Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 174

Thread: Creationism vs. Science, Ham vs. Nye Debate

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Creationism, basing it's arguments off a pre-determined faith-based text, says "It's God". Period. End of discussion and debate.

    I fail to see how you, the brightest man I know here, could in any way defend or stand with that second group.

    I appreciate you are a man of faith, and as such, come to this discussion with your own bias and predetermined "I must beleive X" viewpoint.

    But at the core, I suppose I simply cannot understand how a man as intelligent, logical and brilliant as yourself (frustratingly so to me, as you're vastly superior to myself in almost all forms of rhetorical exchange) can then turn around and basicly be a derpy creationism defender.

    I'm at a loss, and when at a loss, I often express less patience than I should, so for that, I apologize.
    I'm going to start from the end of your post. As usual, you build me up way more than I deserve, and the apology is more than accepted. I understand the frustration; I respect the hell out of you and a good discussion with you, especially when we disagree, often opens up new avenues of thought and insight for me, which is why I prefer the back and forth even if I know you ain't changing your mind for nothing. For me, the frustration happens when you make generalized pronouncements (like "Creationism says it's god, end of debate, has no relationship to reason and is purely faith based") and assume they apply to me. Given what you think of my typical thought process, I'd ask you to reconsider that assumption. Not for everyone; there are plenty of people in the world for whom "faith" (and it's in quotes for a reason, we'll get to that) is simply a matter of cultural context, upbringing, and lack of or even antagonism to reasoned thought. But sufficiently to consider that there are people (and its not a small group) for whom "faith" is the result of deep and considered thought and the application of reason and analysis.

    That said, part of the difficulty is with the whole concept of "faith", which - in the Christian context the English word is usually understood in - often means "belief specifically in the absence of or contradiction to evidence." I prefer the hebrew word "Emunah", which is derived from the root "Amen" [the English word is a transliteration of the hebrew], meaning "true." In Judaism, "faith" in God is (or should be, as a matter of Jewish philosophy) similar to "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow or "faith" in a long time companion - not against the evidence, but based on the evidence.

    (And yes, the statement "the sun will rise tomorrow" is an expression of faith; it is highly likely to do so, absent a whole mess of highly unlikely events [like a massive thermonuclear war erupting today and tearing the earth apart, or an alien race with a black hole generator creating one that swallowed the sun a few years back, etc.], but the reality is we can't know for certain that none of those events will occur. The evidence suggests they won't).


    I also do not feel you've clarified even your own thoughts, as your position is wildly inconsistent, on one hand defeding creationist belief and dogma, on the other denouncing Ham as a "young earth" creationist, as if that placed him in a materially different place than any other faith-based creationist, when the principles (or lack thereof) behind the two variants are exactly the same, i.e. we lack facts, so replace void with "God", however we can definie Him to fit.
    And this is what drives me crazy about discussing things with atheists - their insistence that they know my "real" thought processes and motivations better than I do. Maybe it developed as a reaction to the "well, you're going to hell" atheists too often get from certain folks - but it's not a particularly helpful rhetorical move.


    In this case, I would try and persuade you that defense of Creationism, in any form, is defense of ignorance, susperstition, and human limitations of thinking and psychological processes.

    Creationism is no different than a Native american tribesman's belief that the thunder he hears, which he does not see or understand, is really the Thunderbird. It's lack of facts combined with a lack of abillity (or desire) to aquire facts to say with surety what that something is. In the case of creationism, we have a clear void of knowledge in the pre-Big Bang (and the moments afterwards as well to some degree).

    Science sees that void and says "we do not know, but we're working to measure this, experiment with that, monitor this, see this other thing with our doohicky, etc, etc, etc so we CAN know".

    Creationism, basing it's arguments off a pre-determined faith-based text, says "It's God". Period. End of discussion and debate.

    I fail to see how you, the brightest man I know here, could in any way defend or stand with that second group.
    Science is not the only source of valid knowledge. Logic, reason and experience are also sources of knowledge.

