Cito di Pense wrote:Well, they claim everything works because God makes it so. Things are the way they are because they are the way they are. I think some Buddhistentialist said that.

Yeah, just makes the whole thing futile, pleasantly futile imo, but futile nonetheless.

What matters to me is that things are more like they are now then they've ever been before.

Who's they?

Buddhistentialism:

pl0bs wrote:Your question was too vague and a grammatically nonsensical pulp.

Bollocks. My question was succinct and to the point, and your inability to follow a conversation is your problem, not mine. If you followed the topic correctly, my question was grammatically coherent, in the context of the intervening posts.

I said "many, if not most scientific ideas are false", and your response was "that i simply assert they exist", and that i "must give an example".

Good work at excluding the context of the intervening posts. Go back and read again, and your fuckwittery in this regard will be clearly exposed.

Anyway, back to the point:

Bollocks. The point is still before you. It's trivial to demonstrate that your assessment of the course of this discussion and, by corrollary, your assessment of the grammatical coherence of my posts, is either fuckwitted or dishonest, as the posts in question are still extant in this thread. Now, cite these examples of scientific ideas that are false, or shut the fuck up. Your continued evasion is not furthering your argument, and only goes to demonstrate that you have no interest in anything other than supporting your presuppositions. Before you accuse others of grammaticallly nonsensical pulp, read the fucking posts.

the point was that just because an idea is scientific, does not mean it is true.

And never did I suggest it was. Perhaps if you read the posts and provided the examples requested of you...

Im sure you have heard of the concept of falsifiability, and if so you must realise that it is absurd to believe that no falsifiable idea has ever been falsified.

And where did I suggest such a thing? Can't wait for you to provide that, along with the 'many, if not most scientific ideas' that are false.

Add to that the fact that many scientific ideas, especially closely related ones in the same field of research, are in conflict with eachother, and therefore simply cannot be all true.

Well, given that we don;t have a complete picture, it is not necessarily true that all conflicting ideas are false. I can cite GR and QM as examples of theories that are not false, but are in conflict with each other to some degree. This doesn't demonstrate falsity, but incompleteness. And you have still to support your assertion with anything other than evasion. Whenever you're ready...

Also consider all the theories of past centuries, you think they are all still true?

No, they are ever more refined pictures of reality. Not false, but incomplete. There are exceptions, of course, and there are scientific theories that have been demonstrated to be false. But I'm still waiting for 'many, if not most'. The clock is ticking.

And finally, the deathblow:

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmed

That's not remotely a deathblow. It's called refinement. Now, when you're ready to actually answer the question...

@ friend susu.exp

It is indeed hazardous to present an argument as I did without defining my terms. There are so many conceptions of god that it is only possible to talk about such a concept in defuse terms. The Abrahamic concept of god would something like a first cause god, and posessing some infinite powers, such as universe creation [and perhaps maintainance], omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

My thesis was that a universe that had god as a creator, and a universe that arose from totally natural processes would look different. In a god created universe, god has the ability to perform miracles. Thus, in this god-created universe, miracles would be natural. [As god himself would be].

However, the evidence shows that this is NOT the type of universe that we live in. Reports of [so-called] miracles are either false [mistaken perception] or have a natural cause that was previously believed to be a supernatural cause. This is why we are most skeptical about Thor's hammer. As I am not omniscient myself, I cannot prove that Thor's hammer does not exist, as that would be arrogant of me. All I can say is that atmospheric physics, and the equations of James Clerk Maxwell give me a more parsimonious explanation of electrical discharges in the atmosphere than a Nordic myth.

I freely admit that my scientific notions of evidence and parsimony are not perfect. But relativism has a more serious flaw. relativism refutes itself, because it says that it is not possible to say that one paradigm has superior properties to any other. If that is the case, then relativism itself is self-refuting.

To change tack a little:

Evolution vs creationism debates are somewhat of a straw-man conflict of extremes, I must admit. But in the extremity, is there clarity? Creationism is correct in that it sees "design" in nature. This is incorrect on at least two counts:
1. The "design" is the illusion of design.
2. The [apparently] false notion of the identity of the 'designer". The designer, evolutionists would maintain, are the mechanisms of evolution: natural selection, sexual selection and neutral selection.

Putting this another way, the creationist general notion of 'design" is not completely wrong, but it is non-parsimonious, because although it correctly identifies some structures as "designoid" it fails to account for the ad-hoc nature of the Recurrent Pharyngeal Nerve [RPN] and a million other traits that point to historical contingency and non-conscious natural selection filters that have no awareness of what they are doing.

