QuoteReplyTopic: How do creationist explain fossil fuels? Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 00:12
Originally posted by Menumorut
Chilb, you are messing my words. I didn't say natural laws doesn't work but they are not intrinsic to mattery. So, if you jump from a building you may get crushed or stay untouched, depend of God's will.
About evolution theory. If you accept God as a rational and alive Bening is senseless to think that He need to produce some species from others. He creates OUT OF NOTHING. So, even He would decide to make animals and plants species evoluate from other species, it will be no more than an appeareance.
Earlier you mention and imply that we could technically control that crush or untouched after effect of falling depending on us figuring out this great hoax of gravity. Now how do you prove that?
Chilb, you are messing my words. I didn't say natural laws doesn't work but they are not intrinsic to mattery. So, if you jump from a building you may get crushed or stay untouched, depend of God's will.
About evolution theory. If you accept God as a rational and alive Bening is senseless to think that He need to produce some species from others. He creates OUT OF NOTHING. So, even He would decide to make animals and plants species evoluate from other species, it will be no more than an appeareance.
Technically if you take God as rational then God would be in line with evolution and the big bang as it is much more suiting to reason, not to mention that reason or at least our acquired temporal definition of reason would judge that to be the case. Reason and creationism have never coincided, because the latter is not founded on our "human" if you will definition of reason. Now please stop going back and forth and actually prove this aside from a youtube link.
The Physical rules of the universe - which humans are slowly using scientific principles to discover - are the method God uses to exert his will on the universe, "Gods hand" so to speak. Although that sentence sounds way to simple for what I am trying to say.
Think about it as if you were writing a computer program, you create the laws so they interoperate in the correct manner to produce the effect you want. The programmer is outside the time of the program - he has completely designed it before running it in our time perception - but created it in an instant (or before time) in the programs view of the world. When at t=5 program time (which could be any time in real world because we can pause/speed up the program as we wish) a certain event occurs, to the program it appears to be the result of the laws in the program coinciding, but to the programmer that event occurred because we designed those laws to coincide at that point.
If we extend this simile to creation (which is by no means necessarily valid) then the question of when God created the universe is irrelevent and meaningless, because we (the program) do not operate in the same time domain as God, and as it stated in the Quran ([32:5],[70:4],[32:5]), those time domains are not necessarily correlated at all! The program could have started 4000 years or 4 billion years ago, but it is irrelevant because the program has been designed so that to the person in the program it is 4 billions years old.
Chilb, you are messing my words. I didn't say natural laws doesn't work but they are not intrinsic to mattery.
Neither evolutionism, nor quantum mechanics nor any other theory challenge such things. They are simply unaddressed, it's about metaphysics.
About evolution theory. If you accept God as a rational and alive Bening is senseless to think that He need to produce some species from others.
Not really, there are Christian evolutionist scientists.
But on the other hand what would you know of what a god needs?
He creates OUT OF NOTHING. So, even He would decide to make animals and plants species evoluate from other species, it will be no more than an appeareance.
Even it would be so, you're discussing metaphysics, evolutionism and creationism are theories of "physics" (originally the understanding of nature, of the natural world), of what we see around us (appearences or not). You can always come with a philosophy of As-If and move on ...
Earlier you mention and imply that we could technically control that crush or untouched after effect of falling depending on us figuring out this great hoax of gravity. Now how do you prove that?
No, I didn't say that. I said that mattery has no autonomous existence and there is not causality in material world. But God can affect our integrity. Our body is actually our perception of it (with the five senses) so God can make feel us like crushed, when a fall apparently occur. How's that? Visually we see we are falling, with the tactile sense we have the impression our skin passes fastly through air and our membres are pushed by the air density, also there are other non-physical sensations, like a strong fear. All these combined creates the impression of falling and if we survive, the later sensations, of being hurted. If we not survive we pass in the other world when other sensations created by God in our conscience occur. All these are created sensations but there isalso a kind of non-created sensation, when humans perceive the uncreated essence of God (called in Orthodox ascetic literature "Uncreated Light"), in which consist the happiness in eternall life.
Technically if you take God as rational then God would be in line with evolution and the big bang as it is much more suiting to reason, not to mention that reason or at least our acquired temporal definition of reason would judge that to be the case. Reason and creationism have never coincided, because the latter is not founded on our "human" if you will definition of reason. Now please stop going back and forth and actually prove this aside from a youtube link.
Is not logical what you say. God is not part of existence but the Being, the real existence. We have a created existence, not the absolute existence. So, God is not subject of what He created, natural laws are His creation, not something He is subject of.
Originally posted by Chilbudios
But on the other hand what would you know of what a god needs?
I don't know what He needs. I explained why He don't have to obbey a intercausality of things He created because that causality cann't exist if He is their ex nihilo creator.
Even it would be so, you're discussing metaphysics, evolutionism and creationism are theories of "physics" (originally the understanding of nature, of the natural world), of what we see around us (appearences or not). You can always come with a philosophy of As-If and move on
You come (like usually) with artificial concepts, not needed in discussion.
