Dodge City

A Christian Apologist challenges the idea of "verification" and seems to think what I refer to as verification is "science" and so my "verification process" is limited in some way. I can only assume the apologist has a better verification process than I do.   

But for some reason, he doesn't want to tell me what his process is and uses some classic techniques for avoiding the question...

1	JimC
2	OK I think we both agree now that evolution is a fact because it's observed to happen and that fact is explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection.
3	Christian Apologist
4	I still believe that God is involved in the process because both "intelligence" as we experience such and how that reality would manifest itself in a universe that has ample ways that its basic building blocks should combine and either manifest or be an overall part of that hyper intelligence in action is still to be considered. God may or may not have chosen "evolution" through "natural selection" to advance species, although I believe He did.	This seems an incredibly convoluted way for someone to say they believe in Intelligent Design, without actually saying it.
5	JimC
6	You can of course assume that God is involved in the process of evolution just as you can assume He is involved in any and every natural process. It's an ancient (and natural) belief.
7	Christian Apologist
8	You can assume that a known manifestation of reality isn't involved--that's a natural prejudice of those who fail to recognize their limited purview.	Again just a weird way of saying the universe is designed.
9	JimC
10	I don't rely on assumptions for my model of reality. For me, an assumption is a starting point, not an end point. I think that's the most significant difference between an intuitive perspective and a rational one.
11	Christian Apologist
12	I would not refer to a perspective which ignores a certain aspect of reality a "rational" one. Speculative--yes. Rational in its broader context outside of a limited purview--no.	I wonder what he thinks my “perspective” is “ignoring”?
13	JimC
14	It is indeed irrational to ignore an aspect of reality. Perhaps even delusional in extreme cases. That again highlights a basic difference between an intuitive perspective, and a rational one.
15	Christian Apologist
16	Fascinating--I recall asking you to make note of when you yourself were offering an intuitive perspective as the ultimate basis for your further theorizing on a certain matter!  You began with an observation and then chose a verification process that supported your observation. That's what we're all doing, by the way.	I have no idea what this is referring to. But the comment choosing a verification process is strange. Are there multiple verification processes one can choose from? I wonder if the Apologist has his own verification process that is different to mine?
17	JimC
18	I didn't choose a verification process to suit because to me, verification is a universal process: An idea is posed as a hypothesis, and if it can be tested it forms a theory which is used to make predictions. The results of those tests determine whether the theory is accepted of rejected. That's not a science thing- that process can be applied to any idea. It can also be used to measure faith. The earlier in the process that you accept an idea as being true, the more faith you need.
19	I've asked you to let me know about alternative verification processes - but you haven't. If you have a different verification process for me to choose from, please describe it.
20	Christian Apologist
21	It is still a deductive process limited by the extent to which its theories can (1) actually be verified, and (2) limited by the fact that deductive reasoning is inadequate to account for all of "reality" in the first place.	“It” is a deductive process? What is “it”?
22	Don't forget when I caught you engaging in inductive reasoning to expose an original fact followed by your applying a reasoning process inadequate for analyzing your original insights. To put it more simply: all deductive reasoning is beholden to original inductive insights. Deductive reasoning eventually reaches its logical limits when subscribing to a "verification" process which diminishes the original insight. To be discussed further when/if you drop your role of "Grand Inquisitor" and choose to present and defend for review your own perspective on this and other matters on this DB.	No idea what any of this means. But it does seem obvious the Apologist doesn’t want to share any details of his verification process. He also doesn’t seem to have noticed that I’ve already explained what my verification process is on line 18.
23	JimC
24	I've described my verification process - why can't you describe your alternative verification process?
25	Christian Apologist
26	Your testing processes cannot allow for the existence of intelligent input nor recognize such. I began with inductive reasoning, as you did. I pointed out that we observe intelligence as existing within our realm of experience, and that it would be extremely unlikely that its manifestation occurs on our rock and nowhere else. You describe the steps through which intelligence is accessed and you mistake such for intelligence itself. Intelligence would necessarily have to be accessed--or rather recognized--by entirely different processes elsewhere in the universe. You confuse specific steps by which such manifests itself here on earth with the overall issue of the reality of intelligence and believe that you have defined intelligence itself through processes that would occur nowhere else in the entire universe because they are unique to our planet!	Now he’s talking about a “testing process” instead of a verification process, and this is followed by all sorts of stuff about intelligence that he claims I’ve said which I haven’t. All he’s done is create a fallacious straw man argument which he then refutes.  And of course, avoided having to describe his own particular verification process.
