Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science or not?
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 61 of 97 (295384)
03-14-2006 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by nator
03-14-2006 10:32 PM


Re: "No" vs. "I don't know."
Neither can I say that they definitely do not exist. Nor can I definitely say that life evolved on this planet, that the earth revolves around the sun or that I wasn't created five minutes ago, complete with memories that go back 40 some years.
The discussion as I have followed it has centered on whether it is scientifically open minded to be an atheist. Since science doesn't deal in definites, that's not really the relevant standard.
For what it's worth, I think crashfrog's analysis hit the nail on the head, "intellectual timidity." And if you want to use different rules, that's your prerogative. I'm just curious why.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 10:32 PM nator has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 62 of 97 (295387)
03-14-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
03-14-2006 10:48 PM


A sandwich in the fridge
I don't think your analogy of the sandwich in the fridge, or the lost keys, really helps you much. I both cases, you have defined a rather limited universe that can fairly easily be explored in its entirety for purposes of establishing the non-existence of something. That's not a compelling parallel for the entire universe, the whole of human existence, or even the planet.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 10:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 11:32 PM subbie has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 97 (295394)
03-14-2006 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by subbie
03-14-2006 11:02 PM


Re: A sandwich in the fridge
I both cases, you have defined a rather limited universe that can fairly easily be explored in its entirety for purposes of establishing the non-existence of something. That's not a compelling parallel for the entire universe, the whole of human existence, or even the planet.
God is defined as omnipresent. Everywhere at once. By definition it's not possible for God to exist and yet not exist at an arbitrary point in space.
Ergo if God is absent at any arbitrary location he's absent at all of them. The being that exists at one location yet not at another is not, by definition, God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 03-14-2006 11:02 PM subbie has not replied

  
knitrofreak
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 97 (295411)
03-15-2006 12:27 AM


Biblical Evidence
If you say the Bible can't support good science or vice versa you need to read it. Here is things written long ago that(some of them) have just recently been found out in this century. If people would have read the bible in Columbuses time they would have known he wasnt going to fall off the edge of the earth. Also Galieo estimated 6,000 stars in his time before the telescope. If he would have read Jeremiah 33:22 he would have known already. All these things written below which are in the bible( we know to be true today w/o doubt )
Mountains on the Ocean Floor: Jonah 2:5,6
The Earth is hung on nothing: Job 26:7
Everything is made of subatomic particles not visible to the naked eye: Hebrews 11:3
Atomic Fission: 2nd Peter 3:10 Ocean Currents: Psalm 8:8 Isaiah 43:16
Water Cycle: Job 36:27
Dinosaurs: Job 40-41
Innumerable Stars Jeremiah 33:22
The earth is round: Isaiah 40:22

  
knitrofreak
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 97 (295412)
03-15-2006 12:27 AM


Biblical Evidence
If you say the Bible can't support good science or vice versa you need to read it. Here is things written long ago that(some of them) have just recently been found out in this century. If people would have read the bible in Columbuses time they would have known he wasnt going to fall off the edge of the earth. Also Galieo estimated 6,000 stars in his time before the telescope. If he would have read Jeremiah 33:22 he would have known already. All these things written below which are in the bible( we know to be true today w/o doubt )
Mountains on the Ocean Floor: Jonah 2:5,6
The Earth is hung on nothing: Job 26:7
Everything is made of subatomic particles not visible to the naked eye: Hebrews 11:3
Atomic Fission: 2nd Peter 3:10 Ocean Currents: Psalm 8:8 Isaiah 43:16
Water Cycle: Job 36:27
Dinosaurs: Job 40-41
Innumerable Stars Jeremiah 33:22
The earth is round: Isaiah 40:22


For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should NOT perish but HAVE EVERLASTING LIFE! Jn 3:16

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ReverendDG, posted 03-15-2006 2:17 AM knitrofreak has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 66 of 97 (295416)
03-15-2006 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by knitrofreak
03-15-2006 12:27 AM


