Philosophy and Theology: How do creationist explain fossil fuels?

Print Page | Close Window

How do creationist explain fossil fuels?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25883
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 07:36
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: How do creationist explain fossil fuels?

Posted By: Philep123
Subject: How do creationist explain fossil fuels?
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2008 at 07:12

Hello everyone this is my first post here
im currently doing a project on fuels for chemistry and had this question arise in my head
can anyone help me here?

Replies:

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2008 at 08:41

Creationists believe that God created things out of nothing. So, not big deal for Him to create 'fossil' fuels which actually are not older than few thousands years.

I'm creationist and believe that there are not natural laws and phenomenona, everything is simulated by God, having ONLY the appeareance of causality.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2008 at 15:55

That's an interesting question. I suppose it would depend on what type of creationist we were speaking of. Menu has offered one possible suggestion -- I believe from a young earth perspective, but you can correct me if I'm wrong. From an ID perspective one would view them as a part of the process of the gradual development of the earth, while ascribing to them a specific function. Honestly, I've never really considered the question before, but I would say that most creationists would probably explain them in the same way that they explain other fossils.

-Akolouthos

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2008 at 18:52

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.html

Interesting site Menu.

What makes you say a few thousand years for fossil fuels when conventional wisdom tells you that it formed up to 300 million to 50 million years ago.

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2008 at 18:58

Originally posted by Menumorut

I'm creationist and believe that there are not natural laws and phenomenona, everything is simulated by God, having ONLY the appeareance of causality.

I want what you are smoking to experience this state of "zen." LOL

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2008 at 19:22

Originally posted by es_bih

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.htmlInteresting site Menu. What makes you say a few thousand years for fossil fuels when conventional wisdom tells you that it formed up to 300 million to 50 million years ago.

This is the materialist theory conspiracy's effects. We have been brainwashed to believe this nonsense, we find this tale everywhere, is taught in school, presented in books and at tv as 'scientifical'.

Is an interesting mass manipulation phenomenon. The creationist theory is presented as naive, false, superstitious.

God doesn't need to wait millions of years to make fuels or whatever.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2008 at 19:34

You are quite right after all the Flintstones said so

-------------

Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2008 at 10:00

Originally posted by es_bih

I want what you are smoking to experience this state of "zen."

Me too.

-------------

Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2008 at 20:39

Originally posted by Menumorut

This is the materialist theory conspiracy's effects.

Oh! All these years I was under the impression that it was the Theists who were persecuting scientists, insisting that Earth was the center of the universe, burning "witches", slaughtering "native" who were not in the mood to be "true believers", claiming "god-given" truths without any scientific evidence etc.

I guess now it's pay-back time. I kind of enjoy Theists feeling persecuted, pure irony

-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 05:15

Is not persecution, just brainwashing. A lie that was so much repeated that we find hard to believe something else.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 06:52

Yes Neo you are right. I take the red or blue pill?

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 12:10

I haven't seen Matrix, I took my idea from such documentaries:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MvAz9k_zQ4s - The Evolutionist Conspiracy

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 13:46

Even the most fundamentalist of muslims believe in physical laws of nature and many even believe in evolution, although they maintian that Humans are a special case and were created by God.

Al-Jassas

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 14:04

Originally posted by Menumorut

I haven't seen Matrix, I took my idea from such documentaries:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MvAz9k_zQ4s - The Evolutionist Conspiracy

All that is nice and dandy, but fossil fuels have naught to do with Evolution. There are so many other phenomenon that suggest an old world, not just fossil fuels.

The difference here is explaining things vs explaining away things.

Such as the light coming from distant objects that have had to travel for billons of years, such as geology, where some of the formation of certain rock types are reasonably well understood, and is supposed to have taken millions of years. The ice in Greenland is also very well understood, and it has been there for at least hundred thousand years, likewise the ice in Antarctica, it has been there for far longer. Those masses of Ice are not static, but moves in a way that have been measured. The various methods to determine the age of trapped air correlates 100% with the mechanisms involved, so everything suggests an old age. There are much more evidence, but it would be pointless to list it all.

So, for it to be a conspiracy, it has to be a general scientific conspiracy, not an "evolutionist" one, and it requires ALL science to be wrong for the idea of a young earth to be true.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 14:19

Originally posted by Al Jassas

Even the most fundamentalist of muslims believe in physical laws of nature and many even believe in evolution, although they maintian that Humans are a special case and were created by God.

