Modern creationism makes no sense

Page 25 of 29 [ 456 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

07 Jun 2010, 9:21 am

AngelRho wrote:

What YOU'RE saying is that such a belief ought to be ignored or, as AG put it, not believed at all until evidence to the contrary sufficiently supports such an idea, correct?

I was just describing what I thought AG had said, since it seemed you might have misunderstood him. I don't have to share his stance. As a Christian, I believe things that I cannot prove.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 9:38 am

Orwell wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

What YOU'RE saying is that such a belief ought to be ignored or, as AG put it, not believed at all until evidence to the contrary sufficiently supports such an idea, correct?

I was just describing what I thought AG had said, since it seemed you might have misunderstood him. I don't have to share his stance. As a Christian, I believe things that I cannot prove.

As do I. And I probably DID misunderstand, and I'm only digging to try to understand what AG means. My first question was BASICALLY "Does something not exist if it can't be proven?" Speaking in objective, scientific terms, of course. And by "proven," I guess I really mean "tested," as nothing seems to really be proven beyond what evidence reveals about it. I can't, for example, "prove" that such an invisible thing such as gravity exists. I can, however, test the LAW of gravity in the sense I can drop an object and observe that it falls EVERY SINGLE TIME. I can also drop a rubber ball, which seems to initially defy gravity by bouncing, yet the amplitude of each bounce decreases exponentially as the ball loses energy until, perhaps, ground resistance renders the ball stationery. If there is no force that accomplishes this, that which we call gravity, then the ball (or any other object) should remain motionless relative to its position with the earth. If I were to apply some energy to the ball, I should expect to see it continue on linearly ("an object in motion stays in motion"). For both to be true, they cannot be mutually exclusive. The ball motionless on the ground can't truly be motionless (and we know that it is not). I have not scientifically "proven" these ideas, but the evidence in their favor is certainly convincing.

So AG's idea is that something should not be believed until some means, whether present or future, provides testable evidence (or a way to test evidence)? Is that about right?

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

07 Jun 2010, 9:54 am

Quote:

What YOU'RE saying is that such a belief ought to be ignored or, as AG put it, not believed at all until evidence to the contrary sufficiently supports such an idea, correct?

AngelRho wrote:

So AG's idea is that something should not be believed until some means, whether present or future, provides testable evidence (or a way to test evidence)? Is that about right?

Right. Ideas that give no falsifiable / verifiable are to vague to believe.

AngelRho wrote:

The problem I have with this is that conversation between theology and science is essentially a monologue; theology just has to wait until "one day" the science supports it. I'm sure you can understand why this is unacceptable to a Christian, or really anyone of any kind of faith.

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?

AngelRho wrote:

01001011 wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

Before I continue on, I should probably ask who here does NOT believe in ANYTHING that is unseen--that means ANYTHING. If science can't prove or at least show that something exists, then it does not exist, nor can it. It is, therefore, untrue. Any takers?

Do you believe there is an invisible fire breathing dragon standing at your back that can roast you alive anytime? Why?

Quote:

There are, however, enough problems with science in general that it can't be relied upon as much as some of those here seem to believe.

And you think a magic book written by people 2000 years ago more reliable?

Binarydude:

You chose to address me and the questions I asked. Don't ask ME what I think... Answer the question yourself.

AG answered the question--if science/logic cannot reveal something, then it does not exist (I'm paraphrasing to be a bit more precise since AG's answer appears somewhat wishy-washy--let me know if that changes the meaning too much). I'm confident in rewording it as such because if something does not exist, then no, we should not believe it. So my paraphrase is a distillation. I've seen ruveyn to be much more precise, so before I continue, I want to make sure these terms are perfectly clear.

Greenblue also seems to me to be in concurrence.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 10:06 am

01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?

To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.

01001011
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

07 Jun 2010, 10:17 am

AngelRho wrote:

01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?

To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.