Re: Biblical Evidence
If people would have read the bible in Columbuses time they would have known he wasnt going to fall off the edge of the earth.
which is false, columbus never thought this, washington irving made this up and people still think it, columbus died thinking the america was india
Jonah 2:5,6oes not talk about montains under water,it talks of going to shaol
Job 26:7:the greeks knew the earth stood on nothing, so the bible didn't really come up with this
Hebrews 11:3:umm this has nothing to do with subatomic particals, it has to with faith in god, and the greeks knew about atoms thats where it comes from
Peter 3:10: has to do with wiping away the old not atomic anything.
Psalm 8:8 - umm people understood ocean currents thousands of years before the bible, do you think people are stupid about things like this?
Job 36:27: oh come on if you read it in context it's glorifying god not talking about the water cycle even if it was, its not really right
Job 40-41 : is not about dinosaurs, its about a hippo or elephant
Jeremiah 33:22: umm, where does it talk about stars it talks about sand and the hosts of heaven
Isaiah 40:22: a circle is not a sphere
Also Galieo estimated 6,000 stars in his time before the telescope. If he would have read Jeremiah 33:22 he would have known already. All these things written below which are in the bible( we know to be true today w/o doubt )
do you have proof that he thought there were only 6000 stars? it doesn't sound like you know much about galileo, he disproved it was a limited mass of stars.
none of the passages show that the bible can be remotely used a science book, nor should it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by knitrofreak, posted 03-15-2006 12:27 AM knitrofreak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by knitrofreak, posted 03-16-2006 1:52 AM ReverendDG has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 67 of 97 (295440)
03-15-2006 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
03-14-2006 6:59 PM


Re: "No" vs. "I don't know."
x2
This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 15-March-2006 11:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 6:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 68 of 97 (295443)
03-15-2006 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
03-14-2006 6:59 PM


Re: "No" vs. "I don't know."
That's what confuses me. Santa Claus is defined as the figure who rides around in a sleigh with 8 tiny reindeer, shakes when he laughs like a bowl full of jelly, sees you when you're sleeping and knows when you're awake, etc. If an entity exists who does not have these qualities than this entity is not the putative Santa Claus.
Why does that confuse you? I agreed with you, under a definition where a magical Santa Claus obviously and directly affects the physical world, we can rule him out. Other definitions might be trickier.
I mean, does a guy named "Santa Claus" exist? Sure, there's one in every mall around the Christmas season. Some weirdos even legally change their names to Santa Claus. But that's not what we're talking about. You conclude as well as I do that no entity matching the description of the putative Santa Claus exists. Why, then, the conclusion of agnosticism about Santa Claus?
Because Santa Claus might not work that way. He might give gifts in a different manner, perhaps inspiring parents to buy them, maybe his gift is cheer, or opportunity, or hope, or joy. Something less tangible. If you rigidly define Santa Claus as a being that is testable, then we can test it and show his non-existence. However, if Santa Claus is truly magical his powers might extend in such a convenient way as to fox any test that we set up for him.
He doesn't have to come to our houses to leave gifts if we do it in his name.
Well, we can and do, and we're willing to cast our vote for president based on that reasoning. But somehow when the topic is God, the rules are different? I think it's just intellectual timidity on the part of self-described "agnostics."
That's a fine opinion, but I think its a bizarre leap of logic to compare physically identifiable human beings with the creator of all existence, a potentially all powerful being that can leave no evidence of his existence and rely soley on faith.
There is simply no way to test for such an entities existence. We can rule out certain versions of it (like we did with Santa), but we can't rule them all out.
In the end, what we have to do is examine how the word agnostic is being used in context. In my sense I was trying to use a term that is contrasted with athiesm in the sense of trying to demonstrate that God doesn't exist via the ToE. In said context agnosticism was clearly meant to mean 'someone who doesn't believe in god, but will admit that there is no real way of knowing either way as opposed to go out of their way to try and demonstrate his non-existence using logic/science theological problems etc'
You defined this as tentative athiesm, and if you want to use that term, more power to you. I used a different term, which I have later defined for those who were confused. I really don't see why so many posts are needed to clarify this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 6:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2006 9:49 AM Modulous has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 97 (295479)
03-15-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Modulous
03-15-2006 6:51 AM