Al-Jassas

What means to believe in the laws of nature? So those evolutionist Muslims believe that the animals and plants have a millions years history but humans have been created some thousands years ago?

Originally posted by Jams

All that is nice and dandy, but fossil fuels have naught to do with Evolution. There are so many other phenomenon that suggest an old world, not just fossil fuels.

So, for it to be a conspiracy, it has to be a general scientific conspiracy, not an "evolutionist" one, and it requires ALL science to be wrong for the idea of a young earth to be true.

Yes is nice, but also true. That documentary is about Evolutionist conspiracy but I extended the idea to all the pseudo-scientifical, materialist conspiracy. I explained in my first message that I believe that those 'evidences' are simulated, God can create any appearance.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 15:18

We see how continental plates are drifting, we see how the earth is changing. We know that there are marine fossils high up in the mounitains. We know of so many extict species. You say God made those fossil fuels? Why did he create it? We know how long it takes to produce fossil fuels from former species. Are we wrong? Does God fool us? Has he created extinct species just to led us fail to the bible? Did he create species to let them extinct? Why, just for fun, isn't it pervert? Or did he make mistakes? weren't his cretures good enough? Sorry menumorut, creationism is bloode nonsense.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 15:37

It should be an order in the material world to reflect God's rationality.

But as many other things, men turned this into a bad purpose. They started to believe the world has created itself. This is the strong delusion from 2 Thessalonians 2, 11.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 15:51

Menumorut, I remember you played this game on some other threads some time ago. This "all is simulation" scenario is really inconsistent when one still wants to have a reliable, external reference, in this case the Bible and some theologians.

If this god is some kind of trickster, how do you know it is not really the creationism which is false (i.e. all the alleged evidence for it is merely an illusion) and evolutionism true? Like you assume of god that he planted all the fossils, he could as well promote some fake stories and learnings, which eventually got to us in a book we call Bible? In a "all is simulation" scenario you really have no argument to argue against a theory or for a theory. All you can do is to smoke and relax!

Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 15:58

good question: nonsense and fairy tale is your answer.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 16:40

Originally posted by Chilbudios

This "all is simulation" scenario is really inconsistent when one still wants to have a reliable, external reference, in this case the Bible and some theologians.

The only argument is the common sense. The evolutionism is absurd.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 17:06

Originally posted by Menumorut

The only argument is the common sense. The evolutionism is absurd.

I do not find it absurd, nor many other people. Whose common sense?

Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 17:36

Hello Menu

What you said pretty much sums it all up. Many Scholars think, and this was well before recent discoveries, that the earth was old and that humans are just the latest and last in a series of inhabitants. Based on this the existance of dinasaurs, evolution of species, except humans, are accepted by some scholars and they don't contest the data that put earth's age at 4 billion.

AL-Jassas

Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 17:45

Come on everyone, this discussion is a joke by default. One cannot argue because the creationists' beliefs are based on faith and the evolutionists are based on science.

I'm sure the Pope had also many theologists/wanna-be-scientists who had "valid" arguments that earth is actually the center of the universe (or even flat) when he condemned Galileo.

Problem only arises when some moron politicians want to appease ridiculous beliefs of the evangelists for the sake of votes.

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 19:12

But this thread is not about evolution.

YEC's belief in a young earth is based on a mere interpretation of the bible - a literal interpretation of the lineages etc. BUT, the bible, or the old testament was written down long after the fact after a long period of oral tradition. Who is to say that the writers were infallible?

Is this really a good basis for concluding with absolute certainty that the world is only 6000 years or so old, which goes against all evidence, all science and all knowledge?

In order to function, the idea requires certain explanations, like the one mentioned about it being an illusion created by God, and those explanations are NOT in the bible, if the bible is supposed to be taken literally.

I think that it is inconsistent.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 19:35

Originally posted by Al Jassas

What you said pretty much sums it all up. Many Scholars think, and this was well before recent discoveries, that the earth was old and that humans are just the latest and last in a series of inhabitants. Based on this the existance of dinasaurs, evolution of species, except humans, are accepted by some scholars and they don't contest the data that put earth's age at 4 billion.

As one who accept the existence of God you should understand that any being with the exception of God has a relative existence. Nothing of the creatures exist if God would cease to exist, I mean He is keeping everything in existence, the mattery doesn't exist autonomously.

So, again, God has not why to wait 4 billion years to create humans. He is outside time.

......

Jams, I'm not grounding my belief on Bible but on common sense. I consider the Bible a useful book, inspired by God, but not a real description about how God created world. I think God created the world for men, so earth's age coincides with human history.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 19:57

Ok, that's fair enough, but how old do you think the world is then?

