Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
84 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (6 members, 78 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,276 Year: 4,388/6,534 Month: 602/900 Week: 126/182 Day: 6/27 Hour: 3/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Three Kinds of Creationists
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 432 (647887)
01-11-2012 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by foreveryoung
01-11-2012 5:32 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by foreveryoung, posted 01-11-2012 5:32 PM foreveryoung has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 41 of 432 (657277)
03-27-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 2:30 AM


There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being; or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe.

Have you never heard of a Theistic Evolutionist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution


The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false. - St. Thomas Aquinas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 2:30 AM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 55 of 432 (657365)
03-27-2012 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by bridgebuilder
03-27-2012 5:28 PM


Thank you for pointing out the difference between the "Primordial Ocean" and the "primordial ocean." I was unaware of this. Genesis does not include the term primordial ocean, whether beginning with upper or lower cases, yet it does present the concept that a body of water is necessary to precede life. Therefore, I disagree with your last statement, but it is a matter of interpretation (IMO).

It also doesn't say that Eve had two boobs, but its fair to infer that. The Cosmic Ocean is common theme in middle eastern creation myths, we don't need the Bible to contain those exact words to get the picture.

Nevertheless, why discount it altogether, or "ignore" it (as an earlier poster put it), because it is an unconventional source of inspiration?

Look at it this way: Science is trying to figure out all the things that happen inside this box. "but what about this thing outside of the box", you might ask. Well, get it into the box and it'll be looked at, until then, it ain't in the box of things we're looking at. The source of inspiration doesn't even come into play.

Kekulé figured out how benzene molecules were constructed by imagining snakes swallowing their own tails. Not exactly a conventional method.

From wiki:

quote:
Here Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros). This vision, he said, came to him after years of studying the nature of carbon-carbon bonds.
emphasis added

Many early scientists (and some modern ones) were religious in the sense that they believed in a God and wanted to unravel the mysteries of creation. Sir Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, and this arcane 'science' formed the basis of modern chemistry. Perhaps the Emerald Tablets still contain valuable insights that are ignored by modern scientists, or perhaps not. They apparently helped Newton. The Mayas had incredibly accurate calendars and advanced knowledge of astronomy as well as the Egyptians, who built structures, yet modern scientists are still challenged with figuring out their engineering feats. They were also religious societies. Some Buddists can seemingly levitate when in deep meditation, but since it can't explained in a pure scientific manner, it is debunked as trickery or an illusion

I know what you mean, and sometimes it seems like science-ists are against these ideas (and sometimes they are), but for the science, its not really an outright rejection like you're making it out to be. Like I said, get 'em into the box and they'll be treated like any other.


Re: To PaulK

I just cut that from the subtitle. That info is in the top-right of each message and is redundant.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Changed "top-left" to "top-right" in the last sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-27-2012 5:28 PM bridgebuilder has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 432 (657459)
03-28-2012 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by bridgebuilder
03-28-2012 4:05 PM


Thanks for the link.

No problem. You'll find people here are very willing to help you if you are willing to learn. If not, then you're just going to open the flood gates of snark and ridicule.

You're introducing a lot of your ideas here in this thread, that have their own errors, but since we like to keep things on-topic, I'm not going to go through them all individually with corrections. You should pick a particular, fairly succinct, topic and propose a new opening post in the New Topic Forum. Then we can focus and learn you proper.

For example, we could talk about Genesis: "pick apart Genesis and make a detailed commentary/exegesis that could possibly compare it to scientific theories"

Or something on science and the supernatural. Or whatever.

Too, you don't have to reply to every single reply to you, especially if you're getting into things that don't have anything at all to do with the topic of the thread - this one being about the kinds of creationists and having nothing to do with Genesis vs. Science nor Science vs. Supernature.