Re: "No" vs. "I don't know."
Because Santa Claus might not work that way.
Well, we might define "Santa Claus" as "the President of Uruguay", and we can be sure that that entity exists. But what have we proved? There's not an infinite number of definitions of every word. When people say "God" they usually have a specific set of job requirements in mind. Entities that don't have those requirements cannot reasonably be called "God"; definitions of "God" that don't include those requirements are false definitions.
He doesn't have to come to our houses to leave gifts if we do it in his name.
If we define "Santa Claus" as an idea, or as an abstraction, then almost by definition he doesn't have a physical existence, and we can be atheist about Santa Claus, from that definition.
That's a fine opinion, but I think its a bizarre leap of logic to compare physically identifiable human beings with the creator of all existence, a potentially all powerful being that can leave no evidence of his existence and rely soley on faith.
There's only one way that this being can leave no evidence, and that's by doing nothing. A God that does nothing, as I've stated before, is indeed unfalsifiable. But such a being is also irrelevant so practical atheism - acting like we know he doesn't exist - is reasonable.
I really don't see why so many posts are needed to clarify this.
It's an argument of connotations. Agnostics believe that atheists are overreaching; atheists believe that agnostics are too timid to reach a perfectly reasonable and obvious conclusion. But we don't really believe different things. I guess there's no resolution to the debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2006 6:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2006 10:28 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 70 of 97 (295496)
03-15-2006 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
03-15-2006 9:49 AM


Whisking Red Rum
Well, we might define "Santa Claus" as "the President of Uruguay", and we can be sure that that entity exists. But what have we proved? There's not an infinite number of definitions of every word. When people say "God" they usually have a specific set of job requirements in mind. Entities that don't have those requirements cannot reasonably be called "God"; definitions of "God" that don't include those requirements are false definitions.
Yep.
If we define "Santa Claus" as an idea, or as an abstraction, then almost by definition he doesn't have a physical existence, and we can be atheist about Santa Claus, from that definition.
Indeed, but I wasn't defining him as an idea or as an abstraction.
There's only one way that this being can leave no evidence, and that's by doing nothing. A God that does nothing, as I've stated before, is indeed unfalsifiable. But such a being is also irrelevant so practical atheism - acting like we know he doesn't exist - is reasonable.
So you are saying that an almighty all powerful being that can do anything it damn well please (including creating and destroying universes, defining laws of physics, bringing the dead to life and so on), HAS to leave evidence behind at the 'scene of the crime'? What kind of crappy God are you talking about here?
It's an argument of connotations. Agnostics believe that atheists are overreaching; atheists believe that agnostics are too timid to reach a perfectly reasonable and obvious conclusion. But we don't really believe different things. I guess there's no resolution to the debate.
I understand there are connotations associated with the terms, which is why I clarified my specific meaning when requested. If you replace my original comments with the phrase 'tentative athiest' and you have no problem with what I was saying, there is really no debate...hence why I am wondering why so many posts have been dedicated to this increasingly off topic madness.

Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
The busy bee has no time for sorrow.
The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2006 9:49 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by crashfrog, posted 03-15-2006 12:16 PM Modulous has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 71 of 97 (295533)
03-15-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Modulous
03-15-2006 10:28 AM


Re: Whisking Red Rum
hence why I am wondering why so many posts have been dedicated to this increasingly off topic madness.
You're probably right. I don't have any reply to your post that I haven't posted before. (That's not a reflection of your post or your ideas but of my own lack of creativity.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2006 10:28 AM Modulous has not replied

  
knitrofreak
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 97 (295806)
03-16-2006 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ReverendDG
03-15-2006 2:17 AM