I don't know what He needs. I explained why He don't have to obbey a intercausality of things He created because that causality cann't exist if He is their ex nihilo creator.
But you're contradicting yourself, if you don't know nothing about god, you don't know what he needs, you don't know what he has or doesn't have to do, right? You don't know if he has the power or the need to change or change not his creation.
You come (like usually) with artificial concepts, not needed in discussion.
Or perhaps your perspective is limited and your understanding is flawed (as usually ). I said "there are Christian evolutionist scientists". Just think about it, how can one be religious and evolutionist at the same time, and maybe you'll understand the difference between physics and metaphysics.
If you're not sure what do I mean by that you could a) read the post I replied to b) ask me.
If you like to speculate ad hominem, allow me to reply in the same manner: you seem to be part of those people believing in Science.
I meant those comments as a disclaimer, as for once I did not want to shoot first and ask questions later. I was not sure that you are one of 'truth lies in between' people. However, you responded with a condescending and arrogant attitude. I will respond in kind.
But science is not so much about truth, rather about verifiability. A lot of scientific theories proved to be false, so what, we correct them or replace them and we move on.
Yes, so it seems you are not that ignorant, after all. You know something about science, good. Now, since you claim the equality of the two, please tell us if this applies to religion as well. Do religious dogma get proven false and get corrected or replaced and do we move on? Or are we still stuck in the same Moses-Jesus-Mohammed crap from 2000 years ago?
Yes, truth is relative and that does not come from post-modernists, but from physicists and mathematicians. Anyone with brains and education should know that his truths are relative to his premises.
Hmmm, you seem to have reached the limits of your knowledge here despite your claims of superior brains and education to us laymen. Because, you see, mathematical truth is indeed based on premises, but it tell us nothing about the world. It is therefore nothing but tautology.
As to physics, I happen to hold a physics degree or two myself and I find your claim rather ridiculous. You think, say, gravity is relative to your premises (which does not mean your frame of reference)?
Social order? Do I smell Marxism?
Aaah, the cheapest, least creative form of ad-hominem... Is this third-hand parroting of others' tactics the best you can come up with with all your 'brains and education'? You truly disappoint me.
So you believe people believe in religion because they believe religion explains the world better than science? If that is the case, how do you explain the existence of Christian scientists whose existence you are defending here? In fact, people believe in religion for many different reasons, most of which are social. Most don't even think or care about explaining the world, or believe in science in explaining the world, while at the same time believing in religion, and live happily with contradictions.
Ancient Greeks had the choice to be atheists, yet most of them weren't. This "have-to-become-atheist" sounds so teleological, so millenaristic. And you wonder why I find the anti-religious camp funny.
First of all, I haven't written that they 'have-to-become-atheist', that's a strawman lightly put, or a lie, if I put it more clearly. They don't have to be secular or atheists, but history shows us that they have done just that. Just compare the percentage of scientists who believe in god and the percentage of normal people. Scientists are far more atheistic than normal people.
Of course, you ad hominem, saying it is 'funny' in a desperate attempt to appeal to the public (whom you think agree with you, and maybe you are right). But in reality, you don't find this funny, oh no. In reality you are scared. Because you are aware that science and religion are in conflict. You just want to eat your cake and keep it at the same time, you don't want to choose between your cosy, convenient, comforting, warm, fuzzy belief in god and the, let's be frank here, obvious truth of science. That's why you hate the people who have chosen (me, who has chosen the rational, and the other guy who has chosen the mumbo-jumbo). You just don't have the willpower to be frank to yourself.
But, that's hardly surprising. That's why I mentioned the importance of an existing social framework for secularism/atheism before. In the middle ages, even if one is a genious, it was socially impossible to become an atheist. This is quite true in many backward countries today. You also come from a relatively backward country, for you it's even harder to be an atheist. I am fine with you believing in your gods and mumbo-jumbo, and live a life of contradiction. Really. What makes me angry is you arrogantly telling scientists like me that you are rational and we are not. If you do this, I will remind you the sad truth: we are honest to ourselves, and you are not.
However, from someone preaching Truth, that sounds quite hypocritical. Or the Truth that the Christians weren't that stupid as often imagined is not a convenient one?
How can billions of Christians be stupid? That's not what I claimed. You are still fighting your strawmen and windmills. Christianity (like most religions) is stupid, not the Christians.
Galileo, for instance, claimed that the tides were provoked by the rotation of Earth on its axis (some speculate that his devotion to the Copernican model was also to promote his theory of tides), a claim, which at least according to what we know today, is false. Yet he fought for it against the scholars and theologians of his time, and also suffered for it.
He believed that theory. It is his right as a scientist to teach whatever he believes is the truth. Church is the last authority on the planet to tell him what to do.
I already said it, the intellectual climate was certainly intolerant and harsh in 16-17th century Italy, but that doesn't give us the excuse to invent martyrdoms and saints.
So you are an apologist for the inquisiton now. See how low your conformism makes you stoop? If anyone in all of human history qualifies to be a 'saint' or a 'martyr', it is someone who got burnt on the stake by barbarians for teaching the truth. It is totally disgusting to defend the barbarity of the Christians where even the Pope himself apologised.