27	A much more likely conclusion would be that intelligence would manifest itself through entirely different means and processes wherever it occurs, including hyper intelligence.	What does this mean?
28	JimC
29	You assume intelligence was an "operative factor". That's your hypothesis. There's no evidence to support that idea. Life evolved and intelligence is an attribute of life. All the result of natural processes. If there's life on other planets it would also display intelligence for the same reason. Simple life, like a plant would have simple intelligence. Sophisticated life would have sophisticated intelligence.  I did not describe steps "through which intelligence is accessed" because intelligence is not "accessed". That concept makes no sense.
30	Christian Apologist
31	You assume that intelligence was NOT a factor and that only mindless processes lead to all of creation. That logic would only rely on the circular reasoning processes of a limited perspective which cannot account for such in its verification processes.	It’s true that I assume our universe is not a result of intelligent design, because I see no evidence to support that hypothesis. But I’ve also said that it’s not impossible.  In any case that’s not “circular reasoning”. How did he reach that conclusion?!
32	You fail to recognize the limits of your own perspective and of its reasoning processes. Everything is of the same "stuff" if we call that "stuff" dynamic electrochemical processes. Intelligence occurs within that fabric, however it may manifest itself under specific circumstances.	Huh?
33	That which doesn't make sense is your continued refusal to acknowledge "intelligence" as part and parcel of reality and to consider how such would be a factor in truly understanding all of "reality."	I’ve never said intelligence is not part of reality. Another fallacious straw man.
34	JimC
35	I'm not ruling out the hypothesis that our universe was designed and/or created by an intelligent being or beings or what you might call a god. Even supernatural creation is a possibility but it's still a hypothesis and unfalsifiable. The theories which provide a natural explanation are more robust, rational, supported by evidence and perhaps more importantly, falsifiable (which is why they are theories) and so I find those explanations more compelling than yours.
36	I don't know why you'd say that I don't acknowledge that intelligence is part of reality, when I obviously do. Intelligence is a fact because we observe it happening. The study of intelligence, specifically the nature and origins of intelligence, is one of my greatest interests.
37	Christian Apologist
38	Again the point is that your chosen method of verification is incapable of conducting experiments which would or could show the presence (or not) of guiding intelligence behind all of the processes that it actually is capable of analyzing. God is indeed "unfalsifiable" within the parameters of science--but that indicates the limits of the scientific process to address certain matters of "reality," not the other way around. When one subscribes to verification processes that can only analyze data regarding mindless processes, and on that basis conclude that there is no hyper intelligence at work (even though it is perfectly logical to assume so), that is engaging in circular reasoning: "There are no verification processes within this purview to determine the matter--therefore it doesn't exist."	Again a reference to “my” method of verification. I didn’t realise there were multiple methods.  Why won’t he let me in on the secret of his verification process?  And why does he keep referring to science? What has this got to do with science?
39	JimC
40	I don't know why you keep referring to "science". In my opinion, God is unfalsifiable, period. I'm not suggesting any particular verification method. I'm not suggesting any specific verification process. I am waiting for you to describe the verification process.
41	Christian Apologist
42	We've been over this before I'm sure, but just to clarify: do you wish to bring back the debate over evidence for God?	Complete avoidance of what I said! Still refuses to explain his own process for verification!
43	JimC
44	We can change the subject to "evidence for God", but that just avoids the point regarding verification processes. To repeat:
45	I don't know why you keep referring to "science". In my opinion, God is unfalsifiable, period. I'm not suggesting any particular verification method. I'm not suggesting any specific verification process. I am waiting for you to describe the verification process. Please!