Re: Biblical Evidence
Ok maybe I was wrong about Columbus not thinking the earth wasnt round (circle as it says in the bible) but there were many others who did. The thought was still there thats what matters not who thought what.
So you think that Jonah was talking about shoals? It doesnt say shoals it says mountains and plus how do you know, especially if you dont believe the bible to be true? We know according the the bible that Jonah was concious the whole time. This was a mericle which cant be explained by the laws of science or be understood by us.Ok maybe I dont know my history and i didnt mean to apply what they didnt know to everything I said but, I dont think you know your bible. Your obiously not reading the verses in context. Job 26:7- Tell me how did the greeks know the earth stood on nothing they hadnt seen earth from space anyhow. Also they believed in the god Atlas. Thats who they believed held the earth up. Hebrews 11:3 at the end it says: so that things which are seen were not made of things which do not appear. What is something we cant see???? well subatomic particles of course who would think otherwise? Job 36:27 does talk about the water cycle. For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain ACCORDING TO THE VAPOUR THEREOF - talking about the watercycle. I dont know where you come up with ur stuff otherwise.
Job 40-41 I maybe was being to "dogmatic" and im willing to admit it. But the hippo elephant theory of yours is not the least bit convincing. Job 40:17 He moveth his tail like a cedar. A hippo or elephants tail is no where the size or length of a cedar. Dinosaurs certainly have large tails. Jeremiah 33:22 As the hosts of heaven cannot be numbered, neither can the sand of the sea... You tell me what the hosts of heaven are refering too. like stars maybe? yeah they are innummerable like sand. Isaiah 40:22 Ok draw a circle and say your on top of the world going around the circle or circumfrence you WOULD NOT fall of the edge. try it. About Galieo and stars I heard it from a reliable movie documentary source. If u can find a website to disprove me I'll believe you. Also I never said anything about using the bible as a science book. But hey its your business if you dont believe the bible. Then again people dont care to believe in God because they dont want to have to be responsible for what they've done in their lives and they dont want to have to answer to anyone either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ReverendDG, posted 03-15-2006 2:17 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ReverendDG, posted 03-16-2006 2:15 AM knitrofreak has replied
 Message 74 by sidelined, posted 03-16-2006 2:20 AM knitrofreak has replied
 Message 77 by jar, posted 03-16-2006 11:56 AM knitrofreak has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 73 of 97 (295809)
03-16-2006 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by knitrofreak
03-16-2006 1:52 AM


Re: Biblical Evidence
could you know.. space your posts out a bit?
anyway i was speaking of sheol the jewish after life, almost all the torah is about expressing the glory of god and his interaction with humanity
if you read all of it instead of just one line, the author speaks of how god can bring a person back from the lowest points you can get, which is sheol, or the pit
you seem to think that everyone believed in the samethings at the same time which is untrue, greek philosophers did not believe in the greek gods by the time of the hebrews
by the way why do i have to believe in the bible to understand the writers?
as for hebrews i would think being that the bible is about spiritual things it is talking about spirits and angels and faith, not atoms
oh and i told you what the "hosts of heaven are" they are angels and such things like that where does it say stars at?
all i can see is you are putting your own spin on things, instead of reading it as a book on mans interaction with god.
the bible is not a science book, not matter how much you wish it is, it is a religious text book
but you are trying to rationalize the bible as a science book by saying things like "if blah blah had read the bible he would know this rather than using his human brain to figure it out"
try reading some of the threads we have on most of this scripture, there are lots of threads going over this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by knitrofreak, posted 03-16-2006 1:52 AM knitrofreak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by knitrofreak, posted 03-16-2006 11:49 AM ReverendDG has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 74 of 97 (295812)
03-16-2006 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by knitrofreak
03-16-2006 1:52 AM


Re: Biblical Evidence
knitrofreak
Then again people dont care to believe in God because they dont want to have to be responsible for what they've done in their lives and they dont want to have to answer to anyone either.
Funny that, since it has long been my impression that people who accept christ into their lives do so to avoid having to take responsibility for the sins in their lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by knitrofreak, posted 03-16-2006 1:52 AM knitrofreak has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by knitrofreak, posted 03-16-2006 11:43 AM sidelined has replied

  
knitrofreak
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 97 (295935)
03-16-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by sidelined
03-16-2006 2:20 AM


Re: Biblical Evidence
If you dont believe in God who will judge you in the end. People who take christ into their lives know that they are responsible for their actions and they will be judged. Unbelivers would just prefer not to deal with a person they're going to have to answer to. No wonder they cant allow a divine foot in the door. "Evolution just has to happen because God cant exist" -this was said by an evolutionist. What you said has some truth.People think they can accept christ into their lives and then they will go to heaven anyway so why not do what they want. True but if you really love God you will try to please him in what you do.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-16-2006 01:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by sidelined, posted 03-16-2006 2:20 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by sidelined, posted 03-16-2006 1:57 PM knitrofreak 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