I meant those comments as a disclaimer, as for once I did not want to shoot first and ask questions later. I was not sure that you are one of 'truth lies in between' people. However, you responded with a condescending and arrogant attitude. I will respond in kind.
Maybe you should scroll back in the thread and see who jumped with insinuations that I'm postmodernist (used as a pejorative term, of course), that my feelings would be hurt because religion is "full of crap" and other such sweet lines.
Yes, so it seems you are not that ignorant, after all. You know something about science, good. Now, since you claim the equality of the two, please tell us if this applies to religion as well. Do religious dogma get proven false and get corrected or replaced and do we move on? Or are we still stuck in the same Moses-Jesus-Mohammed crap from 2000 years ago?
I do not claim the equality of the two. I rather claimed the two are uncomparable.
Many religious dogma cannot be proven false. See above about metaphysics.
Hmmm, you seem to have reached the limits of your knowledge here despite your claims of superior brains and education to us laymen. Because, you see, mathematical truth is indeed based on premises, but it tell us nothing about the world. It is therefore nothing but tautology.
Smartie, I said "physicists and mathematicians" (you brag about holding a degree, don't tell me they didn't teach you basic formal logic in university?). You cannot develop a theory of relativity or quantum mechanics without maths. A great part of modern physics is maths, whether you like it or not. And consequently some of the premises of modern sciences (physics in particular) are purely mathematical or logical. Generalization (inductive reasoning), for instance, is something we use continuously and we think and act as if our inductive construction holds, as if this unwarranted premise of ours is true.
As to physics, I happen to hold a physics degree or two myself and I find your claim rather ridiculous. You think, say, gravity is relative to your premises (which does not mean your frame of reference)?
Considering your replies I doubt your degrees cover a real understanding of physics or science in general. How about reading Popper?
Or to keep the debate somehow on the topic, try something very trivial: prove there's a sun (and beware I'll question any premise!) and maybe after we can discuss about gravity. After all, we have people like Menumorut claiming everything is an illusion. Beyond other inconsistencies, their position is justified by the lack of un ultimate proof, by the fact that everything we know of the real world requires premises (frames of refrence you say? ) to hold.
Aaah, the cheapest, least creative form of ad-hominem... Is this third-hand parroting of others' tactics the best you can come up with with all your 'brains and education'? You truly disappoint me.
I fail to see how 'social order' can be relevant for a debate on science and religion, on evolutionism and creationism. If it's not Marxism, then what is it?
So you believe people believe in religion because they believe religion explains the world better than science?
Depends what you mean by world. If you mean natural world, then certainly no. If you mean that unique world perceived by each of us, probably yes, when the beliefs fail to provide the answers the people look for, I assume the beliefs change.
If that is the case, how do you explain the existence of Christian scientists whose existence you are defending here? In fact, people believe in religion for many different reasons, most of which are social. Most don't even think or care about explaining the world, or believe in science in explaining the world, while at the same time believing in religion, and live happily with contradictions.
I think you miss the point. Those Christians believe in a metaphysical god, therefore their religion is more than a social convenience. Perhaps many do not go frequently to Church (anyway they wouldn't have the time to).
First of all, I haven't written that they 'have-to-become-atheist', that's a strawman lightly put, or a lie, if I put it more clearly. They don't have to be secular or atheists, but history shows us that they have done just that.
I didn't say you wrote that, so maybe you're the one building the strawman in your incapacity to understand what my point is. You said that whenever people had the choice they became secular if not outright atheist. In other words, whenever people were to choose between religion and non-religion, they chose the latter (you see now the 'have-to-become' part?). And I replied that there were in history such cases (my example was Ancient Greece) and your claim does not hold against evidence.
Of course, you ad hominem, saying it is 'funny' in a desperate attempt to appeal to the public (whom you think agree with you, and maybe you are right). But in reality, you don't find this funny, oh no. In reality you are scared. Because you are aware that science and religion are in conflict. You just want to eat your cake and keep it at the same time, you don't want to choose between your cosy, convenient, comforting, warm, fuzzy belief in god and the, let's be frank here, obvious truth of science. That's why you hate the people who have chosen (me, who has chosen the rational, and the other guy who has chosen the mumbo-jumbo). You just don't have the willpower to be frank to yourself.
If I'm not religious why would I be scared? If you want to do punk-psychology on forums, try that one: why would I defend something I'm not believing in?
Anyway, let me prove why anti-religious brainwashing is funny in another way (I did it on another thread, but the opportunities seem endless). It's not a straw-man, it's a parody:
Of course, you ad hominem, saying it is 'funny' in a desperate attempt to appeal to the public (whom you think agree with you, and maybe you are right). But in reality, you don't find this funny, oh no. In reality you are scared. Because you are aware that truth and atheism are in conflict. You just want to eat your cake and keep it at the same time, you don't want to choose between your cosy, convenient, comforting, warm, fuzzy non-belief in god and the, let's be frank here, obvious truth of theism.