Believing anything as invisible as the fire breathing dragon is as silly as believing the invisible fire breathing dragon. Maybe you think that believing the invisible fire breathing dragon is not silly. I can't know without asking you.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Jun 2010, 10:49 am

AngelRho wrote:

OK, I think I almost get it. Science "as-is" isn't quite so hard and fast; you said it's "contingent" on future discoveries.

I could ALMOST find that acceptable, because as a Christian, this idea DOES allow for the existence of God. It does so on the basis of, for the sake of argument, the truth that IF God does exist, it may POSSIBLY be proven that God exists (someday). One may conceivably maintain one's faith to guard against Hell "just in case," but the ultimate proof (if there is to be any) is yet to come.

What YOU'RE saying is that such a belief ought to be ignored or, as AG put it, not believed at all until evidence to the contrary sufficiently supports such an idea, correct?

That's the question, and I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.

Right, a belief in God ought to be ignored until supported by evidence. It also certainly should be ignored if opposed in some form or fashion by evidence.(I argue that the Christian God is both unsupported and somewhat opposed by the evidence)

Quote:

Well, I can understand that, but given that I consider this a simple matter of epistemic hygiene, you must understand this is why I consider believers to be ridiculous, foolish, and even a little dishonest. I mean, their defense is arguing that while science has no evidence, logical arguments from philosophy do, the problem is that all of these arguments fail. Thus, I just see this as poor truth-finding. Our dialogue with the truth is in some sense a monologue as well, in that the truth always has the last word on what it is, and even though people of faith may dislike that, the truth is true.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 11:36 am

01001011 wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?

To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.

That is true. You can't know without asking me. But what I believe is not the issue. What is important is that YOU believe that anything such as your dragon is silly.

Binary, tell me this: Why do you think that believing in anything invisible is silly?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Jun 2010, 11:54 am

AngelRho wrote:

01001011 wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?

To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.

AngelRho, it is a method of argumentation by ridicule. Believing in invisible things isn't silly, as such things like gases in air and most spectra of electromagnetic radiation are quite invisible to us. Also, some things which are unverifiable are also invisible, such as dark matter. But, of course, the purpose of adjective usage is in this type of debate tactic is independent of the meaning of the adjective so much as it is actually dependent upon the pejorative connotations of the adjective.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 12:02 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

01001011 wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?

To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.

That much I gathered, 'keet. But Binary is the one who said it. He is, therefore, responsible for it. If that is how he truly feels, because we have no indication or reason to believe he feels any other way, he should answer for himself, don't you think?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Jun 2010, 12:06 pm

AngelRho wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

01001011 wrote:

AngelRho wrote:

01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?

To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.

I suppose he should answer for himself. Sorry. I suppose I'm just getting used to the feeling of being ganged up upon again, so that I've forgotten what fairness feels like in order to provide it.

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 12:18 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I suppose he should answer for himself. Sorry. I suppose I'm just getting used to the feeling of being ganged up upon again, so that I've forgotten what fairness feels like in order to provide it.

No worries. Been there. It does get time-consuming, though. Ya know, it's kinda like "rules of engagement" in Vietnam. A decisive victory may be "possible," but it is not won without difficulty if one chooses to stand on principle.

Think of it another way: Ever notice that congressional Democrats almost NEVER get brought up on ethics charges? There's a good reason for that. To accuse someone of an ethics violation is to hold them to a moral standard. No standard = no wrongdoing. We may not feel that "fairness" is warranted, but we ought to no less require it.

Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

07 Jun 2010, 12:57 pm

AngelRho wrote:

I'm still not sure I understand, though, exactly why ad hoc-ness is so egregious since so many so-called scientific "truths" have some ad hoc element to them. The idea in chemistry, for example, that ions behave in specific kinds of ways in the formation of more complex molecules doesn't seem to have that much bearing on nuclear unstable elements in the process of decay.

You appear to be using "ad hoc" as if it meant "irrelevant". The definition I know is this:

Quote:

In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.

Does that help in understanding why ad hoc hypotheses are so egregious?

AngelRho wrote:

For example, it seems to me that Gromit, AG, and ruveyn (for example) APPEAR to hold the idea ONLY those things that exist in nature and are observable are true.

