About the existence of some kind of god or creator
-
Shog9 wrote: Step outside... look up. Watch carefully for a few hours. Step inside... look in a mirror. Consider how what you observe came to be. With a given set of assumptions, proof of God's existance is evident. But why are you looking for proof? God exists, whether a proof acceptable to you exists or not. A proof cannot make you believe. Lack of one should not prevent you from it. No one has any idea how God came into being. No one has a clue by what mechanism God might have created the universe and all that is in it. No one can supply any evidence whatsoever of the creation act. No one can provide any direct evidence of the existence of God. Science can at least sketch how, in accordance with verifyable physical laws, the universe and all that is in it came into being. Science can provide timelines showing the sequence of events. Science can provide physical evidence of many of the major transitions (including the evolution of human beings from ape-like ancestors). Yet the first explanation, for which there is no supporting evidence, is seen as self-evidently correct and the second, which is well supported by the evidence, is rejected. Quite bizarre. John Carson
John Carson wrote: No one has any idea how God came into being. And you know this, being omniscient yourself? John Carson wrote: Science can at least sketch how John Carson wrote: Science can provide timelines John Carson wrote: Science can provide physical evidence Please, do tell me more about this "Science", as i have no concept as to what it could be, and would greatly appreciate your expert enlightenment on the subject. :rolleyes: John Carson wrote: Yet the first explanation, for which there is no supporting evidence, is seen as self-evidently correct and the second, which is well supported by the evidence, is rejected. Quite bizarre. Would you care to go back and comment on my post? Or are you just using it as a handy place to attach your bitter rant? :| John, if there's something you wish to discuss, then lay it out. If you're just wanting an outlet for your sarcasm and USENET games, then wait 'till Terry gets back - he's better at it. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
John Carson wrote: No one has any idea how God came into being. And you know this, being omniscient yourself? John Carson wrote: Science can at least sketch how John Carson wrote: Science can provide timelines John Carson wrote: Science can provide physical evidence Please, do tell me more about this "Science", as i have no concept as to what it could be, and would greatly appreciate your expert enlightenment on the subject. :rolleyes: John Carson wrote: Yet the first explanation, for which there is no supporting evidence, is seen as self-evidently correct and the second, which is well supported by the evidence, is rejected. Quite bizarre. Would you care to go back and comment on my post? Or are you just using it as a handy place to attach your bitter rant? :| John, if there's something you wish to discuss, then lay it out. If you're just wanting an outlet for your sarcasm and USENET games, then wait 'till Terry gets back - he's better at it. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
Here's a book that examines circumstantial evidence: "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel I find a book like this a lot more convincing than "you/science can't prove God doesn't exist" - because you can't prove "God exists" neither. Same goes for looking at the sky or looking in the mirrow. Also, Bible seems like an evidence of God's own crime than a testimony for his Love for his people - again, what's the big fuss over an apple. I'm not going to comment on argument like "coz Adam/Eve were told not to.." It appears He has problem managing his anger and he's perfectly comfortable of creating atrocities: Crucifix (Please. Don't tell me men did it. According to Bible, God put Him there when He could have just scarificed a few sheeps or banana *why not* - He's a terriorist).