As for the false dichotomy, if some people see the world black-and-white, it doesn't mean it is really so. Ok, let's say I'm scared, but there's a hoard of scholars claiming there's more than a blunt opposition science vs religion. You haven't read the most of them. You'll now do what? Group them together and label them 'scared', 'haters', etc. (or perhaps 'postmodernists' ) like you did on me?
How can billions of Christians be stupid? That's not what I claimed. You are still fighting your strawmen and windmills. Christianity (like most religions) is stupid, not the Christians.
You probably have no clue what straw man is. Yiannis said of 'theologists/wanna-be-scientists who had "valid" arguments that earth is [...] even flat' (as you can see, it is about Christians, not Christianity!). I replied to him. If you challenge my position, then you're supporting his. Or perhaps you jumped in a discussion you don't understand, and then you're just a troll.
He believed that theory. It is his right as a scientist to teach whatever he believes is the truth. Church is the last authority on the planet to tell him what to do.
Church was actually the main authority, and as result he ended under a house-arrest. He had no rights (can you quote from an "Italian constitution" of that time his right 'to teach whatever he believes'? No? I thought so). Moreover his beliefs not only that were false, were counter-factual (one of the objections was that some tides are semidiurnal, not diurnal as his theory would have required, objection he eventually ignored and invoked some 'hidden causes'), and probably that was one of the many causes which led to his theory to be considered highly suspicious. Like Einstein had put it ( http://books.google.com/books?id=qxlSbMKFlsgC&pg=PR17 ) "It was Galileo's longing for a mechanical proof of the motion of the earth which misled him into formulating a wrong theory of the tides. The fascinating arguments in the last conversation would hardly have been accepted as proofs by Galileo, had his temperament not got the better of him."
So you are an apologist for the inquisiton now. See how low your conformism makes you stoop? If anyone in all of human history qualifies to be a 'saint' or a 'martyr', it is someone who got burnt on the stake by barbarians for teaching the truth. It is totally disgusting to defend the barbarity of the Christians where even the Pope himself apologised.
Bruno taught no truths, he was a mystic having little understanding of natural philosophy (or science as we know it today). He was naive enough, stubborn enough to do not accept compromise. He probably believed it's worth suffering and dying for beliefs.
To mourn the loss of human life is one thing, to invent a history where Christians are barbarians and poor scientists were martyrized (most of them being more or less Christian, as well) is another, it is a myth, probably a new religion (though I opposed this extended semantics in the past) - it has saints, prophets, and considering the the suspension of reason and evidence when it's about some touchy subjects, probably also metaphysics.
Maybe you should scroll back in the thread and see who jumped with insinuations that I'm postmodernist (used as a pejorative term, of course), that my feelings would be hurt because religion is "full of crap" and other such sweet lines.
Yeah? I see despite your superiority complex your cognitive capacities are rather limited. So I will break down what I have written to make it easier to understand:
First sentence, I wrote:
1. 'I am not sure what you mean' (meaning: please tell me if I am wrong)
2. IF you are claiming those things (do you know the meaning of 'if', o grandmaster of logic?)
3. THEN you are a post-modernist (which is not an insult)
4. which I believe is crap (my personal belief)
For the other sentence:
1. Religion is full of crap. (again my personal belief)
2. IF this hurts your feelings (again, do you know what 'if' means?)
3. THEN you have to live with it (which is a fact)
I do not claim the equality of the two. I rather claimed the two are uncomparable.
Which is as cheap a cop-out as it gets. Unfortunately for you, religion and science have conflicting claims, and they are perfectly comparable then. And religion failed miserably every single time this happened in history and got reduced to the state it is in now. Its defenders today are reduced to delusional sceptics (god creates the world illusion).
Many religious dogma cannot be proven false. See above about metaphysics.
Like Graham pointed out, your argument of 'dogma proven false' is nonsense.
You cannot develop a theory of relativity or quantum mechanics without maths. A great part of modern physics is maths, whether you like it or not. And consequently some of the premises of modern sciences (physics in particular) are purely mathematical or logical.
You confuse language with reality. Maths describes the reality, it does not create it. It is also perfectly possible to have a physical description (as well as an understanding) of the world without using maths. Faraday's lab notebooks did not have maths in them, yet they have the truth. Maths provide just the easiest way of describing the reality. and its need of premises is a shortcoming of the language not of the sense.
Generalization (inductive reasoning), for instance, is something we use continuously and we think and act as if our inductive construction holds, as if this unwarranted premise of ours is true.
What news! Hume died a long time ago. I guess in your desperation you are digging your trenches in epistemology hoping that you can draw me to a war of attrition which you hope to win by a full sceptic position (by 'showing' me how all our beliefs can not really be proven, and how 'ratio' is no superior to epiphany as a source of knowledge...). I am actually tempted to press on you to make you come to the conclusion that 'science is the same as religion' which you denied earlier, but I despise your crude tactics and will refrain.
So, nice try but no cookie for you. I just laugh at how you reduced yourself to the position of the 'everything is illusion created by God' guy...
Considering your replies I doubt your degrees cover a real understanding of physics or science in general. How about reading Popper?