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 20:02

As I said, some thousands years, when the first civilisations appeared.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 20:56

So the world started with civilizations right of the bat?

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 21:52

Not that I wanted to say, but that some thousands years BC is the time the world was created.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2008 at 22:17

Originally posted by Yiannis

I'm sure the Pope had also many theologists/wanna-be-scientists who had "valid" arguments that earth is actually the center of the universe (or even flat) when he condemned Galileo.

The fun part about religious vs anti-religious people is that the latter are similarly irrational and faith-based

1) science - as we know the term today - was pionieered by those "theologists/wanna-be-scientists" (Roger Bacon, Isaac Newton, etc.)

2) most medieval cosmologies actually held the Earth to be round (spherical, more exactly), following geocentrism and the ancient tradition of perfect forms

3) though Catholic Church was conservative and intolerant to ideas directly conflicting with the common beliefs held in consonance with the Bible and Aristotelism, there was much more to condamnations like Galileo's. For instance, he was asked to present a balanced view of both theories (though there were several other alternatives at that time like Tycho Brahe's), however he rather built a satyrical account of geocentrism, fact which of course irritated the powerful Catholic Church. Was he to mock a king, he would have lost his head.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 06:23

I am religious and I believe in evolution, and also that religion is completely compatible with science. Not the only one who thinks so either. Not so good to be on either extreme in my opinion. Sure people who think the earth was made in six days are irrational and people who think that all religious people are irrational is itself irrational.

Islamic scientists who were religious by all means as well made great progress in science. As have Christian counterparts as Chilbudios pointed out. No reason to attack faith for people who are unable to comprehend metaphor.

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 06:24

Originally posted by Menumorut

Not that I wanted to say, but that some thousands years BC is the time the world was created.

That is the most asinine thing you said, yet.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 06:46

As long you not bring arguments you have no weight.

So how exactly did God create men? What is about evolution in Quran?

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 12:06

The fun part about religious vs anti-religious people is that the latter are similarly irrational and faith-based

I am not sure what you mean by this, but if you are claiming that science (evolution, geology) and religion (creationism, young earth nonsense) are both wrong, and the truth lies somewhere between the two, that is just post-modernist 'truth is relative, it is a social construct' bullocks.

Truth is in science, religion is full of crap. If this hurts your feelings, I am sorry, you'll just have to live with it.

1) science - as we know the term today - was pionieered by those "theologists/wanna-be-scientists" (Roger Bacon, Isaac Newton, etc.)

So? There was no secular tradition. You can not honestly expect a 'natural philosopher' to create a whole social order by himself. When the choice existed in history, scientists became overwhelmingly secular, if not outright atheist. They were also among the people who created the secular tradition, but this is a task above one persons scope.

2) most medieval cosmologies actually held the Earth to be round (spherical, more exactly), following geocentrism and the ancient tradition of perfect forms

Again, so what?

Why should Galileo teach lies, when he knew the truth? He was lucky anyway. There were many before and after him who got killed because they taught the truth. What about Giordano Bruno?

-------------

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 12:19

I don't think people were killed because of religion as such. They were killed because they somehow questioned certain dogma that was the basis for the power of the church back then. If people question some of it, others may question all of it, and the church may lose its power. So it was more of a conflict of influence and power than a straight religious conflict.

Anyone that threatened the powers was silenced.

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 14:31

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

I am not sure what you mean by this, but if you are claiming that science (evolution, geology) and religion (creationism, young earth nonsense) are both wrong, and the truth lies somewhere between the two, that is just post-modernist 'truth is relative, it is a social construct' bullocks.

Truth is in science, religion is full of crap. If this hurts your feelings, I am sorry, you'll just have to live with it.

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.

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, 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.

So? There was no secular tradition. You can not honestly expect a 'natural philosopher' to create a whole social order by himself.

Social order? Do I smell Marxism?

When the choice existed in history, scientists became overwhelmingly secular, if not outright atheist. They were also among the people who created the secular tradition, but this is a task above one persons scope.

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.

Again, so what?

Why don't you re-read my post and the post I replied to?

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?

Why should Galileo teach lies, when he knew the truth?

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 was lucky anyway. There were many before and after him who got killed because they taught the truth. What about Giordano Bruno?

Bruno taught ideas promoted by others before him without getting killed (for instance Nicolaus Cusanus, from whose work Bruno actually got many of his ideas) and of course many arguably false ideas (he was a mystic after all, most of his ideas weren't backed up by any sort of empirical evidence).