Oh, and one more thing:

I believe we were placed in a dimension that has a linear timeline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-28-2012 4:05 PM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by bridgebuilder, posted 03-29-2012 1:22 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 137 of 432 (657564)
03-29-2012 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Straggler
03-29-2012 11:26 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
I think your disagreement has to do with what y'all mean by "study". If you drop your famous pen, and it falls upwards away from your desk, then you could "study" it in the sense that you could observe the direction its falling, but you wouldn't have a scientific explanation for its behavior. When you did come up with one, it have to be a natural explanation.

But none of this has anything to do with the 3 kinds of creationists...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:26 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 432 (657572)
03-29-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Straggler
03-29-2012 11:42 AM


Re: Supernatural 101
It seems to me that jar is using the term "study" more closely to 'explain' than just 'observe'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:42 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Straggler, posted 03-29-2012 11:52 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 432 (658195)
04-03-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Buzsaw
03-31-2012 12:09 AM


If god knows everything then what's the point of praying for stuff?

"Hey God, how's it going?... yeah, I'm good - oh yeah, you already knew that... anyways, I was wonder if you could -oh yeah, you already knew about that too... Well, about my grandma, she has this - shit, that's right, you must be aware of that 'cause you already know everthing... well... ... uhhhh... ... yeah, I guess that's about that then. Cheers."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 03-31-2012 12:09 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Taq, posted 04-03-2012 11:20 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message
 Message 281 by bridgebuilder, posted 04-03-2012 11:53 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 283 of 432 (658216)
04-03-2012 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by bridgebuilder
04-03-2012 11:53 AM


Re: A possible point for prayer
I don't know but perhaps God won't constantly tamper with the free will of an individual or bestow stuff on him/her unless the individual asks for intervention.

Perhaps. Isn't that kinda childish, though? Is like when I make my dog sit while I'm dangling the treat in front of her...

And if god knows everything, then he already knew that I wasn't going to ask for it before I didn't


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by bridgebuilder, posted 04-03-2012 11:53 AM bridgebuilder has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by bridgebuilder, posted 04-07-2012 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 432 (658220)
04-03-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Perdition
04-03-2012 12:03 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
If god can plant evidence, as you claim to believe, doesn't that mean any and all evidence could be planted? Shouldn't that add at least a little doubt? It would for me if I believed what you believe in this case.

We could just be a brain in a jar, but without any reason to think that we are, it doesn't become problematic.

I don't doubt that this is real every second of the day, even though it could all be a dream because I don't have any reason to think that it actually is. But it could be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 12:03 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 432 (658235)
04-03-2012 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Perdition
04-03-2012 12:16 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
We could just be a brain in a jar, but without any reason to think that we are, it doesn't become problematic.

The difference is that, while I admit the possibility, I don't actually believe it's true. if I did, I would act on that belief.

Jar says he believes that God can plant evidence. That should make him suspect all evidence.

No. God could, but that doesn't mean he did. Without a reason to think he did, then no problem, but he still could have.

I don't doubt that this is real every second of the day, even though it could all be a dream because I don't have any reason to think that it actually is. But it could be.

Exactly my point. You don't believe it, despite remainging open to the possibility. If you did believe it...besides probably being locked up in a padded room somewhere...wouldn't you act differently?

If I had reason to think I was dreaming, then I'd try flying around like I always do...

But I don't have any reason to think I'm dreaming. Still, I could be dreaming.

There's a difference in accepting that you could be dreaming and believing that you are dreaming and you seem to be conflating the two.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 12:16 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 12:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 297 by Straggler, posted 04-03-2012 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 305 of 432 (658257)
04-03-2012 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Perdition
04-03-2012 12:58 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
Without a reason to think he did, then no problem, but he still could have.

What sort of reason could cause you to think he did. And remember, Jar believes that it is impossible to draw any conclusions about god or his actions scientifically. Would you have to have an angel whisper it in your ear?

I haven't really thought about it, but yeah, your angel friend could work.

There's a difference in accepting that you could be dreaming and believing that you are dreaming and you seem to be conflating the two.

No, I thik you are.

Me? Why? How?