No. I told you that this idea, as you describe it, is so silly that you'll have a hard time finding anyone who believes in it. Please do tell me how you get from there to thinking I believe it. I really want to know.

You also misinterpreted AG's answer to a related question from you. Your paraphrasing didn't make his answer more precise and less wishy-washy, it radically changed the meaning.

AngelRho wrote:

Now, of course, I don't KNOW these three quite well, so it is possible that making that statement is in error.

It is. I told you before that I accept, for example, the existence of irrational numbers. I have never observed an irrational number, nor do I expect to. I offered to explain what the difference is between my position and the position you attacked, and why it matters. You weren't interested. Therefore the error is not surprising.

AngelRho wrote:

I can't, for example, "prove" that such an invisible thing such as gravity exists. I can, however, test the LAW of gravity in the sense I can drop an object and observe that it falls EVERY SINGLE TIME.

That looks like you got it. I don't observe gravity. I find a regularity in my observations, and infer the existence of something I call gravity. If I believed only what I observe, I would have to deny the existence of gravity. And of irrational numbers.

Now please tell me why you thought I believed something that absurd?

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 2:02 pm

Gromit wrote:

You also misinterpreted AG's answer to a related question from you. Your paraphrasing didn't make his answer more precise and less wishy-washy, it radically changed the meaning.

AngelRho wrote:

Now, of course, I don't KNOW these three quite well, so it is possible that making that statement is in error.

AngelRho wrote:

Yes, I did misinterpret AG's answer, but it wasn't deliberate. I was just trying to make sure I understood something. AG DID provide the information I was looking for, so any mistake in my thinking on that is rectified.

My apologies for ascribing something to you in error. So what DO you think? You said that you "infer the existence" from regularity in your observations. With gravity, even though we can't "see" it, we do have the evidence from its effects on objects. Ergo, according to AG, greenblue, and Binary, we may believe that there is such a force as gravity, even if we are unclear as to EXACTLY what it is. It's like arguing that the sun does not exist. I can point to evidence that "proves" the sun exists just by stepping out on a clear day. As to what the sun IS, exactly, is a whole other issue. We agree that there IS such a thing as the sun. For you, is evidence required for belief? Or, more to the point, should something be ignored if there is no evidence for it? Or, perhaps, do you think that what these three have plainly said is absurd?

jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

07 Jun 2010, 2:57 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

The "evidence" depends on how you look at things. I respect evolutionists for their beliefs but you gotta admit that a belief in God or a Creator is not far-fetched. You see, the two belief systems is based on two different things. Evolution is about the survival of favourable traits while Creationism is about the traits (which are supposed to be well-suited for the environment) designed by God. Uh...what evidence do you have against a Christian God?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Jun 2010, 3:20 pm

jc6chan wrote:

The "evidence" depends on how you look at things. I respect evolutionists for their beliefs but you gotta admit that a belief in God or a Creator is not far-fetched.

Actually, I don't. There is too much that is problematic in my mind for any being that we would call "God".

Quote:

You see, the two belief systems is based on two different things. Evolution is about the survival of favourable traits while Creationism is about the traits (which are supposed to be well-suited for the environment) designed by God.

Well, the problem is that many traits that survive aren't really "good" in any meaningful sense, but rather some seem rather horrifying, a fact pointed out by Darwin himself. So, it is difficult to see a teleology, but very easy to see that an ateleological process could have causes such nonsense.

Quote:

Uh...what evidence do you have against a Christian God?

1) Imperfect design.
2) Evil.

The Christian God is perfect and morally perfect, so imperfect creations, and evil both tend to suggest that such a being does not exist. Some would even argue that they outright PROVE that such a being doesn't exist.

jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

07 Jun 2010, 5:20 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Can you clarify what you mean by "horrifying"?

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Everything was perfect in the Garden of Eden and the first two humans did not sin yet back then.

Page 25 of 29 [ 456 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Next

Jump to:

Modern creationism makes no sense Post Reply New Topic

Modern creationism makes no sense