A universe in where a god exists that had less design competence than a mere human engineer is acceptable with the above scenario, at the cost of admitting that god is not omniscient, that god is not omnipotent, and so on. It is not credible to believe that a god both has the 4 omni's [or even some of them] and yet creates the RPN!

This argument, of course, does not disprove that god did not create the universe, but it certainly makes the scientific assumption of methodological naturalism a very fruitful tool. For what can be done in biology, one can do in physics and chemistry.

So, with due respect for David Hume, I assume that when I mix sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid, I will always get common salt and water. [provided things do not change, ie proton decay or whatever, or I die, or the sun goes nova, etc].

What I DO NOT get when I mix NaOH with HCL [assuming "purity" of course] is Teddy-Bears, fairies, or the blood and body of Christ. [Straw man argument this may be, but I hope you know where I am going with this].

Darwinsbulldog wrote: But relativism has a more serious flaw. relativism refutes itself, because it says that it is not possible to say that one paradigm has superior properties to any other. If that is the case, then relativism itself is self-refuting.

But this isn't what relativism says, relativism says that the criteria for judging one paradigm superior to another are subjective. That is, if one's criteria are utility, then science is obviously, and astronomically superior to creationism, creationism isn't even concerned with utility, I don't know of any relativists on this site who have criteria that would place creationism above science.
But to state that "science is superior to creationism" without admitting that we have our own criteria, our own agenda (leaving aside the negative connotations of the word agenda) is nonsense, you might as well say that squares are superior to circles, a reasonable person can only ask, "what for?" And the what for can never be objective, it can only be relative, for some X to be better for some purpose Y, is an explicitly relative statement, relative to what we want to achieve, science is superior.
The problem is that creationists want to be "holy" or somesuch, and who can say that science is better for achieving holiness than creationism? Barring a creationist, who even cares?

shh wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote: But relativism has a more serious flaw. relativism refutes itself, because it says that it is not possible to say that one paradigm has superior properties to any other. If that is the case, then relativism itself is self-refuting.

But this isn't what relativism says, relativism says that the criteria for judging one paradigm superior to another are subjective. That is, if one's criteria are utility, then science is obviously, and astronomically superior to creationism, creationism isn't even concerned with utility, I don't know of any relativists on this site who have criteria that would place creationism above science.
But to state that "science is superior to creationism" without admitting that we have our own criteria, our own agenda (leaving aside the negative connotations of the word agenda) is nonsense, you might as well say that squares are superior to circles, a reasonable person can only ask, "what for?" And the what for can never be objective, it can only be relative, for some X to be better for some purpose Y, is an explicitly relative statement, relative to what we want to achieve, science is superior.
The problem is that creationists want to be "holy" or somesuch, and who can say that science is better for achieving holiness than creationism? Barring a creationist, who even cares?

There is subjective, and there is subjective. I am subjective in that I prefer to drink my water from a clear spring, than from an unflushed toilet bowl. I recognize that my utilitarianism in drinking one type of water over another is subjective, but so what?

Is there a conflation here with subjectivity being useless? I think not. One may indeed be subjective in one's selection criteria, and I do recognize that.

Prejudiced that I am, I prefer to drink from the clearer spring of evolutionism to the mind-pus infected well of creationist "knowledge" any day.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:There is subjective, and there is subjective. I am subjective in that I prefer to drink my water from a clear spring, than from an unflushed toilet bowl. I recognize that my utilitarianism in drinking one type of water over another is subjective, but so what?

Isn't that exactly what I said?
The only point is that far from refuting or contradicting relativism, you affirm it.

Is there a conflation here with subjectivity being useless? I think not. One may indeed be subjective in one's selection criteria, and I do recognize that.

Cool, but the point isn't that one may be subjective, the point is that it's not possible to be objective. One must be a relativist, because there is no other option.

Prejudiced that I am, I prefer to drink from the clearer spring of evolutionism to the mind-pus infected well of creationist "knowledge" any day.

As does everyone else here. But again, this doesn't contradict relativism.

shh wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Prejudiced that I am, I prefer to drink from the clearer spring of evolutionism to the mind-pus infected well of creationist "knowledge" any day.

As does everyone else here. But again, this doesn't contradict relativism.