46	Christian Apologist
47	The "verification process" IS presentation of evidence, and you appear to be the one making that change of topic! Of course you are technically correct that it isn't proof, but it is certainly evidence. That appears to be a request on your part to renew the discussion and debate about "evidence for God" as well as discussion of your counterclaim that all of creation results from mindless processes. So, to be clear, as I asked before and will ask again--is this where you wish to take the subject?	I don’t know if he’s deliberately confusing the words “evidence” and “verification process” in order to muddy the waters or if he just can’t understand the question. Or am I being trolled?
48	JimC
49	Presentation of evidence is not a verification process. Verification and evidence are different things. Verification, the verb, is a process which determines validity. Evidence, the noun, consists of facts. A hypothesis is a potential explanation for the existence of those facts. A verified hypothesis is a theory. The verification process requires the hypothesis to make predictions which can be tested.
50	The question I keep asking and which you keep avoiding is about verification. Given that you consider the verification process I've described to be inadequate, please describe your alternative verification process.
51	As I said, if you want to discuss evidence for God that's fine with me. But that's a different topic. Let's try and get an answer to the verification question please.
52	Christian Apologist
53	OK--neither of us has a verification process that supports our perspective. You rely on a REASONING process with a limited purview and ultimate speculation to come to your conclusions. My reasoning process goes in a different direction, although there is some overlap.	What? Neither of us has a verification process? Obviously I do – I’ve described it three times already!
54	That leaves us with presentation of evidence whereby each of us attempts to present and defend our perspective. So again--is that what you are seeking?	And again he talks about evidence, avoiding any explanation of his own verification process. What is going on?
55	JimC
56	I do have a verification process that supports my perspective. I've described it. I use it all the time.
57	All I'm asking to you to do is to describe your verification process given that you think mine is inadequate. That is what I am seeking - a description of your verification process. Perhaps you. And answer the question because you don't have a verification process, which is fair enough, just say so!
58	Christian Apologist
59	You claim to have a verification process that supports your perspective. Prove it, on topic.	Prove it?! I’ve described it on lines 18 and 49!
60	Since when have you been granted the title of "Grand Inquisitor?"	Er... never as far as I know.
61	I'll be happy to address your questions in a quid-pro-quo exchange. How about if we both present and attempt to defend the basis of our respective viewpoints and the "verification" processes behind such. Both of our perspectives to be analyzed and critiqued, actually on topic. Fair enough?	Well, I’ve already presented my verification process on lines 18 and 49.  So there’s the quid – where the quo?!  I will explain “my” verification process for the third time!
62	JimC
63	I don't claim to have a verification process - I've described it - I will repeat it here...
64	An idea is posed as a hypothesis, and if it can be tested it forms a theory which is used to make predictions. The results of those tests determines whether the theory is accepted of rejected. That's not a science thing- that process can be applied to any idea.
65	I know you don't seem to like my verification process, but I'm just wondering what process you use.
	Christian Apologist
66	I use that process as well. The problem surfaces at the point when one's "tests" become unable to address/analyze the matter at hand. That's what I mean when I refer to reasoning processes with limited purviews.  One line of reasoning/analysis only goes so far--then one has to consider other approaches that might help clarify the issue.	OK this is a progress – the apologist agrees that he is using the same verification process as me!! Seems he now wants to talk about how a hypothesis can be tested, which is fair enough.
67	Your "process" is no different than mine, as far as it goes. I'm unsure if you have any claims to make which do not rely on this process to address matters beyond its purview.	Good to know that again our processes for verification are no different.
68	At this point I'd like to bring back a matter discussed on this forum long ago (well, fairly long ago). I offered Peter Kreeft's "Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God." Arguments--not proofs. At the time, you treated each separate point as if it was an argument for "proof" rather than of a partial piece of evidence. You responded only to each point in isolation from the others, as if the whole argument rose or fell on each individual point, rather than recognizing each individual point a a piece of the evidence to be considered in the totality of all the other bits of evidence.	Why on earth bring this up? I did indeed treat every argument as an argument, because each argument was an argument.  But “partial piece of evidence”? How can an inductive argument be “evidence”?   Even if these inductive arguments begin with a piece of evidence, this has nothing to do with verification.  This appears to be a major change of subject – a massive dodge!