-
John Carson wrote: No one has any idea how God came into being. And you know this, being omniscient yourself? John Carson wrote: Science can at least sketch how John Carson wrote: Science can provide timelines John Carson wrote: Science can provide physical evidence Please, do tell me more about this "Science", as i have no concept as to what it could be, and would greatly appreciate your expert enlightenment on the subject. :rolleyes: John Carson wrote: Yet the first explanation, for which there is no supporting evidence, is seen as self-evidently correct and the second, which is well supported by the evidence, is rejected. Quite bizarre. Would you care to go back and comment on my post? Or are you just using it as a handy place to attach your bitter rant? :| John, if there's something you wish to discuss, then lay it out. If you're just wanting an outlet for your sarcasm and USENET games, then wait 'till Terry gets back - he's better at it. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
I can't find anything "bitter" in what I said but do in fact detect a great deal of ill temper in your reply. In fact I detect little else. My statement that "No one has any idea how God came into being" was not meant to imply, nor would a reasonable person have taken it to imply, that I have direct knowledge of what every person in the world knows. It was based on that fact that, from what I have seen of Christian theology (and I have seen quite a lot, having been raised in a devoutly evangelical Christian family), Christians do not even attempt to answer the question of how God came into being (in fact they usually say that he didn't come into being, but always was). Shog9 wrote: Please, do tell me more about this "Science", as i have no concept as to what it could be, and would greatly appreciate your expert enlightenment on the subject. This statement strikes me as completely disingenuous. Science has an account of the history of the universe starting with the Big Bang and finishing up with the evolution of life on earth. I am sure you know this, so I can only take your comments as a display of the sarcasm, bitterness and USENET games of which you ironically accuse me. John Carson
-
Here's a book that examines circumstantial evidence: "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel I find a book like this a lot more convincing than "you/science can't prove God doesn't exist" - because you can't prove "God exists" neither. Same goes for looking at the sky or looking in the mirrow. Also, Bible seems like an evidence of God's own crime than a testimony for his Love for his people - again, what's the big fuss over an apple. I'm not going to comment on argument like "coz Adam/Eve were told not to.." It appears He has problem managing his anger and he's perfectly comfortable of creating atrocities: Crucifix (Please. Don't tell me men did it. According to Bible, God put Him there when He could have just scarificed a few sheeps or banana *why not* - He's a terriorist).
CillyMe wrote: Here's a book that examines circumstantial evidence: Link? CillyMe wrote: because you can't prove "God exists" neither Did you read the first two replies i made to this thread by any chance? CillyMe wrote: Also, Bible seems like an evidence of God's own crime than a testimony for his Love for his people - again, what's the big fuss over an apple. First, let me state that this is a terrible analogy - but i'm in a hurry ( :-O ), so... If you write a list sort routine, and once every so often it gets two list items in the wrong order, will you be satisfied with it? And, upon finding the error, will you scrap the whole routine, or might you instead just remove the offending code and correct the problem? Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
Here's a book that examines circumstantial evidence: "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel I find a book like this a lot more convincing than "you/science can't prove God doesn't exist" - because you can't prove "God exists" neither. Same goes for looking at the sky or looking in the mirrow. Also, Bible seems like an evidence of God's own crime than a testimony for his Love for his people - again, what's the big fuss over an apple. I'm not going to comment on argument like "coz Adam/Eve were told not to.." It appears He has problem managing his anger and he's perfectly comfortable of creating atrocities: Crucifix (Please. Don't tell me men did it. According to Bible, God put Him there when He could have just scarificed a few sheeps or banana *why not* - He's a terriorist).
CillyMe wrote: "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel Very good book, but without faith, it won't convince anyone.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
CillyMe wrote: Here's a book that examines circumstantial evidence: Link? CillyMe wrote: because you can't prove "God exists" neither Did you read the first two replies i made to this thread by any chance? CillyMe wrote: Also, Bible seems like an evidence of God's own crime than a testimony for his Love for his people - again, what's the big fuss over an apple. First, let me state that this is a terrible analogy - but i'm in a hurry ( :-O ), so... If you write a list sort routine, and once every so often it gets two list items in the wrong order, will you be satisfied with it? And, upon finding the error, will you scrap the whole routine, or might you instead just remove the offending code and correct the problem? Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