I think the color of silver looks best on the new Mercedes Gullwing. I suspect others will have their own preference for color. Color preference is certainly subjective.
Wait, I change my mind. I thing the color guantastico is better. Now guantastico does not appear in the color spectrum, as we know it. You have to believe it exists. But it is real. In fact I dare anyone to prove it does not exist.

OK really, I do not subscribe to beliefs, and I do indeed like the Gullwing in silver.

DB, I would suggest that you mistakenly give legitimacy to a empty claim in your analogy. The real choice is you get to drink water, or you do not.

shh wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:There is subjective, and there is subjective. I am subjective in that I prefer to drink my water from a clear spring, than from an unflushed toilet bowl. I recognize that my utilitarianism in drinking one type of water over another is subjective, but so what?

Isn't that exactly what I said?
The only point is that far from refuting or contradicting relativism, you affirm it.

Is there a conflation here with subjectivity being useless? I think not. One may indeed be subjective in one's selection criteria, and I do recognize that.

Cool, but the point isn't that one may be subjective, the point is that it's not possible to be objective. One must be a relativist, because there is no other option.

Prejudiced that I am, I prefer to drink from the clearer spring of evolutionism to the mind-pus infected well of creationist "knowledge" any day.

As does everyone else here. But again, this doesn't contradict relativism.

I disagree. While one cannot be completely objective, and thus we fall back to subjectivity, the QUEST for objectivity, however flawed, is IMHO, worthwhile. The methodology of science compels the scientist to try to think objectively, even though he/she is, of course, a subjective animal. Thus science, however flawed [and of course it is] offers more hope of actually finding out useful things or perspectives about nature that the religious systems or paradigms singularly fail to do. The confirmation bias [born of faith in god-who may not exist] pushes the religious person [not always] into a creationist world view. This means that they cannot see [or perhaps do not wish to see] evidence from the real world [whatever that is]. The YEC 7-day creation is seen as ridiculous by many: atheists and rational theists, for example. But some "old Earth creationists that accept a ~5 billion year old Earth will go to Church and believe that crackers and fermented wine juice is the body and soul of Christ.

To me, this is eating your cake and having it too. The fallacy of relativism is not as obvious as seen with a YEC world view, but I maintain it is still there nevertheless, but I wish I could express it in better terms. We may be plagued by subjectivity, but some knowledges do appear to be superior to others. If that is so, then relativism is but a cautionary tale, and we can acknowledge the imperfections of science and still give it both relative and "absolute" merit over mind-pus.

To me, hard relativists are always some sort of mystics, who believe that they can see the truth by meditation or whatever. Instant wisdom. Why the fuck bother to sweat a lifetime in a lab or in the field doing when you can go meditate, maybe take some hallucinogenic drugs [or believe in a sky-daddy] and claim ultimate truth?

dirtnapper wrote:

DB, I would suggest that you mistakenly give legitimacy to a empty claim in your analogy. The real choice is you get to drink water, or you do not.

It is not digital. One can drink pure water, dirty water, or not drink any water. There are consequences for each of these three actions: clean water [safe] dirty water [dangerous] no water [death]. What is relativist about that?

Darwinsbulldog wrote:@ friend susu.exp

It is indeed hazardous to present an argument as I did without defining my terms. There are so many conceptions of god that it is only possible to talk about such a concept in defuse terms. The Abrahamic concept of god would something like a first cause god, and posessing some infinite powers, such as universe creation [and perhaps maintainance], omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

More traits then theism requires.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:My thesis was that a universe that had god as a creator, and a universe that arose from totally natural processes would look different. In a god created universe, god has the ability to perform miracles. Thus, in this god-created universe, miracles would be natural. [As god himself would be].

However, the evidence shows that this is NOT the type of universe that we live in. Reports of [so-called] miracles are either false [mistaken perception] or have a natural cause that was previously believed to be a supernatural cause.

There´s a contradiction here. If the universe was as you described it with a natural god, miracles - as you point out - would be natural. So finding that miracles have natural causes does not contradict this. "Miracles", like the "Spuernatural" are ill-defined.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:This is why we are most skeptical about Thor's hammer. As I am not omniscient myself, I cannot prove that Thor's hammer does not exist, as that would be arrogant of me. All I can say is that atmospheric physics, and the equations of James Clerk Maxwell give me a more parsimonious explanation of electrical discharges in the atmosphere than a Nordic myth.