    Logic tells me that there must be an uncaused non-physical first cause. Logic also tells me that any non-physical first cause must be eternal, and unitary. Happy to get into the underlying reasoning if you want.

    Logic also tells me that mass testimony to observable phenomena that the observers are qualified to identify is trustworthy, and that there's a reason that the Sinaitic revelation is the only revelation story in world religion that claims mass revelation accompanied by such phenomena. (Seriously, folks love - rightly - to point out the various analogs to the Jesus story in world religions as an argument that the story was coopted from other tales. But none of those same folks discuss the uniqueness of the Sinai story, or the implications of that uniqueness).

    Again, we can go into the basis for the arguments if you really care to - but the bottom line is they are arguments, at a minimum well supported by logic, and to my mind (and the minds of many, many others, including scientists and other highly intelligent people, not all of whom were raised religious or even Jewish) compelling

  2. #42
    How would you explain the tree being over 6,000 years old?

    Quote Originally Posted by ucrenegade View Post
    No because carbon dating has not been proven to be 100% accurate

    The Earth could only be 6000 years old we don not know for sure and I believe GOD before man.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by rex-n-effect View Post
    No, I would not.
    Then you aren't being serious.

    Whether there is an "uncaused, eternally existing, non-physical cause of the existence of the universe" would have no bearing on whether a belief in Judaism is more likely to be true unless that "uncaused, eternally existing, non-physical cause of the existence of the universe" is identical to the God as defined by Judaism. If the "uncaused, eternally existing, non-physical cause of the existence of the universe" is the collective of gods according to Hinduism then that would make your belief in Judaism no more true than if no "uncaused, eternally existing, non-physical cause of the existence of the universe" existed at all.
    Sorry, but again, you are being unserious. The question wasn't "if there is an uncaused, eternally existing, non-physical cause of the existence of the universe, is Judaism more likely to be true than other depictions of that uncaused, eternally existing, non-physical cause of the existence of the universe?" (which is the question you are answering).

    The question is: "is it more likely to be true than it would be if no such uncaused cause (to abbreviate) exists at all?"

    The answer is self-evidently yes.

    If an uncaused cause does not exist, then it is impossible for Judaism to be true.

    If an uncaused cause does exist, then it is possible for Judaism to be true - assuming it can support its other arguments.

    How likely you think that is is completely irrelevant. Even if there were only an infinitesimal chance, it would be more likely than "impossible". And if the reason for saying "it is impossible for Judaism to be true" lies in the rejection of the other arguments, then the discussion ought to be had on that ground.

    Casting off the "plus more" is an effort to try to make your creationism sound like something scientific but it doesn't make it equatable a logic or physics-based argument.
    No. It's simply a reality. Again, I am not "casting off" the "plus more"; I am establishing the foundation before building the house on top of it.

    If I were saying "so there, God as defined by Judaism exists because a first cause does", your critique would be meaningful. Since I'm not doing that, it comes across as a petulant excuse to avoid engaging the argument. "So what if there's a first cause! That doesn't prove your broader point!"

    Well, no, it doesn't. But I never claimed it did.

    It's not a synergy of syllogisms; it's just wordplay. It's an attempt to sound scientific and reason-based when your arguments rely on non-scientific and non-reason bases. That's dishonest. You make a good example of that above. Your initial use of "uncaused, eternally existing, non-physical cause of the existence of the universe" as the necessary origin of the universe is just wordplay to say God created the universe. You're just casting off the "plus more" because you think the argument sounds more credible that way. It doesn't change the argument.
    Well, thanks for the psychoanalysis. I hope that's not your full time line of work, because you're bad at it.

    Tremendous difference between one individual building on established science to expand knowledge than to use wordplay to obfuscate your intentions.
    So, to recap:

    Scientists can build theorems on evidence and rules themselves built on other evidence.