	So again: does this add up to a "proof" for God? Of course not--that would undermine the necessity of "faith" in our relationship with Him. Might someone else have an even better presentation to make? Of course--other Christian posters have made other points on the matter, as have I. Does that disqualify or negate what this source has to offer? Of course not--I believe this is an excellent starting point for discussions on the matter. The link: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm	I am completely lost. This is a totally new subject.
69	Now, again, a counter challenge. Rather than again assuming the role of Grand Inquisitor and offering only pot shots at a counter perspective to yours, why not take the time to again present and attempt to defend your own perspective which excludes intelligent input in the creation and maintenance of our universe? I present mine--you present yours. You critique mine, I critique yours. I offer a defense of mine, you offer a defense of yours. Fair enough?	Bizarre. My perspective is simple. And I’ve explained it dozens of times.  And this has nothing to do with verification. Ho hum.  Buried in this paragraph is an interesting sentence... “intelligent input in the creation and maintenance of our universe”. That’s just a convoluted way of saying “Intelligent Design” so why not just say “ID”?
	JimC
70	I'm reassured we both use the same verification process! This has been confusing me for a long time because it seemed you had a different process and that did puzzle me. As for "proof" - my perspective is that there is no such thing as "proof" outside of pure logic and mathematics. So we should drop the word. As for your link to Peter Kreeft's collection of apologist arguments, we have covered each of those in the past. They are simply inductive arguments. They are not proofs and they are not evidence. They are arguments. In terms of the verification process we are both using, they stop at the hypothesis stage because they cannot be tested. They are unfalsifiable. Your final paragraph is a long winded way of saying "ID" and I see no evidence for ID. Arguments, yes, such as the ones you've presented, which have been refuted by philosophers for hundreds of years and which are all logically flawed, but not evidence. So my "defence" as you put it, is that I see evidence of intelligence as an attribute of life, but I see no evidence of ID of the universe or nature. That doesn't mean ID of our universe is impossible, but I consider it highly unlikely. And even if we could one day find evidence of our universe being designed, that doesn't mean it was designed by a god or gods.
	Christian Apologist
71	We use the same verification process when we apply deductive reasoning. I didn't say that that is the only approach--in fact, I pointed out its limitations.	Yeah but the apologist doesn’t use deductive reasoning. That’s the point about verification he doesn’t seem to get.
72	Inductive reasoning is as important as deductive, and inductive reasoning is the basis for deductive reasoning. Recall your statement about evolution when I caught you using inductive reasoning?	Yes they are both important and both go together to form the verification process.  I don’t know what he means about catching me using inductive reasoning! How else can a hypothesis be formed?
73	Arguments for God are unfalsifiable due to the limitations of that particular deductive approach and its verification processes--hence the necessity of approaching the matter from another perspective.	Wrong – they are unfalsifiable because they are unfalsifiable.  You can’t use a deductive approach for something that is unfalsifiable because it would be impossible to test.
74	You have made another leap to conclusion--that being that I am arguing on behalf of a specific perspective, that being ID. How about responding to evidence at hand from all perspectives before inviting us to, leap from point A to point Z?	That’s not leaping to a conclusion – The Apologist constantly argues that the universe is designed and governed by an intelligence. That’s the definition of ID.
	JimC
75	Inductive reasoning is not a verification process. Inductive reasoning is only the first part of the verification process - it only takes you as far as forming a hypothesis, which would then have to be tested to determine if it's a theory.  I'm not leaping to conclusions about your ID perspective - I'm merely stating your argument in plain English, namely that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.  As for the specific inductive arguments which you've referred to, which come from Peter Kreeft's "Handbook of Christian Apologetics", we've been through those before over a year ago. Here is the standard list of objections to the first one, the argument for change.  http://revjimc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/argument-from-change-refuted.html I can provide the standard objections to each of the twenty if you like, just let me know.