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.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 22:27

Originally posted by Menumorut

As long you not bring arguments you have no weight.

So how exactly did God create men? What is about evolution in Quran?

The Quran mentions the big bang and the consequent creation of the Universe as well as the evolution that produced us human beings. thus God is the agent of the creation with the big bang.

If you don't believe in Physical laws take a leap from a skyscraper spread those conspiracy wings and fly.

that is of course if it were true rather than delusion.

Why would I be the one requiring evidence when you are upsetting centuries of acquired knowledge, generally when someone explains a theory of such magnitude they should provide ample proof aside from wishful thinking and a youtube link.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 22:40

Could you give the verses?

About jumping from top of buildings: is not good, you force God to make a miracle. You may know the Temptation episode.

The last phrase is not dialogual.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 22:58

Originally posted by Menumorut

About jumping from top of buildings: is not good, you force God to make a miracle. You may know the Temptation episode.

But why miracle? Maybe because you believe that normally you'd fall (gravity or divine will, whatever, but you fall), that the simulation you denounced earlier is eventually contained by some rules, by some laws, then what's wrong with finding these rules (and ignoring the brain-in-a-vat scenarios)? And now, let's say that some people in search for rules reached this theory about the evolution of life (evolution, not origin!) and they called it evolutionism. I don't see what's wrong in that or how your arguments, as presented until now, will make you believe their theory is wrong and yours (a flavor of creationism I guess) is right.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2008 at 23:16

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.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Guests
Date 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?

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 00:15

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.

-------------

Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 00:19

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.

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 01:53

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.

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 ...

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 05:13

Originally posted by es_bih

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.

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.

You come (like usually) with artificial concepts, not needed in discussion.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 10:33

Originally posted by Menumorut

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.

Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 11:59

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.

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.

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.

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 13:36

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

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.

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.

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).

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 - 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."

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.

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 15:13

Originally posted by Chilbudios

Many religious dogma cannot be proven false. See above about metaphysics.

If they could be proven false they would not be religious.

-------------

Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 17:31

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.

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.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2008 at 19:52

Originally posted by Chilbudios

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.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 02:44

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

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

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.

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?

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 seem to be unfamiliar with almost everything but verbal agressivity. Not that you'd impress me with that, but suit yourself.

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?

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

)

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".

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 05:43

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.

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 11:42

Originally posted by Chilbudios

[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).

-------------

Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 11:48

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.

-------------

Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 12:03

Originally posted by gcle2003

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.

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 12:33

Originally posted by Menumorut

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.

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.

-------------

Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 14:01

This is why I hate arguing with atheists, you simply don't have a common ground with them to argue on.

Al-Jassas

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 14:08

Originally posted by Al Jassas

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:

http://discuss.infidels.org/showthread.php?t=210239 - http://discuss.infidels.org/showthread.php?t=210239

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.

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 16:29

Originally posted by Jams

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.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 17:01

Menumorut, i'm sorry, i don't want to sound rude or so, but the understanding of some "ilogical" things here as you call them, is based on a fair background of positive sciences.

Certain things mentioned here are not at all illogical to me and as i stated before, I'm not an atheist nor someone that disrespects highly religious persons.

-------------

Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 17:19

Originally posted by Menumorut

By common sense I understand logic.

Well, so what's illogical about it? You have said that several times in this thread, but you have substantiated nothing.

Is it logic to have a belief that goes against all that we can observe? What is the logic in that?

And what is illogical about believing in something that is consistent with what we can observe in this world?

I've already mentioned that the Bible is based on a long oral tradition, and the people who wrote it down surely had to use concept that they themselves understood.

That seems pretty logical to me. I see no reason to believe that everything in the old testament (or Torah) is a literal truth.

Now, you claimed that you didn't base your idea of the age of the world on the Bible, but seriously, I can't imagine what else you could base it on. Where else would you get the idea that the world is only a little older than the first civilizations? Again, I don't know how or what you think, but claiming such a young age for the whole world seems very illogical to me, especially if you came to this conclusion without the bible.

To tell you the truth, I just don't believe you at all.

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 18:59

Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by gcle2003

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 don't think the story of the deluge arose from a religious belief. Deluge stories are widespread in various cultures and almost certainly derive either from folk memories or possibly from sheer poetic imagination / exaggeration.

That the deluge was caused by God is then a derived belief - a rationale created in order to explain the fact (at least, accepted fact) of the deluge.