    Theologians who want to discuss the basis for a belief in God can't; they must provide a single, unitary argument that encompasses all axioms and parameters of God as they understand it, and cannot support their claims by means of separate arguments for individual (or groups of) parameters.

    Sorry, but your vehemence and apparent fear of being "tricked" by "wordplay" aside, there's absolutely no reason in logic why that should be the rule.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by cr726 View Post
    How would you explain the tree being over 6,000 years old?
    He doesn't. As far as he's concerned, the tree is not 6,000 years old, and all evidence that it is must be wrong. Maybe the earth was created "looking old" (its just as impossible to disprove as "maybe none of you exist and I'm in a coma hallucinating all of this"). It's not a claim based on reason, so arguing based on reason is pointless.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    He doesn't. As far as he's concerned, the tree is not 6,000 years old, and all evidence that it is must be wrong. Maybe the earth was created "looking old" (its just as impossible to disprove as "maybe none of you exist and I'm in a coma hallucinating all of this"). It's not a claim based on reason, so arguing based on reason is pointless.
    True

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    I'm going to start from the end of your post. As usual, you build me up way more than I deserve, and the apology is more than accepted. I understand the frustration; I respect the hell out of you and a good discussion with you, especially when we disagree, often opens up new avenues of thought and insight for me, which is why I prefer the back and forth even if I know you ain't changing your mind for nothing. For me, the frustration happens when you make generalized pronouncements (like "Creationism says it's god, end of debate, has no relationship to reason and is purely faith based") and assume they apply to me. Given what you think of my typical thought process, I'd ask you to reconsider that assumption. Not for everyone; there are plenty of people in the world for whom "faith" (and it's in quotes for a reason, we'll get to that) is simply a matter of cultural context, upbringing, and lack of or even antagonism to reasoned thought. But sufficiently to consider that there are people (and its not a small group) for whom "faith" is the result of deep and considered thought and the application of reason and analysis.

    That said, part of the difficulty is with the whole concept of "faith", which - in the Christian context the English word is usually understood in - often means "belief specifically in the absence of or contradiction to evidence." I prefer the hebrew word "Emunah", which is derived from the root "Amen" [the English word is a transliteration of the hebrew], meaning "true." In Judaism, "faith" in God is (or should be, as a matter of Jewish philosophy) similar to "faith" that the sun will rise tomorrow or "faith" in a long time companion - not against the evidence, but based on the evidence.

    (And yes, the statement "the sun will rise tomorrow" is an expression of faith; it is highly likely to do so, absent a whole mess of highly unlikely events [like a massive thermonuclear war erupting today and tearing the earth apart, or an alien race with a black hole generator creating one that swallowed the sun a few years back, etc.], but the reality is we can't know for certain that none of those events will occur. The evidence suggests they won't).
    The issue I would have is, there is no evidence for Faith. The Sun does not rise because you have faith in it. It rises because it's out there in space, and our planet rotates around it, and it will continue to do so till it exausts it's fuel, at which point it will grow into a red Giant, consuming the Earth within it, making this all rather moot.

    One may have "Faith" that their God will rescue us from the soon-to-be-a-cinder before then. Science would say "better have a backup plan".

    And this is what drives me crazy about discussing things with atheists - their insistence that they know my "real" thought processes and motivations better than I do. Maybe it developed as a reaction to the "well, you're going to hell" atheists too often get from certain folks - but it's not a particularly helpful rhetorical move.
    For clarity, I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the absense of evidence.

    Thinking is represented by what we write here. We may say we stand for X, but our writing may in fact say Y. That is a constant issue in the realm of rhetoric, as we humans often come across rather contradictorily in our words and claims.

    That does not mean you are wrong, I may be misunderstanding or misinterpriting what you've said. Or, conversely, you may have claimed to believe X while writing positions that actually support Y.

    Science is not the only source of valid knowledge. Logic, reason and experience are also sources of knowledge.
    Logic is a tool, used in handling of data and information. Reason is humans injecting human0-centric thinking onto facts. Experience is a part of science, except science calls it experimentation.