That´s bollocks. Thor`s hammer does not cause lightning. Thor is a naturalistic deity. It´s some guy, who produces some tangible effect using a big hammer and the hammer hypothesis is falsifiable and has been.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I freely admit that my scientific notions of evidence and parsimony are not perfect. But relativism has a more serious flaw. relativism refutes itself, because it says that it is not possible to say that one paradigm has superior properties to any other. If that is the case, then relativism itself is self-refuting.

You are mistaking relativism with something else, I think. Relativism only applies if there are two sets of premises, which are both internally consistent, but contradict each other. In this case a particular statement may be true in one, but not in the other - the truth of that statement is relative. "The internal angles of all triangles add up to 180°" is true in euclidean geometry, it is false in hyperbolic geometry. Now, for relativism to at least be subject to itself you´d need to show that there is a consistent alternative. This in turn means that all statements must be decidable within some framework and that´s where Gödel poses are rather big problem.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:This argument, of course, does not disprove that god did not create the universe, but it certainly makes the scientific assumption of methodological naturalism a very fruitful tool.

No argument there. But acceptence of the scientific method does not imply the rejection of anything that isn´t science (as noted before, this actually is self-refuting, because logic isn´t science, but science requires logic).

shh wrote:But this isn't what relativism says, relativism says that the criteria for judging one paradigm superior to another are subjective.

I strongly disagree there. That´s subjectivism, not relativism. Relativism does not neccessarily judge a set of premises to be superior (the whole point is that this can´t be done). Creationism isn´t something one can be relativist about, because it fails at being consistent anything (it´s at least one of both false science or inconsistent theology and very probably both).

Darwinsbulldog wrote:But some "old Earth creationists that accept a ~5 billion year old Earth will go to Church and believe that crackers and fermented wine juice is the body and soul of Christ.

I underlined the tricky word. Of course bread and wine are still bread and wine. But at the same time they are the body and soul of crist according to at least catholic dogma. The word is is the issue here - because it is used in subtly different senses. The mona lisa is oil paint on poplar wood. It is also beautiful (in some aesthetics).

Finally: Science can evade some relativism, because if a hypothesis A and a hypothesis B make different predictions about some particular observation, we can make that observation and reject at least one of them. If a hypothesis A and a hypothesis B do not make different predictions, have both not be falsified, but the union of both is inconsistent, at least one of them must be wrong (that´s the issue with QM and GR - neither of them has predicted anything incorrectly so far, but their combination is definitely wrong). But science can not evade relativism between two hypotheses that make the same predictions, i´ve given examples in other recent threads.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I disagree. While one cannot be completely objective, and thus we fall back to subjectivity, the QUEST for objectivity, however flawed, is IMHO, worthwhile. The methodology of science compels the scientist to try to think objectively, even though he/she is, of course, a subjective animal. Thus science, however flawed [and of course it is] offers more hope of actually finding out useful things or perspectives about nature that the religious systems or paradigms singularly fail to do. The confirmation bias [born of faith in god-who may not exist] pushes the religious person [not always] into a creationist world view. This means that they cannot see [or perhaps do not wish to see] evidence from the real world [whatever that is]. The YEC 7-day creation is seen as ridiculous by many: atheists and rational theists, for example. But some "old Earth creationists that accept a ~5 billion year old Earth will go to Church and believe that crackers and fermented wine juice is the body and soul of Christ.

If science were the quest for objectivity, not only would it be flawed, it would be doomed. Unless you've some strange idiosyncratic definition of the word objective, there's simply no possibility of objectivity. "Objective" means "without subjective elements", literally, it requires a point of view without a viewer. No matter how many points of view you add, you can never have a point f view divorced from those whose point of view it is.
Science is rational, reliable, repeatable, logical, etc. etc. no one's arguing otherwise. None of these things are equivalent to objective, no combination of them adds up to objectivity.
To get objectivity you must remove the scientists, and anything else which works from a perspective. Not only is this not possible, belief otherwise is nothing more than an artefact of religious belief, and this is quite explicit in any argument for science's ability to be objective or provide truth.
I don't agree that science is flawed, it can only be judged flawed by comparison with a perfect knowledge, and only one entity has ever been posited as having, or even being capable of having perfect knowledge.
Science is inter-subjective, objectivity is a myth, imo, science should not be founded on myths.

To me, this is eating your cake and having it too.

Lol, Eating your God and having it too.

The fallacy of relativism is not as obvious as seen with a YEC world view, but I maintain it is still there nevertheless, but I wish I could express it in better terms.