CillyMe wrote: "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel Very good book, but without faith, it won't convince anyone.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
I can't find anything "bitter" in what I said but do in fact detect a great deal of ill temper in your reply. In fact I detect little else. My statement that "No one has any idea how God came into being" was not meant to imply, nor would a reasonable person have taken it to imply, that I have direct knowledge of what every person in the world knows. It was based on that fact that, from what I have seen of Christian theology (and I have seen quite a lot, having been raised in a devoutly evangelical Christian family), Christians do not even attempt to answer the question of how God came into being (in fact they usually say that he didn't come into being, but always was). Shog9 wrote: Please, do tell me more about this "Science", as i have no concept as to what it could be, and would greatly appreciate your expert enlightenment on the subject. This statement strikes me as completely disingenuous. Science has an account of the history of the universe starting with the Big Bang and finishing up with the evolution of life on earth. I am sure you know this, so I can only take your comments as a display of the sarcasm, bitterness and USENET games of which you ironically accuse me. John Carson
John Carson wrote: This statement strikes me as completely disingenuous. I do apologize. Let me try to be more clear: John Carson wrote: Science has an account of the history of the universe starting with the Big Bang and finishing up with the evolution of life on earth. Science is neither a monolithic knowledge base, nor a complete and flawless history. Rather, it is a system for validating empirical and experimental data, and the knowledge gained in this manner. It is a extremely useful tool to use in understanding the world in which we live. However, as with any tool, it is limited finally by those who use it. John Carson wrote: My statement that "No one has any idea how God came into being" was not meant to imply I'm more interested in what it was meant to imply, as you have yet to show its relevance to the post it was replying to, except as a hook for your even less relevant Science vs. God argument. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
Faith doesn't explain anything. Faith is the last place to look when you want objective truth, or, to avoid it.
CillyMe wrote: Faith doesn't explain anything. Faith is the last place to look when you want objective truth, or, to avoid it. I didn't say that it did. My statement was simply to point out that without faith, reading that book will not make you a christian. There is no overwhelming proof that God exists. If there were, then our relationship for God would only be based on fear rather than the love he desires. Therefore, faith is essential.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
Ok... The first point anyone should admit about religion (or any other fundamental debate/issue, come to think of it) is that anything based on faith (meaning anything, since every system of belief or operation has axioms, and even that can't make something complete - see Godel) cannot be decided. Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. Even so, I just want to question some points of your argument that have been debated many times before. #1) Much, if not most, of your argument is based on how unlikely any particular event of evolution is, let alone a chain of such events. However, the simplified probability (that allows you to predict expected times) you cite/use is based on the idea that there is only one instance where it may happen, even if the chance is repeated over and over. Remember the size of the universe? How many planetary systems are likely to be present in that big a volume, even given the observed relatively-low density? How many of those would be around the right kind of star? Well, I'm not going to go through every term... but can you tell that we're approaching some sort of Drake equation, here? A term for each probability factor, and another term for the numbers of stars in the universe - which is, by definition, astronomically high. And that pun is fully intended. #2) In your evolutionary section, you assert something that is clearly wrong. Note well: Mutations are not usually harmful! Rather, mutations almost always have no effect. It's a matter of how much of DNA is unused, or to a point, unimportant (it can tolerate some change). Also, again, it's a matter of numbers and scale. The probability of useful mutations occurring in a species is just as dependent on the number of children produced by the population as a whole as it is on the chance of the mutation happening at all. #3) Your evolutionary arguments are almost entirely based on the idea that evolution happens only when necessary to survive in a new environment, or to be more successful in a constant one. If I may be blunt, this is an enormous fallacy. Evolution, by nature, is a process of changes. Think of it as nature's trial and error. Subpoint a) Admittedly, naive trial and error is extremely inefficient. However, educated trial and error is extremely efficient for maximization/minimization problems where one does not know the exact function. Evolution is not naive. Drastic changes, such as introduci
