tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post37044033527343913..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: Successful Theistic Explanations (Part 1) - TestabilityJohn Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-33370487484754895252010-07-06T22:23:08.237+01:002010-07-06T22:23:08.237+01:00Bogdan,
I would say both. One of the tests of a g...Bogdan,<br /><br />I would say both. One of the tests of a good explanation is independent confirmation. That is, its ability to explain facts outside of those it is originally introduced to explain. Specifying the intentions helps to do this by giving greater empirical content to the explanation. <br /><br />If the posited explanation was simply "God intended to create the universe with the laws that we observe" then we would have gained no understanding from the explanation. This is because the goal of the intention is limited to the fact that we want explained. <br /><br />If the posited intention was "God created the universe with the laws that it has because these laws served his goals X, Y and Z" then we have something with real bite: we can point to other facts that might also be explained by the same intention.<br /><br />As to whether Swinburne could pull it off with just the null hypothesis, here we begin to cut into the fine-tuning argument. I personally think there are serious problems with calculating or determining the relevant probabilities that go into this argument. So I am not sure he could do it, not that that will stop him or anybody else from making the argument.<br /><br />I am hoping to cover some of the problems with FT arguments on this blog, at some stage. In the meantime, I would recommend listening to Luke's interview with Neil Mansun over at commonsenseatheism, as well as reading some of the paper's linked in the same post, below.<br /><br />http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=9079John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-89762560724196214782010-07-06T20:12:34.329+01:002010-07-06T20:12:34.329+01:00John D,
must Swinburne take into account both the ...John D,<br />must Swinburne take into account both the null hypothesis approach as well as the positing of specific divine intentions in order to make his theistic hypothesis testable or is it enough to consider just one of them? I say this because it seems to me that he might pull it off with the null hypothesis. I mean yeah, it might be difficult to define "the range of values or forms that the laws of nature could take", but I don't think that's going to stop him from coming up with some answer.Bogdanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15449119709471870254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-3713348114617638372010-05-27T19:45:35.796+01:002010-05-27T19:45:35.796+01:00I haven't read any Tipler.
Is he like Gerald...I haven't read any Tipler. <br /><br />Is he like Gerald (or Gerard, can't remember which) Schroeder? I found his stuff to be extremely ad hoc.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-21740734811741086492010-05-24T19:30:25.119+01:002010-05-24T19:30:25.119+01:00I would note that J.F. Tipler has the distinction ...I would note that J.F. Tipler has the distinction of being the only person I know of that offers a testable theology. While his predictions can be disjointed from his theology and turned into mere physics, it is at least an effort and inclination to be respected, in my opinion. Not that I think Tipler will cease to be religious if his physical theories will be disproved, but hey.<br /><br />It goes without saying that in the process Tipler makes very specific claims about what god is, allowing him to derive these specific predictions.<br /><br />Yairיאיר רזקhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15798134654972572485noreply@blogger.com