You know what? Wittgenstein once attacked Popper with a fireplace poker. That's what I am doing to you right now, but you are so arrogant that you fail to see that I am familiar with all those Wiener Kreis epistemology. I guess you won't notice until I bash your head right in.
Or to keep the debate somehow on the topic, try something very trivial: prove there's a sun (and beware I'll question any premise!) and maybe after we can discuss about gravity.
Here you are, the sweet smell of desperation. Reduced yourself to a sceptic, bravo. If the sun does not exist, what's the difference between you and Menomrut?
After all, we have people like Menumorut claiming everything is an illusion.
Yeah, we have Menomrut and you. I don't claim the sun is an illusion, you do...
I fail to see how 'social order' can be relevant for a debate on science and religion, on evolutionism and creationism. If it's not Marxism, then what is it?
I already explained enough. People with 'brains and education' should have understood it.
Depends what you mean by world. If you mean natural world, then certainly no. If you mean that unique world perceived by each of us, probably yes, when the beliefs fail to provide the answers the people look for, I assume the beliefs change.
I meant the first, but you are wrong about both cases. Most people don't 'look for answers'. They believe because of social convention, without questioning. Everyone around them believes, so they believe. Many can't even imagine the existence of other systems of beliefs, let alone of atheism. What's more if they start to 'look for answers', they are more likely to reject religion. When people question their lives is when they are most likely to convert.
Those Christians believe in a metaphysical god, therefore their religion is more than a social convenience. Perhaps many do not go frequently to Church (anyway they wouldn't have the time to).
Christian god before it was emasculated by science was hardly a metaphysical god. So they believe in a metaphysical god, because their god was banished into that realm (i.e. the realm of mumbo-jumbo) by science. It is an ugly compromise, the only way to be a scientist and remain christian today. And many of course don't go to the church, that's why I've been writing they were secularised as well as became outright atheists.
You said that whenever people had the choice they became secular if not outright atheist. In other words, whenever people were to choose between religion and non-religion, they chose the latter (you see now the 'have-to-become' part?). And I replied that there were in history such cases (my example was Ancient Greece) and your claim does not hold against evidence.
You invest too much on your flimsy ancient Greece argument. It is really debatable. Many if not most pre-socratic 'natural philosophers' were indeed outright atheists. Also Ancient Greece was not that free either. Do you know how Socrates (another idiot) died? And after that, who cares what idiots like Plato were?
But we don't need to go there. We already live in the secularised world. My proof for my claim is already here and it is indisputable. Our age is more secular than before and the scientists are more secular than normal people. You have no way of denying this obvious truth, so you are resorting to strawman arguments of 'teleology'.
If I'm not religious why would I be scared? If you want to do punk-psychology on forums, try that one: why would I defend something I'm not believing in?
Well, you don't sound that irreligious to me. I don't know what you believe in but you have stooped really low to defend the inquisition when even the pope denounces it.
Anyway, let me prove why anti-religious brainwashing is funny in another way (I did it on another thread, but the opportunities seem endless). It's not a straw-man, it's a parody:
Your 'parody' proves nothing. Because the discussion here is 'religion vs science', not 'theism vs atheism'. Even then you are wrong, as theism is not same as atheism. Atheism is the truth, theism is bullocks.
Since you claim you know physics, I will try to explain it to you. You know, according to physics, it is not impossible that a broken cup will spontaneously re-assemble itself. However, no one waits for their cups to re-assemble themselves, they throw them away and buy new ones. Yet the same arrogant ischial tuberosities who so smugly tell us that atheism is the same as theism, because there is a small chance that god exists...
I have said all I can say before, I understand if you lack the willpower, the courage, the honesty, or whatever it is you are lacking, just keep your mouth shut.
As for the false dichotomy, if some people see the world black-and-white, it doesn't mean it is really so.
? Another strawman. I don't see them as extremes of a linear scale. I think science is valid, religion is invalid. Religion is not the only invalid discipline, neither is it the opposite of science. It is just full of crap, that's it.
A disclaimer here: OK, if we must really be so philosophical about it, I guess atheist religions like early Buddhism as preached by Gautama or original Taoism are not absolute crap. So if someone says 'hey, I follow the Buddha in such and such way and you are wrong', I would apologise. So, it may be wrong to denounce 'religion' completely.
But I did it here because in the context of this thread it is clear that the theistic abrahamic religions are the subject (which are infinitely inferior even to other religions such as original Buddhism, IMO).
You probably have no clue what straw man is.
I know what it is, but sometimes I use this term as an euphemism for 'lie'. If I called you a liar too often, you'd be whining and the mods would be unhappy.
Yiannis said of 'theologists/wanna-be-scientists who had "valid" arguments that earth is [...] even flat' (as you can see, it is about Christians, not Christianity!). I replied to him. If you challenge my position, then you're supporting his. Or perhaps you jumped in a discussion you don't understand, and then you're just a troll.
I like Yiannis, he's one of the best in here, but I am not him. You replied to him by writing 'anti-religious people are irrational and faith-based' and I disagreed carefully, leaving you room to clarify your position, but you responded to that by arrogant aggression. Only then have I moved in to bash your head in with my virtual fire-poker.