Eric Astor wrote: Deductive reasoning is essentially just as firmly based on faith in the steps of reasoning as religion is on faith in teachings and faith in general. Deductive reasoning is based on just that - reasoning. Granted, there is some faith involved, but that faith is rooted on the natural outcomes/consequences of known facts. There is a remote chance that the outcomes/consequences of those facts may differ somewhat from what is naturally expected - therefore, any good reasoning is based on more than one such deductive proof - and in this case, there are hundreds. Also see my response below. Eric Astor wrote: Remember the size of the universe? How many planetary systems are likely to be present in that big a volume, even given the observed relatively-low density? How many of those would be around the right kind of star? The fact is that even counting that in, the odds are so high that it would not occur that even given the huge size of the universe, it is still totally impossible for such a thing to occur. Lets take a closer look here: < Paraphrased from this article[^] > The French mathematician, Emile Borel, in his book, "Probabilities and Life" ('62; in chapters 2 &3), explains that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is statistically considered to be zero. 1 There are about this many atoms in/on planet earth. But suppose we set an even tougher standard, which we will call our "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance. We'll establish that limit in the following way: Since there are 10^84 sub-atomic particles in the known physical cosmos, and Since there are a maximum of 10^20 interactions (oscilations/cycles) per second between any two of those sub-atomic particles, and Since there are 10^17 seconds in the supposed age of the cosmos (15 bill.yrs), . . . if we mulitply the above three numbers out, we get the number 10^121. ----So, 10^121 equals the total number of physical atomic interactions possible since the beginning of the universe (at the "Big Bang") ... we can reasonably say that any event whose chance of occurrence is less than one chance out of 10^125 has been virtually "proven" to be statistically impossible in a
-
John Carson wrote: This statement strikes me as completely disingenuous. I do apologize. Let me try to be more clear: John Carson wrote: Science has an account of the history of the universe starting with the Big Bang and finishing up with the evolution of life on earth. Science is neither a monolithic knowledge base, nor a complete and flawless history. Rather, it is a system for validating empirical and experimental data, and the knowledge gained in this manner. It is a extremely useful tool to use in understanding the world in which we live. However, as with any tool, it is limited finally by those who use it. John Carson wrote: My statement that "No one has any idea how God came into being" was not meant to imply I'm more interested in what it was meant to imply, as you have yet to show its relevance to the post it was replying to, except as a hook for your even less relevant Science vs. God argument. Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
Shog9 wrote: Science is neither a monolithic knowledge base, nor a complete and flawless history. Rather, it is a system for validating empirical and experimental data, and the knowledge gained in this manner. It is a extremely useful tool to use in understanding the world in which we live. However, as with any tool, it is limited finally by those who use it. I don't dispute what you say about the limits of science (and could add to your list). I do dispute that there is any worthwhile alternative. And, while science is not monolithic, there is an overwhelming consensus on many of the issues to do with origins. My basic problem with "faith" as an alternative to science (or complement, if you prefer) is that you can have faith in anything. Faith has no power of discrimination. A scientific hypothesis, by contrast, can be shown false by the evidence. This is the basis for having confidence in those hypotheses that survive repeated testing. Shog9 wrote: I'm more interested in what it was meant to imply, as you have yet to show its relevance to the post it was replying to, except as a hook for your even less relevant Science vs. God argument. Many people see the wonders of this world and cannot easily conceive how they might have arisen by "naturalistic" means. They then jump to the conclusion that the world must have been created by God. This seemed to be what you were doing in your original post. The mindset seems to be: either I can think of a naturalistic explanation for the world, or God must have created it. I think this is the wrong mindset. Instead, the question should be: given the alternative hypotheses of divine creation versus a naturalistic origin for the world, which hypothesis is best supported by the evidence? Thus one should look at the divine creation hypothesis with the same critical eye as the naturalistic one. In that context, one obvious question to ask is "where did God come from?" Others include "by what mechanism did he create the world?" and "is there evidence of a creation event?". I don't regard the first question as decisive. "God always existed" might be a perfectly acceptable reply. My point is that 1. the hypothesis of divine creation should be critically appraised rather than treated as the default to be adopted if naturalistic explanations are incomplete. 2. I can see no evidence in its favour. John Carson