It's not, and this has been demonstrated on this and RDF, read Jerome Serpenti's various in-depth threads on the subject, not only is relativism not fallacious, there isn't even any other option.

We may be plagued by subjectivity, but some knowledges do appear to be superior to others. If that is so, then relativism is but a cautionary tale, and we can acknowledge the imperfections of science and still give it both relative and "absolute" merit over mind-pus.

Superior for what? To be superior they must have purpose, and either we grant them that purpose or God does, there are no other options. Either we use things for something, or teleology is true.
Teleology requires a God.

To me, hard relativists are always some sort of mystics, who believe that they can see the truth by meditation or whatever. Instant wisdom. Why the fuck bother to sweat a lifetime in a lab or in the field doing when you can go meditate, maybe take some hallucinogenic drugs [or believe in a sky-daddy] and claim ultimate truth?

I've no idea what you mean by "hard" relativists, relativism is a description of how humans interact with the world, relativists claim we do so from our perspective, how that can be denied is beyond me.

susu.exp wrote:I strongly disagree there. That´s subjectivism, not relativism. Relativism does not neccessarily judge a set of premises to be superior (the whole point is that this can´t be done). Creationism isn´t something one can be relativist about, because it fails at being consistent anything (it´s at least one of both false science or inconsistent theology and very probably both).

Perhaps badly worded on my part, but such distinctions are ultimately subjective, inter-subjective is still subjective, I don't use subjective to mean on a whim.

shh wrote:None of these things are equivalent to objective, no combination of them adds up to objectivity.
To get objectivity you must remove the scientists, and anything else which works from a perspective. Not only is this not possible, belief otherwise is nothing more than an artefact of religious belief, and this is quite explicit in any argument for science's ability to be objective or provide truth.

We demand human extinction — NOW! Then things will go back to being objective!

shh wrote:
Yeah, just makes the whole thing futile, pleasantly futile imo, but futile nonetheless.

What he said. Gods do not topple skyscrapers. You need a fully-fueled airliner (and a secret conspiracy) to do that.

And here's the clincher, shh: Of all the problems that living organisms in general solve in relation to the environment, there is not one that science cannot address. Those are the objective problems, because organisms will go on solving them without regard to whether there is a "perspective". Of all the problems that religion and philosophy merely purport to solve, there is not one of them that a walrus wants to solve, as if the walrus had a "perspective".

shh wrote:"Objective" means "without subjective elements", literally, it requires a point of view without a viewer.

This definition of objective is unknown to myself hitherto but it probably helps me get improved comprehension about philosophical relativism. A point of view without a viewer, in my understanding, is supplied by the objective lens*. This lens is objective precisely because it does not require a viewer (let alone that viewer's point of view) to function. A (or a trillion trillion) subjective eyepiece(s) are literally irrelevant to the real image observed objectively by the objective lens.
* e.g. Optical systems.

Cito di Pense wrote:
We demand human extinction — NOW! Then things will go back to being objective!

Except for all the goddamn walri.

What he said. Gods do not topple skyscrapers. You need a fully-fueled airliner (and a secret conspiracy) to do that.

And here's the clincher, shh: Of all the problems that living organisms in general solve in relation to the environment, there is not one that science cannot address. Those are the objective problems, because organisms will go on solving them without regard to whether there is a "perspective". Of all the problems that religion and philosophy merely purport to solve, there is not one of them that a walrus wants to solve, as if the walrus had a "perspective".

[/quote] When the walrus' start to make claims about their ability to perceive things without a perspective, I'll start arguing with them, until then I'll live and let die.
I don't really see this as a philosophical issue tbh, it's just about what words mean. "objective science" and "objective truth" make about as much sense as "Christian science", or "divine revelation", I'd rather not repeat those particular errors, or fool myself into thinking that science is more than "problem solving". Problem solving is worthy enough imo.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

dirtnapper wrote:

DB, I would suggest that you mistakenly give legitimacy to a empty claim in your analogy. The real choice is you get to drink water, or you do not.

It is not digital. One can drink pure water, dirty water, or not drink any water. There are consequences for each of these three actions: clean water [safe] dirty water [dangerous] no water [death]. What is relativist about that?