He had no rights (can you quote from an "Italian constitution" of that time his right 'to teach whatever he believes'? No? I thought so).
I think we have a fundamentally different understanding of the concept of 'right'. Let me say that I am just sorry for you and leave it at that.
But you're contradicting yourself, if you don't know nothing about god, you don't know what he needs, you don't know what he has or doesn't have to do, right? You don't know if he has the power or the need to change or change not his creation.
There is not total darkness, the gospels give us some repers, some ideas that we not take as dogma but as common sense explanations about God's will and plans.
Or perhaps your perspective is limited and your understanding is flawed (as usually ).
Better stop this game.
I said "there are Christian evolutionist scientists". Just think about it, how can one be religious and evolutionist at the same time, and maybe you'll understand the difference between physics and metaphysics.
Yes, there all kind of strange people. But you don't have to take them seriously.
The separation you make between physics and metaphysics is exagerate. I presented above my belief about what physics are.
Yeah? I see despite your superiority complex your cognitive capacities are rather limited. So I will break down what I have written to make it easier to understand:
First sentence, I wrote:
1. 'I am not sure what you mean' (meaning: please tell me if I am wrong) 2. IF you are claiming those things (do you know the meaning of 'if', o grandmaster of logic?) 3. THEN you are a post-modernist (which is not an insult) 4. which I believe is crap (my personal belief)
For the other sentence: 1. Religion is full of crap. (again my personal belief) 2. IF this hurts your feelings (again, do you know what 'if' means?) 3. THEN you have to live with it (which is a fact)
Oh, so if I write to you "if you're not a hopeless idiot you'll agree with me" I did not actually insult you because:
- do you know the meaning of "if"?
- it's my personal belief that those who do not agree with me are hopeless idiots, it's not really an insult
Which is as cheap a cop-out as it gets. Unfortunately for you, religion and science have conflicting claims, and they are perfectly comparable then. And religion failed miserably every single time this happened in history and got reduced to the state it is in now.
How is "there is a god" claim comparable to any scientific claim? Which scientific theory proves there's no god? Which scientific theory proves there cannot be miracles? Oh, don't tell me you fell for another logical fallacy: mistaking the whole for the parts. You may compare some of the religious beliefs - those which are verifiable, like "there was a Deluge in the times of Noah so that only mount Ararat was above the waters" - with some scientific theories (or a construct involving several theories), but that's not really comparing religion with science, is it?
Its defenders today are reduced to delusional sceptics (god creates the world illusion).
A large part of its defenders are quite vocal and as unskeptical (skeptical believers, huh?) as they can be. Creationism is a defense for certain religious beliefs (it appeared somehow as a reaction to evolutionism backed up mainly but not only by those who believe the Bible more or less literally).
Like Graham pointed out, your argument of 'dogma proven false' is nonsense.
I am not sure you actually understood what he said or what my argument is for that matter. If religions have a definitory trait in having unprovable dogmas (because otherwise there wouldn't be anything religious about them), then how can science refute them, how can science oppose them? Eventually in a society where science will provide all the answers (perhaps existing in some corners of the world today, certainly not in some many others), god will be eventually banished in metaphysics.
You confuse language with reality. Maths describes the reality, it does not create it. It is also perfectly possible to have a physical description (as well as an understanding) of the world without using maths. Faraday's lab notebooks did not have maths in them, yet they have the truth.
I didn't say maths create reality. And reality is not described (only) by maths, but by physics (you did that mistake in the next paragraph, too, I won't correct it again).
I said you cannot do modern physics without maths. Faraday's lab notebooks are not a scientific theory (that "they have the truth" part sounds like a Christian talking of the commandments).
Care to model quantum mechanics or special relativity with no maths? When Einstein wrote some popularizing materials on the latter, he still had to refer Lorentz transformations or the Minkowski space.
Maths provide just the easiest way of describing the reality. and its need of premises is a shortcoming of the language not of the sense.
According to you in "God created the world just like Bible describes it hence Adam lived 6,000 years ago", the problem is not with the sense, but with the language, huh?
What news! Hume died a long time ago. I guess in your desperation you are digging your trenches in epistemology hoping that you can draw me to a war of attrition which you hope to win by a full sceptic position (by 'showing' me how all our beliefs can not really be proven, and how 'ratio' is no superior to epiphany as a source of knowledge...). I am actually tempted to press on you to make you come to the conclusion that 'science is the same as religion' which you denied earlier, but I despise your crude tactics and will refrain.
It seems there are news to you, because I didn't refer only to Hume, but to Russell, Popper and the theorists following him (showing how we should deal with inductive thinking) and also to a German philosopher, Vaihinger (with his Philosophie des Als-Ob, this is where my "as if" comes from). Anyway that was only a example which you dodged, and I did not try to win a full skeptic position, but to show what all scientists know, that their conclusions are relative to their premises (this was my initial claim, which of course, you forgot, you're too busy with your conspirational theories)
So, nice try but no cookie for you. I just laugh at how you reduced yourself to the position of the 'everything is illusion created by God' guy...