	Christian Apologist
76	"Deductive reasoning happens when a researcher works from the more general information to the more specific. Sometimes this is called the “top-down” approach because the researcher starts at the top with a very broad spectrum of information and they work their way down to a specific conclusion. For instance, a researcher might begin with a theory about his or her topic of interest. From there, he or she would narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that can be tested. The hypotheses are then narrowed down even further when observations are collected to test the hypotheses. This ultimately leads the researcher to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data, leading to a confirmation (or not) of the original theory and arriving at a conclusion..."  [my addendum: only valid to the extent that the hypothesis is falsifiable by its testing/confirming process]. "Inductive reasoning works the opposite way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. This is sometimes called a “bottom up” approach. The researcher begins with specific observations and measures, begins to then detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses to explore, and finally ends up developing some general conclusions or theories..." "By nature, inductive reasoning is more open-ended and exploratory, especially during the early stages. Deductive reasoning is more narrow and is generally used to test or confirm hypotheses. Most social research, however, involves both inductive and deductive reasoning throughout the research process. The scientific norm of logical reasoning provides a two-way bridge between theory and research. In practice, this typically involves alternating between deduction and induction..." [My addendum: while this article addresses social research, the process has general application to any subject. We employ both inductive and deductive reasoning in arriving at conclusions, and it is false to claim that the inductive process is not part of "evidence" or of the reasoning process itself.] Source: http://sociology.about.com/od/Research/a/Deductive-Reasoning-Versus-Inductive-Reasoning.htm	Well this is hopeful – he’s copied and pasted definitions of inductive and deductive reasoning from a social sciences website.  Although his “addenda” don’t make any sense at all, and are not needed unless he’s disputing the definition he’s just provided!    His final sentence is particularly strange...  .  Obviously the inductive process is “not part of evidence”. An inductive argument springs from evidence and is used to form a hypothesis. Is he deliberately creating an elaborate dodge of the subject because it’s finally dawned on him that he was wrong all along – or is he genuinely confused about verification, evidence, logic, induction and deduction?
	JimC
77	A pretty good summary I think. As we've discussed previously, in terms of the verification process, inductive arguments come first, followed by deductive arguments. Inductive reasoning alone does not give verification.  As you point out, your article comes from the field of sociology, but the definitions work in any application. We can use one of Darwin's ideas as an example. He noticed how birds in the Galapagos Islands were similar, but were actually different species depending on which island they were found. He formed an inductive argument that these birds (finches) were all descended from a single finch species, and had evolved by natural selection so as to adapt to the environment of the specific island they were living on. Darwin began with this piece of information and expanded it to form a hypothesis (which your article refers to as a "bottom up" approach). However, at that point there was no verification that Darwin was right. It was only a hypothesis based on inductive reasoning. The verification process then continued, over many years and long after Darwin's death, using deductive reasoning to test Darwin's hypothesis until it became an accepted theory.
	Christian Apologist
78	The reasoning process can work like that but not necessarily. The article also goes on to demonstrate how both inductive and deductive reasoning can lead to errors. Perfectly logical conclusions can be deduced by beginning with a false hypothesis, and perfectly logical generalizations may be in error due to not considering relevant data.	Not sure if the apologist is deliberately missing the point here. The whole point of a verification process is to test a hypothesis to see if it’s false.
79	When one begins with an hypothesis and seeks to test it, all sorts of questions arise as to the validity of the verification processes themselves to provide relevant data. The deeper one probes an issue, the more elaborate and complicated the verification processes become, and their reliability of proving or disproving anything often becomes more questionable. In the end--best case scenario--by beginning with inductive reasoning and seeking to establish its validity through deductive processes, one ends up with more and more information that is more and more narrowly-focused. To put it simply, your process leads us--at best--to a lot of information about very little. Oftentimes the "big picture" becomes lost in the process and one falls into the trap of circular reasoning, not even consciously aware of the limitations that this process offers and mistaking smaller truths and insights for ones with broader applications.	Again – the Apologist doesn’t seem to understand that the verification process doesn’t change. It doesn’t get more elaborate or complicated. It’s always the same process.  He’s talking nonsense. Is he dodging the issue or does he genuinely not understand?