I was a bit too obscure. Theology (s) are based on a character (or characters) with no legitimate evidence (in fact there are contradictions with reality) - as has already been pointed out. Therefore all the stories based on it, are irrelevant fiction. Empty. There is no water there, you must believe there is.
Hence the challenge to the analogy. One choice - actual knowledge = water. The other - beliefs = no water
I was not commenting that your analogy was relativistic. There are times when subjectivity is OK, other times the goal is to be as objective as possible. Getting answers depends on it. In my counter analogy; the color of the automobile is subjective. The engineering required to make a functioning vehicle is a primarily objective pursuit.

All shh is pointing out is that people fail to be perfectly objective. But objectivity is a word used to describe a goal - perfect alignment with reality. Stating there is no such thing as objectivity is moot. There is no perfection.

shh wrote: More on-topic, this argument kinda fails on the basis that theists claim that science works because God makes it.

I'm not certain that this causes DB's argument to fail. However, it does allow us to reframe that argument in a way that might more easily be debated.

As I understand DB's argument, it can be rewordeded as: The fact that methodological naturalism is effective as a working model for understanding the universe indicates that there is no God. There are possible theistic explanations for this observation (eg. That God deliberately set the laws of the universe in such a way that methodological naturalism is effective; or that God is constantly , deliberately intervening in every aspect of what happens in the universe, in such a manner that methodological naturalism seems to be valid.) However, these explanation are irrational.

Does that make a difference? As I see it, the matter of debate here is whether the last two sentences are valid.

Shrunk wrote:As I understand DB's argument, it can be rewordeded as: The fact that methodological naturalism is effective as a working model for understanding the universe indicates that there is no God. There are possible theistic explanations for this observation (eg. That God deliberately set the laws of the universe in such a way that methodological naturalism is effective; or that God is constantly , deliberately intervening in every aspect of what happens in the universe, in such a manner that methodological naturalism seems to be valid.) However, these explanation are irrational.

There are numerous ways to have a conversation in which "God" comes into the conversation as an ordinary word. All of them can be rewordeded so that the word "God" does not appear.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Shrunk wrote:As I understand DB's argument, it can be rewordeded as: The fact that methodological naturalism is effective as a working model for understanding the universe indicates that there is no God. There are possible theistic explanations for this observation (eg. That God deliberately set the laws of the universe in such a way that methodological naturalism is effective; or that God is constantly , deliberately intervening in every aspect of what happens in the universe, in such a manner that methodological naturalism seems to be valid.) However, these explanation are irrational.

There are numerous ways to have a conversation in which "God" comes into the conversation as an ordinary word. All of them can be rewordeded so that the word "God" does not appear.

I don't follow.

Shrunk wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Shrunk wrote:As I understand DB's argument, it can be rewordeded as: The fact that methodological naturalism is effective as a working model for understanding the universe indicates that there is no God. There are possible theistic explanations for this observation (eg. That God deliberately set the laws of the universe in such a way that methodological naturalism is effective; or that God is constantly , deliberately intervening in every aspect of what happens in the universe, in such a manner that methodological naturalism seems to be valid.) However, these explanation are irrational.

There are numerous ways to have a conversation in which "God" comes into the conversation as an ordinary word. All of them can be rewordeded so that the word "God" does not appear.

I don't follow.

I'm only half-serious, here. For all practical purposes, though, with any conversation in which the word "God" does not appear, functionally, there is no God.

Shrunk wrote:

shh wrote: More on-topic, this argument kinda fails on the basis that theists claim that science works because God makes it.

I'm not certain that this causes DB's argument to fail. However, it does allow us to reframe that argument in a way that might more easily be debated.

As I understand DB's argument, it can be rewordeded as: The fact that methodological naturalism is effective as a working model for understanding the universe indicates that there is no God. There are possible theistic explanations for this observation (eg. That God deliberately set the laws of the universe in such a way that methodological naturalism is effective; or that God is constantly , deliberately intervening in every aspect of what happens in the universe, in such a manner that methodological naturalism seems to be valid.) However, these explanation are irrational.

Does that make a difference? As I see it, the matter of debate here is whether the last two sentences are valid.

I don't think so, I'm not sure what you mean by methodological naturalism being valid, or really what's ever meant by valid, it seems to mean accepted.
But there's no reason imo to suppose that if God exists methodological naturalism must fail, nor to suppose that a working model is equivalent to an objectively true one. The whoe thing seems like a non-sequitir to me, and easily avoided by the theist because without teleology there's no evidence that the universe is rational, sure our explanations are, because we refuse any other kind. Until we've explained everything, and proven those explanations objectively true, there's not really any way to distinguish who's got the better argument.
I know which I prefer though.