as being anecdotal."

Nonsense. The thread stands for everyone to read and you are the one who, confronted with the argument from science that I was making, chose to change the subject rather than make a serious effort of addressing what I said. Now... I went along and patronized your ploy, so I see no reason you should suddenly play Captain Renault from Casablanca.

"There is nothing being measured there, it is a judgement that involves the rules of evidence."

In terms of the singular events of Christ's life reported by tradition, you are absolutely correct. There is nothing being measured here. That is why, as I pointed out previously, they cannot be considered scientifically. They are mere anecdote. But it is disingenuous of you to pretend that the necessary dismissal of those ancient tales shows that science has made some dogmatic decision to reject such evidence out of hand were it to ever be presented. Your continued effort to mischaracterize science in that respect does you no credit.

Because, I assure you... if you were to come into my laboratory today and under controlled circumstances turn water in to wine I would happily measure it and then commence the effort to try and explain it. Because that's what science does. We leave to mullahs and apostles the more traditional choice to just throw up their hands and blame it on "God."

"You quite obviously haven’t studied epistemology and you like to to scurry to the cover of “science” even when it’s not appropriate to the subject in question. Again it’s what Hayak criticizes as “scientism”, the inappropriate attempt to apply the tools of hard science to social phenomena, and history is social phenomena."

You know, I can be as pedantic as the next guy. But I also can tell when someone is trying to substitute supercilious dismissal for actual argument. This is little more than another attempt by you to shift the subject from what was actually being discussed to some straw man of your manufacture that you find more congenial to your purpose. I see no need to cooperate with what we both understand to be little more than a rhetorical device.

Have I studied epistemology? Actually yes. What was the conclusion of my study? That like most philosophy its primary purpose is to make the proponent sound intelligent and overwhelm with authority that which can not be defeated by reason. I am happy let you accuse me of not studying any and all the "-ologies." And when you are done, I'll still be here ready to actually talk about the substance of our disagreement.

"Of course Jaki did nothing of the sort and I’m quite certain your sole familiarity with his work was to read his wikipedia page last night. Goedel’s Theorem demonstrates the necessity of mathematical systems to draw upon information outside of the system itself. The same mathematical systems are used in theoretical physics to describe the universe. Jaki pointed out that this necessitates that the universe draws upon information outside of itself, a fact that parallels Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover and theistic conceptions of God outside of creation."

Unlike Jaki (amongst his many sins, this was not one of them) you are confusing the "mathematical systems [that] are used in theoretical physics to describe the universe" with the universe itself. They are no more the same than a ledger entry of my weight, height, eye and hair color is me. Godel speaks only to the limitation of the systems with which we describe... not the reality we are describing.

But worse, (and this actually was one of Jakis errors) the decision to apply such a measuring system to the universe and not also God is an arbitrary one. That arbitrary choice is not derived from any actual reasoning that preceded it. It is (as in the many flawed arguments depending ultimately on an "uncaused cause") the abandonment of the reasoning that had led to that point and the random insertion of "God."

Jaki does not makes (and cannot make) any real argument why the universe should require something outside of itself while God should not. If Godel's incompleteness theorem required a "God" outside of the universe to "complete" it, does it not also require an über-God outside of God to complete Him? If not, why not?

No... everything Jaki "concluded" depended upon having already assumed the existence of entity that violated the very basis of his "reasoning." Such a conclusion is no less arbitrary when wrapped in a matrix of philosophical prose than if he has simply stood up and said, "Logic? We don't need no stinking logic!!" His argument is simply a more eloquent version of Andy's daughter asserting that God puts the milk in the store.