80	An integrated reasoning approach wouldn't just begin with an inductive idea that is one feels is proven or disproven by a certain line of deductive reasoning, but rather by constantly going back and forth between the two processes. If one line of deductive reasoning reaches a dead end because of unfalsifiability with known verification means, try a different approach. Re-examine the Big Picture. See where another line of enquiry leads. To be trite, "think outside the box."	What’s “an integrated reasoning approach?” The verification process integrates both inductive and deductive reasoning. And every theory is tested by “going back and forth”.  It’s just another load of nonsense. “unfalsifiability with known verification means,” is another classic example of pseudo-intellectual babble.
81	So back to my point regarding discussion here. If I offer an inductive approach, it is neither a lack of evidence nor something to be dismissed out of hand. If evidence piles up through multiple ways of looking at an issue, then that is indeed evidence that points in a certain direction. It may not be proof--we lack the means of verification--but it does provide evidence.	Again – more confusion. If he offers an inductive approach (hopefully based on evidence) that will lead to a hypothesis. The inductive approach is not evidence.   I can’t tell if this equivocation is deliberate dodging or just more, genuine confusion. Maybe if I use evolution as an example it will help...
	JimC
82	Indeed, all forms if reasoning can lead to errors when they are based on false assumptions, fallacious logic or false evidence. That's why the verification process (from my perspective) is so important. If you stop at the hypothesis step (inductive argument), you are using faith to believe the hypothesis is true. I prefer to go beyond that to form my model of reality. The verification process is (or should be) never ending. We begin with an inductive argument, forming a hypothesis, then continue with the rest of the verification process until we have an accepted theory. But we shouldn't stop there! We should continue to form inductive arguments and new hypotheses which could further support the theory, or disprove it, or modify it, or improve it. In my opinion, we should always doubt. This is different to religion which is sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but always certain. If you offer an inductive argument, that's absolutely fine and we should discuss it here, and I greatly enjoy dissecting and testing religious arguments. But what you shouldn't do is present an inductive argument as if it is evidence, proof or verification. An inductive argument can be based on evidence but the argument itself is not evidence.  Going back to the evolution example, when Darwin formed his inductive argument regarding natural selection from observing finches, the finches were the evidence. The inductive argument was not evidence. The verification process from that point on required a top down approach to test the hypothesis until it became an accepted theory.
	Christian Apologist
83	I repeat: minus a genuinely valid verification process regarding the subject at hand, there is no "validation"--or when validation occurs, it may validate a much narrower perspective than some may claim.	Obviously there’s no validation without a verification process! And he's said we're using the same process! What is he talking about now?
	JimC
84	What would be a helpful for me is if you could give an example where your verification process is applied, step by step. Until then it just seems to me that you don't use a verification process - you just stop at step 2 of the process (where step 1 is an inductive argument and step 2 is a hypothesis).
	Christian Apologist
	As previously stated, that's not the type of reasoning process that I'm suggesting. We both know the limits of such, and it leads to the issue being "unfalsifiable" through available verification means. It also leads to circular reasoning whereby one thinks one is presenting valid evidence for the subject at hand when all one is really doing is relying on a verification process that cannot provide evidence for such. It's like claiming that "science" can account for a non-theistic creation and maintenance of the universe when science's own verification processes have no way of recognizing hyper-intelligent input, leading to the false conclusion that it doesn't exist.	More dodging. He's previously said we are both using the same verification process. He's copied and pasted the process from a social sciences website. Now he says he's suggesting a different type of reasoning process! And more confused terminology. Verification process not providing evidence? Oh dear.
	What I am suggesting is the type of evidence one might apply in a court case. If one side or another in a legal argument offers this bit of evidence or that, they are not to be considered in isolation. Any specific bit of evidence might be dismissed as coincidental. When several bits of evidence are presented that point in the same direction, the argument that such is coincidental becomes weaker and weaker, and a case builds for one side or another. That is the "verification" process I am suggesting--considering all evidence for active hyper intelligence in toto as pointing towards such. The case cannot be proven, of course, so one eventually winds up putting faith in one possibility or another.	Court case is a good example!
