Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist theory
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 61 of 151 (324015)
06-20-2006 5:32 PM


Okay, it looks as if I've still got posting permission (but this may be because I can still post in the "Why is the process blind" thread), so if I'm not suppossed to be here, please let me know (any admins).
As you say, Syamsu, creation theory rests on three principles--the creator, the act of creation, and the created. You go on to state that nothing can be known about the creator objectively, and no, I'm not going to bark up the same tree. The problem here, is that that means that the creator's existence is then subjective, and can only be known subjectively, which means that science must then assume that the creator exists, which completely goes against the neutral stance science has on the existence of the supernatural and non-testable.
Your theory depends on the creator's existence. But as it can only be known subjectively, we will never know for certain whether or not he exists--you feel he does, I feel he does not, Faith and Herapton feel He does, Quetzal and others do not. If we can't have something concrete for the foundation of a theory, it's already in pretty shoddy shape. And unfortunately for you, there is no conrete foundation of a creator.
Please keep in mind, it's not so much that you are requiring this portion of your theory to be subjective and science has to be objective, it's that there's a problem with existence becoming a subjective matter, especially when this existence is required for the theory's validity. It's kind off like a logical fallacy.
If you want more (syamsu), let me know. If I've overstepped my priveleges,(admins) please let me know.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Syamsu, posted 06-20-2006 5:58 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 64 by AdminNWR, posted 06-20-2006 7:37 PM kuresu has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 62 of 151 (324027)
06-20-2006 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Cold Foreign Object
06-19-2006 3:32 PM


Re: General philosophy versus science
Science assumes the existence of a Creator/Designer
No. science does not assume the existence of any supernatural events. In fact, even if something is entirely natural, and it's not testable and repeatable, it's existence is subject to a "unkown", much like God.
It is only your, religious right, reactionary, psuedoscience that assumes God. You, as you did in your thread, Herapton, have confused Ontological naturalism (which is aetheism), with methodological naturalism. Again. For at least the second time. Go reread my post concerning what both are (in your thread).
It's very difficult to debate with people who REFUSE to abandon their preconceptions and bias's. You may say I have one, and I do--against idiots. I honestly don't care if God is behind this universe or not.
And if I get banned from this thread, so be it. You can all be left to espouse your BS and think you have won. And when the rest of the world leaves you behind because your skull is too thick to accept reason, don't come crying to me.
But if any of you all actually want to have your "theories" challenged, then let us in. We are welcome to challenge--can you post a challenge to the ToE--one that is scientifically valid and hasn't been debunked before? I'm not talking about that shit that Hovind spells out, or any of those other quacks. I'm talking about--find REAL, SCIENTIFIC evidence to challenge ToE. You will see us accept the challenge, it's part of science--having your theories and hypotheses tested and challenged with science--not mother's tale crack. (however, there is often some bit of wisdom in those tales).

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-19-2006 3:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-20-2006 10:41 PM kuresu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 63 of 151 (324043)
06-20-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by kuresu
06-20-2006 5:32 PM


Look, you can see you are just bringing up the same argument over and over and over again. There is just no point in it is there, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
Oh yeah, you're banned obviously. It's improper you post here.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kuresu, posted 06-20-2006 5:32 PM kuresu has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 151 (324093)
06-20-2006 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by kuresu
06-20-2006 5:32 PM


Note to kuresu
If I've overstepped my priveleges,(admins) please let me know.
I believe it was the clear intention of Message 125 (and see also Message 127 and Message 129), that you should no longer post in Creationist theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kuresu, posted 06-20-2006 5:32 PM kuresu has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 65 of 151 (324141)
06-20-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by kuresu
06-20-2006 5:43 PM


Re: General philosophy versus science
No. science does not assume the existence of any supernatural events.
Then God by assumption is falsified. We already know that this is the "evidence" against God. Your next fallacy is to demand that Materialism methodologies are somehow neutral about God. The methodology that all atheists subscribe to is neutral about God ? I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn - email me if you want in.
Common sense and logic alone dictates that the methodology that all atheists subscribe to MUST be anti-God or they would not be devotees.
We know God is testable by what we see in nature matching the literary claims of Scripture - thats called Correspondence. We only demand God be recognized as Creator and guess what ? That is the reason for being of Darwinism to deny.
The rest of your post is pure rant attempting to eviscerate logic (Materialism = atheism) from reality (we are neutral about God). Neutrality is not exclusion and the predictable age-old assertion that we see no evidence of God in nature. The Christian majority knows you are liars.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by kuresu, posted 06-20-2006 5:43 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by kuresu, posted 06-20-2006 11:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 72 by Sandor Szabados, posted 06-28-2006 12:47 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 66 of 151 (324153)
06-20-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object
06-20-2006 10:41 PM


Re: General philosophy versus science
you know, I'm not supposed to post in this thread, but I can in yours. However, I give up in trying to re-educate your bias against science--you still don't get the difference between ontological and methodological naturalism. For some one claiming to know who is the liar, you oughta look in the mirror. For you continue to decieve yourself because of your prejudices and bias's. As I said--my only bias is against stupid idiots--I can't stand them. Ignorance is another matter, but you are not ignorant. You refuse to learn the difference, and as such, are stupid. It's fact, not insult. Look at the definition. And with that--you can have this corner, silently gleeing at an empty victory, for I doubt that your God will forgive you for not using the gifts He gave you.
And with that, I'm out. Don't reply back or ask me back or anything to that matter unless you all want a REAL debate, and not some empty "I cant hear you, I can't hear you" game.