-
I hardly know of a great physical truth whose universal recognition has not been preceded by an epoch in which the most estimable persons have maintained that the phenomena investigated were directly dependent on the Divine Will, and that the attempt to investigate them was not only futile but blasphemous. And there is a wonderful tenacity of life about this sort of opposition to physical science. Crushed and maimed in every battle, it yet seems never to be slain; and after a hundred defeats it is at this day as rampant, though happily not so mischievous, as in the time of Galileo. T.H. Huxley, 1860 One of the basic problems with the Christian community is that Christians have a hard time believing that their fellow Christians can tell lies or, more generally, seek to mislead and deceive. It follows that all it takes is a relatively small number of dishonest people in order for untruths to be believed by millions. The basic fact of evolution has not been in serious dispute among scientists for a century. The precise details of evolutionary descent and the detailed mechanisms that brought it about have been the subject of active research and debate, as one would expect in a healthy science. Much remains to be learned. But almost all biologists involved in the study of the origin of living organisms, including evangelical Christians, accept that evolution is a fact. Moreover, the evidence in favour of it grows stronger every year. The "creationist" industry is based on the lies and ignorance of a few and the gullibility and ignorance of the many. Creationists would have us believe that the world's experts on the issue of origins have all got it wrong. And a bunch of people with no scientific credibility have got it right. The truth it that creationism survives because people want to believe it on religious grounds, and for no other reason. Duane Gish's lies to the contrary notwithstanding, there are clear fossil lineages showing the transition from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles and from reptiles to birds and mammals. There are clear fossil lineages showing the evolution of the flowering plants from non-flowering plants. There are clear fossil lineages showing more micro transitions, such as the transition of the whale from a land dwelling mammal to a sea-dwelling mammal and the evolution of human beings from ape-like creatures. One of the most striking confirmations of evolution has been the use of DNA comparisons to establish the place of different organisms in the "family t
John Carson wrote: One of the basic problems with the Christian community is that Christians have a hard time believing that their fellow Christians can tell lies or, more generally, seek to mislead and deceive. It is definitely true that even among professing Christians there is deception. That is why we must be careful to evaluate things thoroughly before just up and believing them. John Carson wrote: It follows that all it takes is a relatively small number of dishonest people in order for untruths to be believed by millions. It also takes an equally small number of people to expose those untruths. John Carson wrote: The basic fact of evolution has not been in serious dispute among scientists for a century. Decidedly untrue. The main reason why so many people believe evolution is that it is taught in the public schools. John Carson wrote: But almost all biologists involved in the study of the origin of living organisms, including evangelical Christians, accept that evolution is a fact. Again, brainwashing. John Carson wrote: Creationists would have us believe that the world's experts on the issue of origins have all got it wrong. Many of the world's experts are creationists. Therefore, we have a mix of experts who believe in evolution and experts who believe in creation. John Carson wrote: there are clear fossil lineages showing the transition from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles and from reptiles to birds and mammals. With hundreds of missing links. See my response to Eric Astor's post. John Carson wrote: One of the most striking confirmations of evolution has been the use of DNA comparisons to establish the place of different organisms in the "family tree" of life. This is based on similarity which has not been proven to be due to ancestry, and has many holes in it. John Carson wrote: As for the archaelogical evidence in favour of the Bible, the story is similar. Christians believe other Christians because they are Christians and in spite of their lack of professional credibility. Or do athiests believe other athiests because they are athiests and in spite of their lack of professional credibility? John Carson wrote: A review of a recent book: The Bible Unear
-
CillyMe wrote: Faith doesn't explain anything. Faith is the last place to look when you want objective truth, or, to avoid it. I didn't say that it did. My statement was simply to point out that without faith, reading that book will not make you a christian. There is no overwhelming proof that God exists. If there were, then our relationship for God would only be based on fear rather than the love he desires. Therefore, faith is essential.