    None of these things, logic, reason or experience, replace science as the primary and most valid tool for understanding the natural world in which we live (world meaning Universe).

    In many cases, something we may think is logical, isn't. Our reason can fool us, or we can think things reasonable that aren't. Experience is as faulty as our memory when considered as non-scientific.

    I think fighting collectivism is logical, as it's an abject wounding of the individual. Nazi's thought killing all the Jews was reasonable. Alien Abductee claimants say they experienced what they say.

    All are wrong, or may be wrong, or may be faulty is their logical, reasoning and experience.

    Logic tells me that there must be an uncaused non-physical first cause. Logic also tells me that any non-physical first cause must be eternal, and unitary. Happy to get into the underlying reasoning if you want.
    Poor logic. It's a presumption, pure and simple. I don't see any of this as inherantly logical.

    It presumes there simply must be a God. That despite everything in our Universe working just fine, the start (Big Bang) simply must be a "uncaused non-physical cause", which you (and most) appear (by my reading) to inject as God?

    It appears to reject the far more logical (IMO) theorum that the Big Bang was or could be simply another moment in the natural processes, i.e. the result of a "Big Crunch/Big Bounce" in a Universe model where xpansion ends, and contraction begins. Or that the Universe itself 9as we see/experience it) may be "caused" by actions in another Universe or other dimentional plane (I am not remotely qualified to explain or detail these theories, as they go WELL beyond my moronic laymans understanding of them).

    Or that any other of a million possabillities of cause could exist, none of which require a "uncaused non-physical cause" to be the progenitor of them.

    Again, inserting God, in any form, into what is simply a bsic lack of knowledge is not logical, reasonable or wise. It's core-level human superstition, the desire to see patterns and make reality seem more controlled and meaningful than it is.

    For example, what if I told you you were an insignifigant spec, a dust mote in th verse, with no inherant value, meaning or future of any kind of a Universeal scale. Most humans reject that, but the fact is, that is EXACTLY what we are. A tiny spec of nothing in a massive sea of the Universe, living exceptionally short and meaningless lives, lives we desperately feel must have value assigned to them.

    Again, thats philosophy, not science, and the two are not one and the same.

    Logic also tells me that mass testimony to observable phenomena that the observers are qualified to identify is trustworthy, and that there's a reason that the Sinaitic revelation is the only revelation story in world religion that claims mass revelation accompanied by such phenomena. (Seriously, folks love - rightly - to point out the various analogs to the Jesus story in world religions as an argument that the story was coopted from other tales. But none of those same folks discuss the uniqueness of the Sinai story, or the implications of that uniqueness).
    I have no idea what you're describing, nor how to respond to it.

    But I'll close with this: I find it amazing that even our most intelligent people often are compelled to believe in what should clearly be seen as superstition and social control mechanics of ancient peoples. Why this is so difficult to many, I will truly never understand, why they'd go through so much effort to cling to the ways ancent peoples tried (often lamely) to explain their world, rationalize their actions, or control their fellow populations. The equivalent today would be peopel worhsiping the words of David Koresh or Jerry Sienfeld 3,000 years from now. It's utterly illogical to me that a moden, educated, inelligent man fails to put these ancient texts and beliefs in their proper historic contaxt of that time, of that age, and the limitations and purposes they served then. This should not be this difficult for us....and the proof is how easy it is to dimiss the faith-based beliefs of OTHER faiths! Surely Doggin does not beleive thunder is caused b the Thunderbird. Or that Zeus created the world. Or that Jupiter (the Roman God) leads a hierarchy of Gods who decide our fate. These similar ancient beleifs are laughed off as just that, put in their historic perspective, and left behind. Yet those who so easily do that, seem unable to do it to their OWN faiths, which they hold as "the one word of God", simply declaring all else (and often science) as wrong/heretical.