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-20-2006 10:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-21-2006 2:12 PM kuresu has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 67 of 151 (324434)
06-21-2006 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by kuresu
06-20-2006 11:28 PM


Re: General philosophy versus science
Off topic for this thread. Do not respond here
you know, I'm not supposed to post in this thread, but I can in yours. However, I give up in trying to re-educate your bias against science--you still don't get the difference between ontological and methodological naturalism. For some one claiming to know who is the liar, you oughta look in the mirror. For you continue to decieve yourself because of your prejudices and bias's. As I said--my only bias is against stupid idiots--I can't stand them. Ignorance is another matter, but you are not ignorant. You refuse to learn the difference, and as such, are stupid. It's fact, not insult. Look at the definition. And with that--you can have this corner, silently gleeing at an empty victory, for I doubt that your God will forgive you for not using the gifts He gave you.
And with that, I'm out. Don't reply back or ask me back or anything to that matter unless you all want a REAL debate, and not some empty "I cant hear you, I can't hear you" game.
Because you are a Darwinist who believes apes morphed into men and you wholly disapprove of me, these facts testify to my rightness. Your approval would have proven my wrongness.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : off topic
Edited by Herepton, : This edit is mine the one above is not.
Edited by Herepton, : erase content

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by kuresu, posted 06-20-2006 11:28 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-22-2006 2:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 69 by AdminNWR, posted 06-22-2006 2:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 68 of 151 (324906)
06-22-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object
06-21-2006 2:12 PM


Re: General philosophy versus science
content erased.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : fix altered link by unknown Mod which I was unsuccessful
Edited by Herepton, : erase content

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-21-2006 2:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 151 (324923)
06-22-2006 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object
06-21-2006 2:12 PM


Re: General philosophy versus science
Note to Ray:
I added that one line of red text. That it was attributed to you is a software bug, and the bug has been reported.
I added that line because you are goading kuresu, who is not supposed to be posting in this thread. Please keep your dispute with kuresu to your own thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-21-2006 2:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-22-2006 2:57 PM AdminNWR has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 70 of 151 (324940)
06-22-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by AdminNWR
06-22-2006 2:32 PM


Re: General philosophy versus science
Very well.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by AdminNWR, posted 06-22-2006 2:32 PM AdminNWR has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 71 of 151 (325588)
06-24-2006 5:25 AM


I was looking into the double-slit experiment the other day, and ventured to describe it in terms of points of decision. By some first efforts this seems quite workable, is there any other creationist who has already explained this in terms of points of decision?
Several sites I've been to already are forced by the evidence to suggest that the object is conscious of where it is going, and as consciousness is manifest at a point of decision, the creationist explanation seems quite credible to begin with. So much so that I suppose someone must have tried it already.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Syamsu, posted 06-28-2006 11:36 AM Syamsu has replied

Sandor Szabados
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 151 (327028)
06-28-2006 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object
06-20-2006 10:41 PM


