tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post108628233528667079..comments2024-03-17T10:40:52.762-05:00Comments on The Buck Stops Here: Sandefur on Satisfactory ExplanationsStuart Buckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1112718204671982572005-04-05T11:23:00.000-05:002005-04-05T11:23:00.000-05:00Interesting article. There is another guy who wro...Interesting article. There is another guy who wrote about something similar on his site. I liked his analysis and I think he's a scientist.<BR/><BR/>http://goldinthemine.blogspot.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1086589881106389452004-06-07T01:31:00.000-05:002004-06-07T01:31:00.000-05:00Natural selection would indeed not count as an exp...Natural selection would indeed not count as an explanation if it only provides just-so stories that could be made to be consistent with anything. That was Sandefur's point, that if a theory can explain anything it is not an explanation at all. An explanation should be verifiable through supporting evidence that its postulates would predict exist. God can be invoked to explain anything and is an unfalsifiable postulate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1086476822108679412004-06-05T18:07:00.000-05:002004-06-05T18:07:00.000-05:00The flaw in your argument is this: when science as...The flaw in your argument is this: when science asks about a phenomenon, it is not asking, "Who did this?" It is asking "How did this happen?" If we see John Smith's dead body mysteriously lying on the ground and your answer is "someone did it," that doesn't answer anything at all. If your answer is, "His head was bashed in," then we have made progress, and we can discuss who did it.<br /><br />It's not that we should reject "X explains Y" because we don't also have an explanation for X, but rather that X isn't an explanation. It's a word. You might as well say, "Flgwak5gt3vf is responsible." It provides just as much informational content, and is just as verifiable.<br /><br />To respond to your update, "natural selection" isn't an explanation; it's just a restatement of the question. "X provides an evolutionary advantage because of such-and-such" is an explanation. It's testable (at least in theory) and it explains how. Whereas "God did it," or "magic did it" or "Flgwak5gt3vf did it" ends the investigation without giving us anywhere to go; we know no more than we did before the answer was given.David Nieporenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11858229348807916262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1086467201198566302004-06-05T15:26:00.000-05:002004-06-05T15:26:00.000-05:00Kimber,
There is plenty of evidence for the exist...Kimber,<br /><br />There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. For example, there are claims (by people) that he became flesh, dwelt amonst us, and told the people around him of that. There's lots more, too (in different traditions).<br /><br />Like the evidence for most things, it consists of testimony, and perhaps you're discounting testimony as evidence. That's a tenable position, but please do realize that it puts you completely apart from the great bulk of humanity, who believe in things like science and history and geography and train schedules.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1086448733926141312004-06-05T10:18:00.000-05:002004-06-05T10:18:00.000-05:00I decided I had more to say on this than I thought...I decided I had more to say on this than I thought would be good for a comment, so I've posted my thoughts <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fmt.ektopos.com%2Fparablemania%2Farchives%2F000423.html">here</A>.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1086387161753846142004-06-04T17:12:00.000-05:002004-06-04T17:12:00.000-05:00Kimber, I believe you missed the point of the post...Kimber, I believe you missed the point of the post. I don't think Stuart was trying to show that the existence of God is provable, only that the "shifting the mystery" type of argument isn't valid.chisperohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00446301472226667412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1086378398514684612004-06-04T14:46:00.000-05:002004-06-04T14:46:00.000-05:00Interesting and well thought out argument until th...Interesting and well thought out argument until the end there. You ran yourself into a hole with the fairy thing because there is no evidence of god's existence either. So under your theory, saying fairies cause rain is just as plausable as god healing someone.<br /><br />Sorry, better luck next time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03209872272961804844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1086366330511389612004-06-04T11:25:00.000-05:002004-06-04T11:25:00.000-05:00Like many people of course, I've also encountered ...Like many people of course, I've also encountered arguments like Sandefur's. Thanks for the simple and well-thought-out rebuttal.chisperohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00446301472226667412noreply@blogger.com