    It is, IMO, one of the biggest weaknesses in the mind of man that we have such trouble with this still.
    Last edited by Warfish; 02-07-2014 at 10:51 AM.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by doggin94it View Post
    Then you aren't being serious.

    Sorry, but again, you are being unserious. The question wasn't "if there is an uncaused, eternally existing, non-physical cause of the existence of the universe, is Judaism more likely to be true than other depictions of that uncaused, eternally existing, non-physical cause of the existence of the universe?" (which is the question you are answering).

    The question is: "is it more likely to be true than it would be if no such uncaused cause (to abbreviate) exists at all?"

    The answer is self-evidently yes.

    If an uncaused cause does not exist, then it is impossible for Judaism to be true.

    If an uncaused cause does exist, then it is possible for Judaism to be true - assuming it can support its other arguments.

    How likely you think that is is completely irrelevant. Even if there were only an infinitesimal chance, it would be more likely than "impossible". And if the reason for saying "it is impossible for Judaism to be true" lies in the rejection of the other arguments, then the discussion ought to be had on that ground.
    This all only holds true if you accept your underlying premise that the existence of one thing means a second thing exists or could exist. I do not agree with that premise because it is neither evidential nor logical proof of the existence of anything. To apply your reasoning in a less-conflicting example:

    I possess a valid vehicle liability policy in Texas, where I live. To purchase a vehicle in Texas, one must have such as policy. Because I have that policy, it is possible that I have legally purchased a car. If I did not have the policy then it would be impossible that I have legally purchased a vehicle. However, although it is possible that I have legally purchased a car it does not mean I have purchased a car. I also have to possess a policy to legally drive any vehicle. It is equally possible that I merely acquired the policy to drive somebody else's vehicle, a rental, a work vehicle, etc.

    The equal possibility of a multitude of possibilities does not equate into evidence that any one of them exists, that any of them exists, or that more than one does not simultaneously exist. That makes it no evidence at all. That is the problem with your argument. Even if such a "...force" exists that is only equal evidence of every religion ever postulated plus equal evidence of every religion never thought up plus evidence of no religion, since that "...force" may not be sentient at all.

    If you are going to break the analysis down into small pieces, so that you must first prove or disprove the existence and effect of the "...force" then you must first prove or disprove whether the "...force" exists and caused the creation of the universe. If you can neither prove nor disprove it then again, you are stuck with equal possibilities and that is no evidence at all.

    No. It's simply a reality. Again, I am not "casting off" the "plus more"; I am establishing the foundation before building the house on top of it.

    If I were saying "so there, God as defined by Judaism exists because a first cause does", your critique would be meaningful. Since I'm not doing that, it comes across as a petulant excuse to avoid engaging the argument. "So what if there's a first cause! That doesn't prove your broader point!"

    Well, no, it doesn't. But I never claimed it did.

    Well, thanks for the psychoanalysis. I hope that's not your full time line of work, because you're bad at it.

    So, to recap:

    Scientists can build theorems on evidence and rules themselves built on other evidence.

    Theologians who want to discuss the basis for a belief in God can't; they must provide a single, unitary argument that encompasses all axioms and parameters of God as they understand it, and cannot support their claims by means of separate arguments for individual (or groups of) parameters.

    Sorry, but your vehemence and apparent fear of being "tricked" by "wordplay" aside, there's absolutely no reason in logic why that should be the rule.
    What you are doing is not building a theory or argument on evidence. You are creating a fictional straw-man to prove your argument.

    When atomic theory was developed, it first required an understanding of the atom. It first accepted as true knowledge regarding matter and the structure of atoms. Scientists did not change attributes of atoms for the sake of building the theory. They did not disregard certain behaviors of atoms to build the theory. They accepted what they knew and applied it to the entirety of scientific knowledge. After all, the behavior of atoms is what it is regardless of our understanding of it. It does not change based upon what we know or believe of it.