Re: General philosophy versus science
"No. science does not assume the existence of any supernatural events."
The above applies only to the mechanistic science of Kepler, Newton, Laplace, and Darwin in which the existence of a God is considered unnecessary. Modern science - Relativity (Einstein), the Anthropic Principle (Dicke-Carter), Irreducible Complexity (Behe}, Aperiodicity and Specification (Thaxton), Dissipative Structures (Prigogine) and the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (Davison)require/imply an Intelligent Designer. The origin of life and its evolution can only be explained as the result of supernatural cause.
The topic changes from science to theology when the scientist opines on the nature of the supernatural cause(s), the Designer(s). There are those like Einstein and Davison who don't believe in a personal God, that there is no free will or after-life, and like Behe and Thaxton who believe in the God of the Bible. The astronomer Hugh Ross dedicates the third part of his book " The Fingerprint of God" to how the new facts in physics can be gleaned from the Old Testament.
However, there is a book whose science is not thousands of years old but current:
"The original life plasm of an evolutionary world must contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and for all subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications. The provision for such far-reaching projects of life metamorphosis may require the appearance of many apparently useless forms of animal and vegetable life. Such by-products of planetary evolution, foreseen or unforeseen, appear upon the stage of action only to disappear, but in and through all this long process there runs the thread of the wise and intelligent formulations of the original designers of the planetary life plan and species scheme. The manifold by-products of biologic evolution are all essential to the final and full function of the higher intelligent forms of life, notwithstanding that great outward disharmony may prevail from time to time in the long upward struggle of the higher creatures to effect the mastery of the lower forms of life, many of which are sometimes so antagonistic to the peace and comfort of the evolving will creatures." (p.398)
The above - now confirmed by the PEH and the Anthropic Principle - is in The URANTIA Book, the 2,097-page book comprised of 196 Papers written in the 1920s and mid-'30s by various divine personalities - Divine Counselor, Perfector of Wisdom, One High in Authority, Melchidezek, and Life Carriers to name a few - and published in book form in 1955. The passage quoted was written by a Life Carrier.
About God:
"The Universal Father is the God of all creation, the First Source and Center of all things and beings. First think of God as a creator, then as a controller, and lastly as an infinite upholder.
The myriads of planetary systems were all made to be eventually inhabited by many different types of intelligent creatures, beings who could know God, receive the divine affection, and love him in return. The universe of universes is the work of God and the dwelling place of his diverse creatures. "God created the heavens and formed the earth; he established the universe and created this world not in vain; he formed it to be inhabited." (p. 21) Shared love bwtween Creator and creature: that's about as personal as one can get.
The life, teachings, and religion of Jesus are narrated in Part IV.
I have been studying the book regularly since 1978. The science is modern science and the religion based on a personal relationship with the Heavenly Father in doing his will by following the lead of his Spirit within us.
Hard to believe but true. The book exists and can be found at Just a moment... Over half a million have been sold and it has been translated into several languages.
It's not The Origin of Species or the Bible; it's The URANTIA Book.
Sandor
Edited by Sandor Szabados, : I wanted to add the signature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-20-2006 10:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Syamsu, posted 06-28-2006 3:50 AM Sandor Szabados has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 73 of 151 (327053)
06-28-2006 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Sandor Szabados
06-28-2006 12:47 AM


Re: General philosophy versus science
So to be on topic, what does the book of Urantia have to say about choices? How are decisions generally described in the book?
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Sandor Szabados, posted 06-28-2006 12:47 AM Sandor Szabados has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Sandor Szabados, posted 06-28-2006 12:41 PM Syamsu has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 74 of 151 (327153)
06-28-2006 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Syamsu
06-24-2006 5:25 AM


So far..
the location of the decision where the photon ends up would have to be made at the point of origin, where the photon is shot. Otherwise, if the location where the photon ends up would be decided enroute, it would not be possible to explain the interference pattern. That is to say, the interference pattern can only be explained in terms of an entangled future. If the photon were to decide enroute the future would not be entangled, or the future would become disentangled per decision, and no interference pattern could be explained.
Well so far my effort at it; next to explain the observation, when the photon is detected or observed.
regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Syamsu, posted 06-24-2006 5:25 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2006 6:07 AM Syamsu has not replied

Sandor Szabados
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 151 (327183)
06-28-2006 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Syamsu
06-28-2006 3:50 AM


Re: General philosophy versus science
"what does the book of Urantia have to say about choices? How are decisions generally described in the book?"
"Material mind is the arena in which human personalities live, are self-conscious, make decisions, choose God or forsake him, eternalize or destroy themselves."
"Material evolution has provided you a life machine, your body; the Father himself has endowed you with the purest spirit reality known in the universe, your Thought Adjuster. But into your hands, subject to your own decisions, has been given mind, and it is by mind that you live or die. It is within this mind and with this mind that you make those moral decisions which enable you to achieve Adjusterlikeness, and that is Godlikeness." (p. 1216)
Free will is what distinguishes humans from other life forms. In fact, Urantia (the name of our planet) was declared inhabited by humans when two superior Primate-like creatures (one male and one female)made a key decision based on free will. This occurred about one million years ago.
"And now, after almost nine hundred generations of development, covering about twenty-one thousand years from the origin of the dawn mammals, the Primates 'suddenly' gave birth to two remarkable creatures, the first true human beings. They possessed perfect human thumbs, as had many of their ancestors, while they had just as perfect feet as the present-day human races. They were walkers and runners, not climbers; the grasping function of the big toe was absent, completely absent." (p. 707)
The fact that, after about 530 million years since life began, the first human beings had evolved was acknowledged in this manner:
"To the Life Carriers on Urantia--Greetings! We transmit assurance of great pleasure on Salvington, Edentia, and Jerusem in honor of the registration on the headquarters of Nebadon of the signal of the existence on Urantia of mind of will dignity. The purposeful decision of the twins to flee northward and segregate their offspring from their inferior ancestors has been noted. This is the first decision of mind--the human type of mind--on Urantia and automatically establishes the circuit of communication over which this initial message of acknowledgment is transmitting."
Sandor
Sandor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Syamsu, posted 06-28-2006 3:50 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Syamsu, posted 07-07-2006 5:23 AM Sandor Szabados 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