"We have done so much in the last 2 years, and it doesn't happen by standing around with your finger in your ear, hoping everyone thinks that that's nice." - Donald Rumsfeld
Jason Henderson
blog -
John Carson wrote: One of the basic problems with the Christian community is that Christians have a hard time believing that their fellow Christians can tell lies or, more generally, seek to mislead and deceive. It is definitely true that even among professing Christians there is deception. That is why we must be careful to evaluate things thoroughly before just up and believing them. John Carson wrote: It follows that all it takes is a relatively small number of dishonest people in order for untruths to be believed by millions. It also takes an equally small number of people to expose those untruths. John Carson wrote: The basic fact of evolution has not been in serious dispute among scientists for a century. Decidedly untrue. The main reason why so many people believe evolution is that it is taught in the public schools. John Carson wrote: But almost all biologists involved in the study of the origin of living organisms, including evangelical Christians, accept that evolution is a fact. Again, brainwashing. John Carson wrote: Creationists would have us believe that the world's experts on the issue of origins have all got it wrong. Many of the world's experts are creationists. Therefore, we have a mix of experts who believe in evolution and experts who believe in creation. John Carson wrote: there are clear fossil lineages showing the transition from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles and from reptiles to birds and mammals. With hundreds of missing links. See my response to Eric Astor's post. John Carson wrote: One of the most striking confirmations of evolution has been the use of DNA comparisons to establish the place of different organisms in the "family tree" of life. This is based on similarity which has not been proven to be due to ancestry, and has many holes in it. John Carson wrote: As for the archaelogical evidence in favour of the Bible, the story is similar. Christians believe other Christians because they are Christians and in spite of their lack of professional credibility. Or do athiests believe other athiests because they are athiests and in spite of their lack of professional credibility? John Carson wrote: A review of a recent book: The Bible Unear
jdunlap wrote: It also takes an equally small number of people to expose those untruths. To the contrary. If one group of Christians tells untruths and another group later exposes them, then Christians experience cognitive dissonance (they are unable to make sense of something so contrary to their prior beliefs) and block out the news --- especially if the first group is saying things that support traditional religious belief. jdunlap wrote: Many of the world's experts are creationists. Therefore, we have a mix of experts who believe in evolution and experts who believe in creation. I am afraid you have been lied to. The following is from an article in Scientific American. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. Scientific American Article[^] Creationism has essentially no standing in the scientific community. Creationists are a fringe group supported by religious organisations. John Carson
-
Shog9 wrote: Science is neither a monolithic knowledge base, nor a complete and flawless history. Rather, it is a system for validating empirical and experimental data, and the knowledge gained in this manner. It is a extremely useful tool to use in understanding the world in which we live. However, as with any tool, it is limited finally by those who use it. I don't dispute what you say about the limits of science (and could add to your list). I do dispute that there is any worthwhile alternative. And, while science is not monolithic, there is an overwhelming consensus on many of the issues to do with origins. My basic problem with "faith" as an alternative to science (or complement, if you prefer) is that you can have faith in anything. Faith has no power of discrimination. A scientific hypothesis, by contrast, can be shown false by the evidence. This is the basis for having confidence in those hypotheses that survive repeated testing. Shog9 wrote: I'm more interested in what it was meant to imply, as you have yet to show its relevance to the post it was replying to, except as a hook for your even less relevant Science vs. God argument. Many people see the wonders of this world and cannot easily conceive how they might have arisen by "naturalistic" means. They then jump to the conclusion that the world must have been created by God. This seemed to be what you were doing in your original post. The mindset seems to be: either I can think of a naturalistic explanation for the world, or God must have created it. I think this is the wrong mindset. Instead, the question should be: given the alternative hypotheses of divine creation versus a naturalistic origin for the world, which hypothesis is best supported by the evidence? Thus one should look at the divine creation hypothesis with the same critical eye as the naturalistic one. In that context, one obvious question to ask is "where did God come from?" Others include "by what mechanism did he create the world?" and "is there evidence of a creation event?". I don't regard the first question as decisive. "God always existed" might be a perfectly acceptable reply. My point is that 1. the hypothesis of divine creation should be critically appraised rather than treated as the default to be adopted if naturalistic explanations are incomplete. 2. I can see no evidence in its favour. John Carson