Here you are, the sweet smell of desperation. Reduced yourself to a sceptic, bravo. If the sun does not exist, what's the difference between you and Menomrut?
Yeah, we have Menomrut and you. I don't claim the sun is an illusion, you do...
You laugh at your own incapacity of understanding because that is not my position.
You know what? Wittgenstein once attacked Popper with a fireplace poker. That's what I am doing to you right now, but you are so arrogant that you fail to see that I am familiar with all those Wiener Kreis epistemology. I guess you won't notice until I bash your head right in.
You seem to be unfamiliar with almost everything but verbal agressivity. Not that you'd impress me with that, but suit yourself.
I meant the first, but you are wrong about both cases. Most people don't 'look for answers'. They believe because of social convention, without questioning. Everyone around them believes, so they believe. Many can't even imagine the existence of other systems of beliefs, let alone of atheism. What's more if they start to 'look for answers', they are more likely to reject religion. When people question their lives is when they are most likely to convert.
You say I'm wrong but you eventually conclude with what I said. If they question their lives, then they look for answers. But that's so typical of you, deny everything, though in most of cases you don't even realize what the other has to say.
Most Christians knew and know of other systems of beliefs. If you're colorblind, don't risk to expose yourself to ridicule with such baseless generalizations.
Christian god before it was emasculated by science was hardly a metaphysical god.
I take it you're totally ignorant of "classical" Christian theology, say the platonic division between the visible world and the invisible one (and consequently the two types of knowledge), so profoundly embedded in medieval Christian thinking? In Summa Theologica it is claimed that we can't speak of god directly, but only through analogies and metaphors (and of course, he's not from this world, he's not created).
You invest too much on your flimsy ancient Greece argument. It is really debatable. Many if not most pre-socratic 'natural philosophers' were indeed outright atheists.
Most of them weren't, read them and look for their gods.
Also Ancient Greece was not that free either. Do you know how Socrates (another idiot) died? And after that, who cares what idiots like Plato were?
Today's world is not that free either. But they weren't punished for atheism, so they had that free choice.
As for your judgements, Socrates and Plato made history, you're just a hateful attention-whore.
But we don't need to go there. We already live in the secularised world. My proof for my claim is already here and it is indisputable. Our age is more secular than before and the scientists are more secular than normal people. You have no way of denying this obvious truth, so you are resorting to strawman arguments of 'teleology'.
I told you once before, you do not know what straw man is. The way you build your argument is teleological (or is this another term which escapes your understanding?). You're making marxistoid (I don't know if you read Marx, otherwise I could say directly "marxist") judgements on history.
Where did I deny that our age is more secular than before (though that is true only for a part of the world)?
Well, you don't sound that irreligious to me. I don't know what you believe in but you have stooped really low to defend the inquisition when even the pope denounces it.
If you don't know what I believe how can you assess my religiousness?
And where did I defend the Inquisition? Look, why don't you make a small effort to actually read what I'm writing before spamming in this thread again?
Your 'parody' proves nothing. Because the discussion here is 'religion vs science', not 'theism vs atheism'. Even then you are wrong, as theism is not same as atheism. Atheism is the truth, theism is bullocks.
I didn't say my parody would prove something about religion or science, it only shows something of you. Here it is again: Even then you are wrong, as theism is not same as atheism. Theism is the truth, atheism is bullocks. It's just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a way to denounce empty discourses, filled with nothing but groundless claims.
Since you claim you know physics, I will try to explain it to you. You know, according to physics, it is not impossible that a broken cup will spontaneously re-assemble itself. However, no one waits for their cups to re-assemble themselves, they throw them away and buy new ones. Yet the same arrogant ischial tuberosities who so smugly tell us that atheism is the same as theism, because there is a small chance that god exists...
But you miss the point, since god is not from this world (many religions claim that), it is not a matter of probability to exist or not, it is just a matter of belief. Since god's world is virtually inaccesible to empricism, science or the punk arguments like those employed by you cannot solve this question. The rationality of atheism or of science does not consist in disproving god (or demolishing religions, you can quarrel with Bible on the history of the Near and Middle East, on biology, on astronomy, but you can't disprove its god).
Another strawman. I don't see them as extremes of a linear scale. I think science is valid, religion is invalid. Religion is not the only invalid discipline, neither is it the opposite of science. It is just full of crap, that's it.
Valid (as you take the term) = white. Invalid (in English, the opposite of valid!) = black. There are many colors between (and I'm not talking of linear scales either, I'm not talking only of shades of grey), but you won't see them with your system of values where are only two: valid and invalid, no scale between. The problem is that if you start that way, it's hard to find the colors between (half-valid? half-invalid? what are these?). So you're stuck in that black-and-white world.
I know what it is, but sometimes I use this term as an euphemism for 'lie'. If I called you a liar too often, you'd be whining and the mods would be unhappy.