	JimC
	A court case is a good example. We would have evidence, such as DNA or a blood stain or CCTV footage etc. From this the police would use inductive reasoning to form a hypothesis (Person X committed the crime). The case would go to court where deductive reasoning would be used to test this hypothesis. The jury would decide whether the theory passes the tests and is the best explanation. Person X is declared guilty or not guilty based on whether the hypothesis form the police is validated or not. The theory can be further tested by the court of appeal and could be overturned. So to repeat: To explain evidence, one uses inductive reasoning, which forms a hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested using deductive reasoning and this determines whether it is a valid explanation and is therefore the accepted theory. Your world view stops at the hypothesis step. Mine uses the entire process. Also, you have yet to provide any evidence for God. You've provided inductive arguments, but they are not evidence. What would be a helpful for me is if you could give an example where your verification process is applied, step by step. Until then it just seems to me that you don't use a verification process - you just stop at step 2 of the process (where step 1 is an inductive argument and step 2 is a hypothesis).
	Christian Apologist
	Please demonstrate how your theory provides evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.	What theory?
	Your "verification" process stops at exactly that same point as mine!	No it doesn't!
	Again--by appealing to a "verification" process that cannot address the matter at hand you are only using circular reasoning: you think you are presenting reasoned evidence but your are not because the evidence you rely on is irrelevant to the subject at hand!	Circular reasoning? Presenting evidence? Spectacular dodging here - not even trying to answer the question!
	JimC
	Theories don't provide evidence. They provide explanations. There is no such thing as "my verification process" there is just the verification process. And you continue to confuse evidence with explanations. Your worldview stops at the hypothesis stage. You don't go through the deduction stage to form a theory. You use faith to believe a hypothesis. My worldview goes full circle so that a theory is formed, which is then challenged by a new hypothesis, and so on. It would be really helpful if you could walk through this process with an example of your own. I think you'll see then how you only use the first part of the verification process.
	Christian Apologist
	Again you ignore the point! Where does YOUR application of this reasoning process give evidence that there is no god/gods?	Now we're really off topic. How on earth can anyone "give evidence" that something does not exist?
	JimC
	Again - you're talking about a reasoning process giving evidence. Evidence comes first. A reasoning process explains it. It is impossible for me (or anyone) to apply a reasoning process to give evidence.
	Christian Apologist
	No--you're the one claiming that the evidence that I present stops at stage two whereas yours doesn't. I'm asking you to demonstrate where your evidence goes beyond that stage, and what that evidence is.	More dodging - evidence stops at stage 2? It's the process we're discussing not the evidence.
	JimC
	I'm not saying your evidence stops at stage 2 - i'm saying your verification process stops at stage 2. The evidence is step 1. Evidence "doesn't go beyond a stage" . Evidence is a stage. Refer to the previous examples we've looked at here. Evidence is things like finch's beaks, blood stains, fingerprints, fossils, rainbows... any observable fact is evidence. That leads people to form hypotheses (inductive reasoning) and then use deductive reasoning to test the hypothesis and form a theory.
	Christian Apologist
	You're still begging the question. You state that my verification process stops at stage 2 and yours doesn't. Prove it.	What again?
	JimC
	Well I've already given step by step examples with the law court example and the finch/evolution example. Both of those examples show the verification process going full circle. I was hoping you could give a step by step example of how you use the verification process. Let's use the first example in our Peter Kreeft list. It begins with a piece of evidence that "nothing changes itself". It then uses this evidence as the basis of an inductive argument which produces the hypothesis that God exists. And that's where it stops. Step 2. But perhaps you have a better example.
	Christian Apologist
	Change the wording to "god doesn't exist" and drop the Peter Kreeft reference, and I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how your perspective is "verified" and mine isn't.	Waiting - even though I've explained the process at least 3 times. Ho hum.
	JimC
	My perspective is based on what can be verified, not on things that don't exist. Changing the wording to "god doesn't exist" as you suggest, creates a concept that can't be verified. My perspective that gods probably don't exist is based on the lack of any validation that gods do exist.
