Another one relates to meaning. Victor Reppert puts it like this in his book C S Lewis’ Dangerous Idea: “If reality is fundamentally physical, and the state of the physical world does not uniquely determine what meaning a word has, it follows that the word has no determinate meaning. So how could there be any determinate meaning to the words and concepts that we use? W.V Quine argued that physical information leaves it indeterminate as to what, say, a speaker in another language means by the word Gavagai. There is no fact of the matter as to whether the native is referring to “rabbit” or “undetached rabbit parts”. But similarly would not this argument also show that there is no fact of the matter as to what Quine means by naturalism when he says “naturalism is true”?”. He goes on to create the line of argument: Naturalism can’t account for facts of the matter, but facts of the matter do exist (implied by rational inference), hence naturalism is false.
The objections along these lines create serious conceptual problems for naturalism, and reduce it’s likelihood of being a true worldview.

Another thing-

Re: A literal Bible. Much has been said in this thread about whether I and other OLO users "take the Bible literally".

However, I deny the premise of the question. The Bible is made up of poetry, history, parable, apocalyptic prophecy, songs, words of wisdom and more. To complicate things further, context is extremely importance to any interpretation, and I personally place more emphasis on context than most. Therefore, in my view, you’re asking “Should highly contextualized poetry, parables etc etc be taken literally”? to which I answer that the question is unnecessarily simplistic

Dear Banjo,
Your point is perfectly clear. Having to say both words ‘intelligent’ & ‘design’ is totally unnecessary. The original founder of this word, the dummy who had the mental thought to combine together those two words should be shoved down an empty hole. To find one of the root causes of the problem, you could perhaps refer back to my original post where I pointed out that researchers would sometimes marvel at a new discovery in biology, extolling its wonderful design in their paper before their fellow colleague had the chance opportunity to remind them that design is only an illusory trick in biology. The end result was the absolute necessity to again emphasise the purposefully intelligent aspect of design.

david f, you argue that the laws of physics do not require a law giver. An example you give is that we cannot choose whether to obey the laws of physics. However, the issue is more to do with the order associated with scientific laws.

Why are the laws of the universe even describable and ordered at all? I know some historians have suggested it was the concept of a divine being and his order that helped science to get off the ground in the 16th century or so because a divine being would create an ordered world. (But I haven't read many of those arguments in detail). The idea of God might've actually led them to believe that the universe "should" be ordered and describable. It doesn't prove much but it's an interesting thought.

Dear Trav,

Order exists in the universe. Therefore you cite the fact that some historians suggested the concept of a divine being and his order that helped science to get off the ground in the 16th century or so because a divine being would create an ordered world. This supposition generates another question. If the fact that we have an world with orderly physical laws indicates some intelligence was behind it all then it follows that the existence of a being that could create such a world generates the question of how to account for such a being. How was this intelligence created? If this intelligence was created what entity created it so we then can continue the process and have the possibility of infinite regression.

You implicitly cited one of the proofs for God. The great philosopher Kant examined all the proofs of God and decided that none of them could be justified. However, he remained a Lutheran. Kant was a professor in Konigsberg at a university sponsored by the Prussian government which had an official theistic religion. I am not a professor at such an institution, and my livelihood does not depend on religious belief. I do not have to believe in any supernatural entities and find it unnecessary to postulate such entities.

Last night I heard a talk by Peggy MacQueen, a PhD candidate. She spoke at the Royal Geographic Society of Brisbane about her study of the various species of pademelon, a marsupial found in New Guinea and Australia. From the DNA of the pademelon one can generate a history of its distribution and development. According to evolutionary theory isolated populations form new species. The genetic code changes by mutations at a known rate and so we can trace development. The ancestral pademelon apparently arose 10 million years ago in Tasmania. About 3 mya there was a land bridge to New Zealand which pademelons apparently crossed, and the various species of pademelon in New Zealand can be dated to about 3 mya.

One does not need the invention of a God to appreciate the earth’s wonders.

OH dear lord....bugsy-quote..<<..BTW,..the Discovery Institute isn't the scientific community.>>..thats a boad-brush-off...noting you didnt[at least]..go so far as saying..it..dont contain the researches of scientist's

but lets look at how you verify...
your broad-brush-off

<<I had a search on "Web of Science",..an online citation index,
for articles that featured "intelligent design" in the topic.>>lol

go figure..any science presented...under the id.lable...automaticly gets canned/..ie is not publishe..NOR read..thus is discarded ..as a matter of policy..UNREAD..because..of 'web..[lol]..of science'/DONT RECOGNISE ID..AS A science...thus..