But you do insult often anyway (expressing your personal beliefs, of course )
I like Yiannis, he's one of the best in here, but I am not him. You replied to him by writing 'anti-religious people are irrational and faith-based' and I disagreed carefully, leaving you room to clarify your position, but you responded to that by arrogant aggression. Only then have I moved in to bash your head in with my virtual fire-poker.
You may look for justifications, but your "careful disagreement" was actually condescendent and insinuating and probably insulting for some.
I think we have a fundamentally different understanding of the concept of 'right'. Let me say that I am just sorry for you and leave it at that.
From an apostle of Science and Truth, I'd expect more than a hiding behind "different understanding".
Chilbudios and Beylerbeyi please refrain from taking this debate to a personal level, especially on the forum itself. No reason for that as both of you had an ample amount of input in the topic.
[You may compare some of the religious beliefs - those which are verifiable, like "there was a Deluge in the times of Noah so that only mount Ararat was above the waters" -
That's not a religious belief, it's a scientific (historical anyway) assertion. A religious belief would be that the deluge was caused by God to punish the people of Earth.
As a religious belief it is non-falsifiable because of the argument that God then removed all traces of the flood.
You are correct later on to say that therefore science cannot disprove religion (in fact religion cannot disprove religion either, which is why disputes among different religions are essentially pointless).
Faith and science can coexist and that's proven. Besides, aren't there many Vatican monks that are Physicians etc? In mount Athos, I heard of a monk that was previously a NASA physician.
Just for the info, I'm a person that believes in Evolution, without disrespecting religion in some way. The problem with many creationists is that they can't distinguish an allegory or stories that were made to teach us something, from true stories. A problem with some evolutionists, is their fanatical atheism (which i consider as bad as religious fanatism) and disrespect to religious people.
That's not a religious belief, it's a scientific (historical anyway) assertion. A religious belief would be that the deluge was caused by God to punish the people of Earth.
As a religious belief it is non-falsifiable because of the argument that God then removed all traces of the flood.
I guess there's a slight twist of semantics, I used the syntagm "religious belief" to encompass both metaphysical (unprovable) beliefs but also beliefs derived from these, which pertain to the natural world (God caused the Deluge but the Deluge did happen and was so and so). And I conceded to Beylerbeyi that he can attack the latter, but that wouldn't mean an attack on religion as a whole. A non-literalist will just take a metaphor out of it and preserve his belief in god.
But you're contradicting yourself, if you don't know nothing about god, you don't know what he needs, you don't know what he has or doesn't have to do, right? You don't know if he has the power or the need to change or change not his creation.
There is not total darkness, the gospels give us some repers, some ideas that we not take as dogma but as common sense explanations about God's will and plans.
Or perhaps your perspective is limited and your understanding is flawed (as usually ).
Better stop this game.
I said "there are Christian evolutionist scientists". Just think about it, how can one be religious and evolutionist at the same time, and maybe you'll understand the difference between physics and metaphysics.
Yes, there all kind of strange people. But you don't have to take them seriously.
The separation you make between physics and metaphysics is exagerate. I presented above my belief about what physics are.
There's the difference. I know this was a reply to Chilbudios, but you've mentioned this common sense several times. It is different for me, and people like me, - to us common sense dictates that the observable represents the world as it is, as there's really nothing that speak against that notion.
According to our worldview, the idea that the world should be only a few thousand years old goes against common sense, as it goes against all evidence so far.
This has nothing to do with religion. After all, there are plenty of religions that don't have the idea of a young earth. When you come from a non-Christian background, or even a different Christian background, then the idea of a world that is so young seems strange, and fairly un-supported as an idea.
Even if people don't believe in Evolution, it doesn't mean that they believe in a young earth. To many Christians, who consider themselves quite religious and fairly dogmatic, the idea of such a young world is completely alien.
This is why I hate arguing with atheists, you simply don't have a common ground with them to argue on.
What about common sense? For instance, it was suggested several times in the thread that evolutionism meets common sense for both religious and non-religious people.
I have just remembered that on another thread from this sub-forum I posted a link to a debate:
One of them is a non-Catholic Christian theist holding evolutionism to be true, the other is a Christian young earth creationist. If you have the patience read it carefully.
It is different for me, and people like me, - to us common sense dictates that the observable represents the world as it is, as there's really nothing that speak against that notion.
By common sense I understand logic.
According to our worldview, the idea that the world should be only a few thousand years old goes against common sense, as it goes against all evidence so far.
Is more logical that the world is few thousands years old than billions. Because bing-bang theory is itself ilogical.
When you come from a non-Christian background, or even a different Christian background, then the idea of a world that is so young seems strange, and fairly un-supported as an idea.
We are natively inclined to believe our first impressions. Let's turn back to logic, not to sensations.
To many Christians, who consider themselves quite religious and fairly dogmatic, the idea of such a young world is completely alien.
That doesn't make wrong this idea. If they don't bring logical arguments, they are just under the influence of their prejudices, like you too.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: How do creationist explain fossil fuels?
). I said "there are Christian evolutionist scientists". Just think about it, how can one be religious and evolutionist at the same time, and maybe you'll understand the difference between physics and metaphysics.
) to hold. 
) like you did on me?
)