Jar is the one who believes, and yet his beliefs seem not to affect his actions in any way.

He said he believes that god could...

Belief in a potential is not belief in an actual. Why would the potential affect his actions without the actual?

If I BELIEVED something, I would act on that belief. If I merely allowed that it was possible I'd be much more tentative in my actions, testing and seeing if the possibility had any evidence for it.

And if it was something you couldn't test?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 12:58 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 432 (658259)
04-03-2012 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Straggler
04-03-2012 1:07 PM


Re: Supernatural 101
So do you think you are dreaming?

Or is the absence of evidence that you are dreaming a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that you aren't?

Holy shit, cross-thread Gotcha! You've really got it in for me

I have good reason to think I'm not dreaming right now. But regarding whether or not everything is a dream, no, I have no way of knowing that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Straggler, posted 04-03-2012 1:07 PM Straggler has taken no action

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 310 of 432 (658265)
04-03-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Perdition
04-03-2012 2:42 PM


Yeah, it could work, but would it be necessary?

No.

Is that the only way to think that something supernatural had happened, given that you believe it is possible for supernatural things to happen?

No

You keep coming up with examples to illustrate possibility without refrencing belief. I'm very focused on the belief part.

But it was belief in a possibility...

Because if you believe it is possible for something to have happened, and that there is no evidence that shows it didn't happen, and that there is no possibility for evidence to show that it did happen, how could you rule out it happening?

You don't rule it out. But without sufficient reason to believe in the acutality, you're left believing in the possibility. I'm just not see the "problem".

If I didn't believe something, but merely allowed the possibility, I'd act as if it weren't true until I had evidence for it.

If I did believe something, and didn't have any evidence for or against it, I'd act as if it were true until proven otherwise. If not, then I don't see how I could accurately claim belief.

Its not believing in something, its believing in the possibility of something. I think that's the difference you're not including.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 2:42 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 3:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 312 of 432 (658279)
04-03-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Perdition
04-03-2012 3:56 PM


Yes, but if you truly believe it is a possibility, should you not consider it? And if you can't rule it out, should you just ignore it? Doesn't that imply you don't really believe it's a possibility?

No, and I guess that's a source of our disagreement. You can maintain the belief in the possibility, but withold consideration until you have sufficient reason of the actuality.

I guess it comes down to how much certainty you have in a proposition, or how you gain certainty in a proposition. If you have something you're trying to explain, whether it's a crime scene or an interesting chemical or physics experiment, you first come up weith possible explanations. As you rule out explanations, your certainty in the remaining ones increases. But what do you do if you end up with two explanations, both of which explain all the evidence you have?

The belief in the posibility wasn't brought forward as a serious proposal waiting to be ruled out, it was just an acknowledgement.

Well, you can keep looking for evidence and try to rule one out, but if Jar's beliefs are right, and evidence for (or against) a supernatural explanation is impossible to find, you can never rule it out, so you'll be left with, at the very least, two possible explanations, each of which explain the evidence equally well. In that case, you can not have more than 50% certainty in either one, so what makes you say, "Option A, the non-supernatural one is correct."

Because that's the one you have evidence for.

The only reason to choose one over the other is purely emotional bias. And if your bias is toward the natural over the supernatural, then how can you really claim to believe in the possibility of a supernatural explanation? At best, you allow the possibility of the supernatural, but don't really believe it.

Again, it was a belief in the possibility, not a belief in the actuality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 3:56 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 4:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 334 of 432 (658351)
04-04-2012 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Perdition
04-03-2012 4:27 PM


The belief in the posibility wasn't brought forward as a serious proposal waiting to be ruled out, it was just an acknowledgement.

I'm still not understanding how this can be considered belief.

I don't think we mean the same things be "belief". I looked up "believe" in the dictionary and on one end it has "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something" and on the other it has "to suppose or assume".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Perdition, posted 04-03-2012 4:27 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Perdition, posted 04-04-2012 3:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022