    When you talk about a "...force" as some religion-neutral argument you are changing attributes of the "...force" and disconnecting it from the evidence you first rely on to suggest its existence. Your connection to a belief in this "...force" arises from religious texts and applies to a very specific and complete deity. By suggesting the "...force" is religion-neutral you are casting off attributes of it and disregarding the textual foundation of your faith. That is like changing the behavior of atoms to fit your theory rather than fitting your theory upon the behavior of atoms. If a "...force" has X, Y, Z attributes then it has those attributes regardless of whether you only want to talk about X attribute. However, you are suggesting that Y and Z do not exist until we first agree that X is true.

    You are not first building a foundation to lay a house. You are suggesting you have a neutral foundation upon which any house can be built, which isn't true.

  8. #48
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Since Doggin doesn't like dismissive one-liners, I'll play my best FF2 and just leave this here:

    Really WF?

    I don't accept the basic premise that religion is like a penis. I think thats a logical fallacy - or is that phallusy?

    Here's an idea to consider: no matter how hard people try, they never are able to fully leave their beliefs at the door and argue logically The undercurrent is there in the posts (not just yours, WF)

    Having said that, I find it interesting that people can't seem to accept that they may be partially correct, and others may be partially correct also.
    The origins of life and the universe is definitely one of those topics.

  9. #49
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,963
    God doesn't exist.

    Plain and simple.

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,137
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    God doesn't exist.

    Plain and simple.
    Until you are in a foxhole.

  11. #51
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,553
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    God doesn't exist.

    Plain and simple.
    There you have it..billions of people have been wrong for many centuries. Thank GOD we have a plumber to straighten it all out for us sheep.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    There you have it..billions of people have been wrong for many centuries. Thank GOD we have a plumber to straighten it all out for us sheep.
    Careful bro, Jesus was a carpenter. And a lot of people listened to him.

  13. #53
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,563
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    Careful bro, Jesus was a carpenter. And a lot of people listened to him.
    Yeah.

    The carpenter taught people to "love your neighbor" and to "turn the other cheek". The plumber wants to "kill everyone in the Middle East".

    Same thing, though.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Yeah.

    The carpenter taught people to "love your neighbor" and to "turn the other cheek". The plumber wants to "kill everyone in the Middle East".

    Same thing, though.
    I just thought it was a pretty cheap shot at a noble profession.

  15. #55
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,553
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    I just thought it was a pretty cheap shot at a noble profession.
    Not a shot at all. I was referring to him... not the profession. In fact, I like the guy. Just breaking balls. If I weren't a CPA , Id be an electrician or plumber. Very noble professions.

  16. #56
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,760
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Until you are in a foxhole.
    Immaterial; he lives near Lake Erie.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by ucrenegade View Post
    I honestly don't understand why people have to say they are different maybe GOD does his work through science.......Usually their is a cause and effect to everything and maybe he uses science for his miracles. Then sometimes he performs miracles that are just that miracles but that is usually why they are not aided by big events.

    For example someone lost in the woods but then miraculously someone shows up and leads you out but when you turn around he is gone and nowhere to be found.

    Then their are other times where I truly believe GOD uses science to create some of his miracles.

    Stop differentiating them.

    I do not or will I ever believe in evolution though.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    Not a shot at all. I was referring to him... not the profession. In fact, I like the guy. Just breaking balls. If I weren't a CPA , Id be an electrician or plumber. Very noble professions.
    For ****sake use a smilie!!!

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by FF2 View Post
    I just thought it was a pretty cheap shot at a noble profession.
    Desk-bound drone is a noble profession?

    Or did you forget that PlumberKhan has told us he's now "OfficedroneKhan"?

    I guess answering phones and typing on a computer could be noble. Maybe. Sorta.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Desk-bound drone is a noble profession?

    Or did you forget that PlumberKhan has told us he's now "OfficedroneKhan"?

    I guess answering phones and typing on a computer could be noble. Maybe. Sorta.
    Are we at the point now where we are going to be discounting people because of what they do for work? Or was that said in jest?

    (Forgive my sensitivity, I sit at a desk all day)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us