John Carson wrote: My basic problem with "faith" as an alternative to science (or complement, if you prefer) is that you can have faith in anything. Faith has no power of discrimination. A scientific hypothesis, by contrast, can be shown false by the evidence. This is the basis for having confidence in those hypotheses that survive repeated testing. I don't disagree with this. However, i am sharply skeptical of the idea that it is possible for any person to base their entire set of beliefs on scientifically derived knowledge. There is a great danger, IMHO, in being unaware of the basis for any belief which affects how you interact with others. John Carson wrote: This seemed to be what you were doing in your original post. Ahhh, now i see. This was not my intention. My point, rather, was that once you remove the requirement that a given proof apply all rules that define a system (and which, therefore, must be fully known), you have much greater freedom in deciding what criteria you will use. Now, i do see evidence of God's hand in many aspects of my life, and though i cannot always understand the mechanisms involved, this is hardly unusual. You, obviously, do not see these, nor are you required to - but for you to deny my ability to do so would be exceedingly arrogant - and this is how i took your initial reply, hence the tone of my response. ... Arguing against someone's faith, whatever that faith might be in, tends to be a futile effort. And as Jason noted above, even the existance of evidence does not necessarily result in faith. Hence, threads that turn into "for/against" arguments tend just to reinforce certain cliches on the poinlessness of Internet discussions... ;) Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
-
John Carson wrote: My basic problem with "faith" as an alternative to science (or complement, if you prefer) is that you can have faith in anything. Faith has no power of discrimination. A scientific hypothesis, by contrast, can be shown false by the evidence. This is the basis for having confidence in those hypotheses that survive repeated testing. I don't disagree with this. However, i am sharply skeptical of the idea that it is possible for any person to base their entire set of beliefs on scientifically derived knowledge. There is a great danger, IMHO, in being unaware of the basis for any belief which affects how you interact with others. John Carson wrote: This seemed to be what you were doing in your original post. Ahhh, now i see. This was not my intention. My point, rather, was that once you remove the requirement that a given proof apply all rules that define a system (and which, therefore, must be fully known), you have much greater freedom in deciding what criteria you will use. Now, i do see evidence of God's hand in many aspects of my life, and though i cannot always understand the mechanisms involved, this is hardly unusual. You, obviously, do not see these, nor are you required to - but for you to deny my ability to do so would be exceedingly arrogant - and this is how i took your initial reply, hence the tone of my response. ... Arguing against someone's faith, whatever that faith might be in, tends to be a futile effort. And as Jason noted above, even the existance of evidence does not necessarily result in faith. Hence, threads that turn into "for/against" arguments tend just to reinforce certain cliches on the poinlessness of Internet discussions... ;) Z
no one puts flowers
on a flower's grave
Shog9 wrote: However, i am sharply skeptical of the idea that it is possible for any person to base their entire set of beliefs on scientifically derived knowledge. So am I. Scientific knowledge is hard won: both in terms of the progress of science as a discipline and, even more, in terms of the level of understanding of a given individual (and of course there are ethical questions to which science may make some contribution but which it is outside the scope of science to resolve). Most of our opinions are very dubiously grounded; that is part of the human condition. But sometimes there is a scientific consensus on an issue and it strikes me as very rash to go against it. Further, I regard beliefs (on factual questions) that are not scientifically derived as a regretable necessity, not something that should be accorded equal status with beliefs that are scientifically well grounded. John Carson
-
peterchen wrote: If this would be true, god is a dangerous whacko.Really. Do you not get nightmares? Later, JoeSox "Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." -- Baruch Spinoza joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
Almost never - it feels like if it gets "to nasty", I can stop/evade it. It's said that some people can "control" their dreams, so that they are interactive, it is not that, unless in "seriously tough" situations. Tonite was ok ()memories just starting to fade) - but a fewdays ago it was uoooh! Maybe god was just drunk.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
peterchen wrote: Does a tree stop growing just because you can't prove it's existence? Does a good Shakespeare performance not make you laugh and weep, just because you know it's acted? We can prove the existence of that tree, because it grows. Something that does not exist cannot grow. The Shakespear perform exists while it's performed. peterchen wrote: There are many things beyond proove. Our senses are limited, as is deduction, logic. It's arrogance (or naivety) to assume that something as complex as the universe (or human imagination, if you go with that philosophical streak) can be fully covered with these limited tools. I don't think human imagination is too limited, if we can imagine a god. peterchen wrote: Proof is not necessary. Existence is not necessary. If proof is not necessary no one would even try to find it. If existence is not necessary we wouldn't exist. "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.