	Christian Apologist
	So in other words, you can't get beyond step 2 in validating your perspective either! Since it's been established that everything we have to offer as evidence doesn't fit into the reasoning process that you offer--as you admit, the existence/non-existence of god/gods cannot be determined by the reasoning/validation process you insist on--we're back to considering evidence from other sources and thinking outside the box on the issue! If cumulative evidence based on probability suggest that one perspective is more likely than another, then that is evidence in and of itself!	His understanding really seems to be going backwards. Or... I'm being trolled.
	JimC
	I always go beyond step 2 to validate every part of my perspective. The non-existence of gods (or anything) cannot be determined by any verification process that I'm aware of. One can verify things that exist, but I don't see how the non-existence of something can be verified. I think it might be possible to verify the existence of gods, depending on how gods are defined of course. If someone verified the existence of gods, then I'd believe in gods. You still seem confused by the concept of evidence. You say "everything we have to offer as evidence doesn't fit into the reasoning process" but evidence is the first step of the reasoning process. sSo of course evidence fits into the reasoning process - it's the first step of the process . And what on earth is "cumulative evidence based on probability"? Where did that come from?
	Christian Apologist
	You're the one who claimed that your reasoning process went further than mine did when it came for evidence/non-evidence for god/gods. I'm still waiting for you to address that matter with specifics.	Again - confuses evidence with the process.
	I said that the evidence doesn't fit into the reasoning process YOU suggested for verification. If you think that that's the only way that evidence can be presented and weighed, then I'm not the one who is confused by the concept.	Evidence doesn't fit into the process?
	"cumulative evidence based on probability" means assessing the totality of the evidence presented and judging in which direction it points--that is, judging which conclusion is more likely true.	Huh?!
	JimC
	I said I use the full reasoning process and you only use the first 2 steps of the same process, and I gave you an example of that happening with the argument from Change. But I've never said I use a reasoning process to validate the non existence of gods, I said the exact opposite - I said that even trying to validate the non existence of gods is impossible, in my opinion.  If you have an alternative process for "presenting and weighing evidence" then I'd like to hear about it, but as I've explained, you are using the same process as me, but you stop at step 2. Evidence always fits into the reasoning process. Without evidence, there's nothing to validate and the process cannot even begin.  Your final sentence demonstrates your confusion. You don't get to a conclusion by judging evidence. You get to a conclusion by judging a hypothesis. Just try and remember that evidence is step 1. Also remember the law court example - blood stains are evidence: The case for the prosecution is the hypothesis. The trial is the validation of the hypothesis. The guilty verdict is the result of the hypothesis becoming the accepted theory. And so on.  If you could give a step by step example of your reasoning process it might help. But I'm beginning to think you can't.
	Christian Apologist
	Very well--again you admit that your reasoning/validation process has nothing to do with whether god/gods exist. To say that you start with a hypothesis and follow through on conclusions based on evidence for such is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. We all employ that sort of reasoning when it is valid. When it isn't valid for the subject at hand, other means of presenting and considering evidence need to be examined.	Unbelievable. He still doesn't know what the process is. And he thing's I'm not addressing the subject LOL
	I'm presenting evidence for God from multiple approaches which support the hypothesis that God exists. I'm sorry if you can't recognize the validity of this process.	No... he's presenting lots of hypotheses none of which have been validated.
	Remember--both of our perspectives are "on trial." I offered Peter Kreeft's link as a possible starting point to begin my presentation of evidence. I'm still waiting for you to offer whatever evidence leads to your adopting your perspective!
	JimC
	How on earth can my statement that I "start with a hypothesis and follow through to conclusions" be "irrelevant to the subject at hand" when the subject that you created is "Deductive Reasoning versus Inductive Reasoning" and your initial post was a description of the process I've just described that you copied from a social science website?  You've presented evidence such as "nothing changes itself" and the presented a hypothesis based on that evidence. And that's it. Nothing past step 2. My perspective comes from looking at your hypothesis and seeing that it is only a hypothesis - it has not passed any test in order to be a theory. Therefore, to use the courtroom analogy, you've lost the case. Back to the topic. As you say, your hypothesis is a "possible starting point". So what comes next?