[its like going to hell...to ask if angels are real]..
how can you be so clever..
yet reveal..yourself..to be/remain..so ignorant...

cleverly..not rebutting/..fact with fact..but only..assosiation/against assosiation...

this is a peer/age...and you go to the opposing camp..lol...
who by their very policy..say you dont egsist...diss-smiss..AUTOMATICLY..any/all reference to your opposing theory/fact

who wont/...
who refuse..to even consider the/ANY opposing science...

ie refuse/AUTOMATICLY..any science their policy fears/
any science that contradicts..their stance..
let alone allow be considerd any opposing fact/facts../offered..

would you go to a lab/..or nature..to learn about god?

TRAV...<<..how could there be/..any determinate meaning..to the words and concepts that we use?>>good point

WHAT does natural..have to do with science?

what does selection to do with natural...what science is the science..of natural/selection..but the natural/doing the selection

its the same USE..OF..buzz=words...the same..as saying nature does/did it...[thus not science...

that nature/selected..via an intelligent selector/process
via an intelligent/..reasond process..a/natural process/
ie..[not scientific process..thus thats naturally..nature/selecting

gods nature/'naturally selecting..[and de=selecting]...
as in survival...of the fit-test...again nought to do with man/science...selecting/deselecting...lol,..,naturally/not scientificly

geez...talk about..you cant see the for-rest..for the trees

lets consider..if a scientist...says evolution of SPECIES
that he means..evolution of species...ie not..evolution of genus...

which is what/..those following micro-evolution/of species..have twisted...spun/decieved..into evolution of genus/macro-evolution..lol

words are sacred...sacred/words... are S/words
the pen/..writing the words..can cut like a s/word

nature is encom-passed..by naturalism..to thus become an other ism

but lets give back to god..his nature...his nurture...
see that life begets life..that words get their rebuttal/..via words

while god goes on..quietly..doing that god does naturally..
by his very nature../naturally..

emmanuel...god within..all of us

OH DAVID/..beloved of god
how can you be so blind?

quote...<<The ancestral/pademelon apparently...>>lol<<..arose 10 million years ago..in Tasmania.>>>

my dear boy...lets ask what AROSE IT?

or..via your belief system...what did it arose FROM

if your ex-purt..dont say..
then i say..it arose from god
till you/your science..prove's..it didnt

lets say it arose/../naturally...
as your scientist will vali-date..ie 10 million years AGO

..<<About 3 mya/there was a land bridge..to New Zealand which pademelons apparently crossed,..and the various species of pademelon in New Zealand..can be dated to about 3 mya.>>>lol

so..ol buddy..we still have the skimmed over gap..[of 7 million/years]..since,...it arose

but the key being..
if your scienctist..didnt state/..from what
..how is that science?

are we to asume...?
is that science?

..you reveal a tiny bit...but clearly..its ancestoral being..lived...as a paddy...lol..10 million/years..ago

there must be a nearest match.../bro,,,a-rose..FROM WHAT?
but as you/she..didnt present this...know it/the science/link..dont/..didnt egsist..via faulsifyable science fact

..name the micro/evolution..of species..by which it egsisted/ten million years ago...

see had you not been looking for verification..of your preconcieved belief..you could have asked..

..but you didnt

see microevolution of 10 million years
must be linked back...

to another /micro-evolution...from which it must have decended...[noting for 10 mil years..its been a MICRO/evolving..paddymelon/ie species...

but what was it..before?...HAS..the dna link has gone cold?

thus its glossed over..by saying...lol'it arose'...lol
did it..spontainiously/arose?

how come you stopped thinking..after her buzzword?

arose..is arose...but is it science?

thus are the limits.. of science/method..

cut off at the knees/..from what/MICRO=evolution/within/species
...did it a-rose...but that/..nonsense word..switched off your thinking...live with-it

you been decieved yet again

the dna/link...must go on beyond..
or else god arose it/..10 million years/mya/ago...get it..

you/she presented incomplete science..
ie have no clue...what it arose..from...ie have no science beyond..10MYA

if you/she has got..the SCIENCE/dna..linkage..reveal it
if not stand revealed..as the perveyer..of yet another fraud

love ya bro