Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inconsistencies within atheistic evolution
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 5 of 115 (65896)
11-11-2003 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by grace2u
11-11-2003 5:48 PM


I think this possibly belongs in the "Is It Sciece" thread.
Point 1)
"atheistic-evolution" -- since evolution doesn't say anything about the existance of God it is odd that you would glue these two terms together. I don't think even the atheisits say God *couldn't* have created the world as it is. They just don't believe that separately from any evolutionary questions. As you have suggested the two issues of evolution as mechanism for God (or not God) to get the world as it is today and the existance (or not) of God are separable questions and are kept separate in the mind of most scientists and religious believers.
Point 2)
I think you are saying that there are two main classes of things taken as assumptions: 1) laws of science and 2) logic
How are either of these simply assumptions? We test the "laws" of science (if by that you mean things like the conservation of energy/mass, general relativity and quantum mechanics ) all the time. In addtion, what would you suggest to replace "the laws of logic" whatever you mean by that?
I take it the existance of a God which has zero objective evidence is ok by you? How do you equate that to tested "laws"?
We test the laws you speak of by finding out how well our predictions stand up against the real world. They sure seem to be working awfully well so far. Got a better idea?
Point 3)
You seem to say in point 2 that it isn't allowed to use things which haven't been proven or tested or whatever. However, in theism it is ok to do exactly that. Fine! That is why your approach isn't science at all. It also doesn't seem to be useful in telling us anything about the natural world around us.
I think you will have to carry on and detail the metaphysics you are talking about. What you have above is only specifying the difference between science and religion. That is, one tries very hard to test and retest any of it's assumptions the other avoids that completly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 5:48 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 6:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 57 of 115 (66899)
11-16-2003 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by grace2u
11-16-2003 4:00 PM


Grace2u writes:
This principle is used in mathematics as well as by logicians. 4+5=5+4 Again I could not postulate ANY system I want and expect it to work within reality. There are Laws of Logic which do govern reality. Is this semantics??
Oh boy, I'm not a mathematician, we'll wait for one of them. But a quick google finds that there are a lot areas where you appear to be wrong.
When you are shown that mathematical systmes exist where operations are not commutative but that describe reality will you back off your arrogant stance a bit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by grace2u, posted 11-16-2003 4:00 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 11:41 AM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 65 of 115 (67052)
11-17-2003 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Milagros
11-16-2003 6:52 PM


Re: Pardon me but...
No you can't. The statement was "on the surface".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Milagros, posted 11-16-2003 6:52 PM Milagros has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 66 of 115 (67054)
11-17-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by grace2u
11-17-2003 10:17 AM


Re: Pardon me but...
Interesting Grace2U, you simply ignored all the points made regarding your conjectures. That seems to indicate that you either didn't understand them or don't know what to say next. Care to discuss those points?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 10:17 AM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 11:46 AM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 73 of 115 (67181)
11-17-2003 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by grace2u
11-17-2003 5:14 PM


Re: Pardon me but...
Grace2U, how about getting off the to P or ~P for a bit? You have gone on about the idea of absolute morality a number of times. It has been pointed out that there doesn't seem to be any such thing that different people have different ideas of the details of what is moral. Could you demonstrate what is "absolutely moral" and why it is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 5:14 PM grace2u has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 82 of 115 (67249)
11-17-2003 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by grace2u
11-17-2003 8:45 PM


grace2u writes:
One of the characteristics of this God that is presupposed as well as evidenced is that He is an eternal entity
"as evidenced", how is that evidenced? We don't have any objective evidence that he is there. I don't see how we can know he has been there forever in the past and will be there forever in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by grace2u, posted 11-17-2003 8:45 PM grace2u has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 89 of 115 (67336)
11-18-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by grace2u
11-18-2003 10:35 AM


the laws of thoguht(sic)
Could you elucidate these laws of thought please? You seem to make up a lot of things without explaining the terms you have already used.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 10:35 AM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by grace2u, posted 11-18-2003 12:15 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024