You are using to a very "shady" definition of "exists" here. Sebastián Benítez wrote: Shakespear perform exists while it's performed If many people believe in God, does he exist just through that? Did the greek gods exist as long as enough people believed in them, prayed to them, braught them Gifts? Did their power wane because people turned away from them? I would expect you cannot agree with this, as it would void the necessity of proof. Sebastián Benítez wrote: I don't think human imagination is too limited, if we can imagine a god. Ohhh hooo! Looking around me - square houses, square windows, square cabinets, square doors, square cookie package, square PC - you know which color, just look at yours - ah, there - a round table, circular: Imagination is at least limited by lazyness and greed. As what we imagine good? The christian churches fight against a personification of god is hopeless - people turned to Jesus (God in human form, within human limits), or Mary. Proof is not necessary for belief, and IMO for the existance of good. Proof is only required by religion, which entangles belief with power. What is "exist"? You may be a fathom of my imagination. You want to grow a huge pimple on your nose?
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
I suggest you get a copy of 'Dark Star' an old Sci-Fi comedy. Here is a transcript of a conversation with a smart bomb that is convinced it should detonate. What you said on 'the proof of existance' reminded me of it. How do we proove that we exist? Doolittle is a crewmember trying to pursuade the bomb not to blow up. Read on... [Edit]This page has an easier to read transcript[/Edit] Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me? Bomb #20: Of course. Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts? Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions. Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist? Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist. Doolittle: But how do you know you exist? Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious. Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist? Bomb #20: Hmmmm.....well.....I think, therefore I am. Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists? Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun! Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center. Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections. Doolittle: Exactly! Bomb #20: Why...that would mean that...I really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain. Doolittle: That's it! That's it! Bomb #20 : Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter. Doolittle: Why don't you have more time? Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds. Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life? Bomb #20: To explode, of course. Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right? Bomb #20: That is correct. Doolittle: And you wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data, would you? Bomb #20: Of course not. Doolittle: Well then, you've already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe. Bomb #20: Yes...well... Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate. Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation ord
-
jdunlap wrote: It also takes an equally small number of people to expose those untruths. To the contrary. If one group of Christians tells untruths and another group later exposes them, then Christians experience cognitive dissonance (they are unable to make sense of something so contrary to their prior beliefs) and block out the news --- especially if the first group is saying things that support traditional religious belief. jdunlap wrote: Many of the world's experts are creationists. Therefore, we have a mix of experts who believe in evolution and experts who believe in creation. I am afraid you have been lied to. The following is from an article in Scientific American. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept. Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously. Scientific American Article[^] Creationism has essentially no standing in the scientific community. Creationists are a fringe group supported by religious organisations. John Carson
There are currently around 40,000 creation-believing scientists in America alone, about 20,000 of which are conservative Christian scientists. Many of those scientists have made great breakthroughs in science. John Carson wrote: Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. This is partly because the person who wrote this article for the Scientific American does not consider any scientific publication that supports creationism to be serious. See my links below. John Carson wrote: Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult This is partly because the articles that say differently are often not allowed to be published in evolutionist-biased publications. Contrast that with creationist publications, which allow evolutionist articles to be published, and then refute them with sound scientific evidence. Granted, there is a split between creationists and evolutionists. But this does not mean that creationism is not scientific. Top Scientists Speak About Evolution[^] Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? [^] I'll post more links and articles tomorrow, but right now it's hours past my bedtime, so I'm signing off.
**"We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount." -- Omar N. Bradley
FLUID UI Toolkit |**