Creationists start from observing the world, and construct the belief that God created it. They don't deduce the world's existence from a prior premise that God created one.

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 19:10

Originally posted by Menumorut

By common sense I understand logic.

That's a really bad start. I don't see how you can recover from it. However you have to be prepared to accept that for most people 'logic' and 'common sense' are diffferent things entirely.

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.

See - you answer a point about common sense by a response about logic. There is nothing anyway logical or illogical about the age of the earth, whether you are arguing the creationist side or the generally accepted one. Logic doesn't deal with reality.

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.

First let's start using 'logic' properly as a term. Then we can consider whether there are any useful logical arguments on either side.

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.

I'll wait for anyone to produce a logical argument. As long as it is a logical argument, not just a misuse of the term 'logic'. The argument here is about premises, not conclusions, so logic is irrelevant.

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 19:22

Originally posted by gcle2003

That the deluge was caused by God is then a derived belief - a rationale created in order to explain the fact (at least, accepted fact) of the deluge.

Deluge motifs may have a true core to it, but that deluge story was so and so it is about several religiously derived beliefs. Examples:

- the chronology of the deluge related to the creation of the world, it is a moment when god wanted to wash away the sins of humanity and start afresh

- only a family chosen by god survive (though here it may be argued that it's a oral tradition of a moment in the past when the tribe's population decreased due to deluge, famine, disease etc. and they saw it as a punishment from the skies)

- they save all the species by preserving a pair of each

and similar such claims which can be refuted by scientific investigation if they are to be taken literally. And at least for some of them arguably no experience in the past of the community is responsible directly for such motifs in the narrative. It is a myth constructed (probably un-intentionally, though) to highlight some symbols, to emphasize a certain worldview. Some parts of it are oral memories, some other parts are derived from the religious beliefs that community held.

Creationists start from observing the world, and construct the belief that God created it. They don't deduce the world's existence from a prior premise that God created one.

I disagree. Creationism is a recent theory, it appeared thousands of years after the belief that world is created by god(s) was born. Creationism is about finding a justification to the belief that god created the world as we know it and us (in his image).

Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 19:56

Hello to you all

Well unfortunately there is no such thing as common sense because of the simple fact that cultures are quite different in their perspective of what is and what is not common sense. What is accept to me as an Arab as common sense is seen as insanity by others and vise versa.

In discussions involving faith and science both teams get it wrong, faith is inherently one system of belief and science is another totally different system. The problem comes when one belief system tries to dominate the other in its own realm and here conflicts arise.

People of faith should stick to issues of faith, morality, worship and other stuff connected to it while people of science should stick to making the world a better place by utilizing scientific methods in the service of humanity.

The problem today is the "religionfication" of atheism. Atheist have turned atheism into a religion and while faith (which in essense is total belief in a certain perceived fact) is the tool of religion science is used (unwisely and in a totally ignorant manner) as the tool of atheism.

Science is independent of both and has nothing to do with them. Science work on the principle of addition and ommission. It describes the universe as it sees it with color blind eyes. Its results prove nothing nor deny anything except if it concerns previous theories. It has been proven, and I don't need to go into philosophical mumbo jumbo, that science cannot describe everything (read about the incompleteness theorems and you might understand). Such inherent limitations for the scientific method simply distroy both the scientific god they worship and their attempts to discredit theists because they are no better than them.

The same thing applies to theists and religionsts alike. If you don't like scientific facts and discoveries then it is your own business, your system is already based on faith so you don't need to prove your faith or else you are actually an agnostic not a true believer, faith doesn't need to be proven that is why it is called faith. Put making psuedo-science and fooling yourself into believing that you can "scientifically" prove what is totally wrong and even trying to force people to accept it is as wrong as the atheist case above.

Personally on this issue, I believe that God created Adam and Eve in heaven and sent them to earth and that humans did not evolve. But I do think that all other species did evolve over time and that earth is billions of years old. I am comfortable with my believe and need not to prove it because I totally believe in it. But to make a fuss and try to talk to an evolutionist to try to convince him is not my practice.

Al-Jassas

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 18-Nov-2008 at 20:48

Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all

Clearly, i agree. Common sense only makes sense in a single culture, it doesn't always work across cultures. I think we can eradicate "common" and just talk about sense, in that case it is different. That things have to make sense. That apply nicely to what I wrote above, at least to me. There are claims that make sense, and there's nonsense.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 05:36

Originally posted by Flipper

Menumorut, i'm sorry, i don't want to sound rude or so, but the understanding of some "ilogical" things here as you call them, is based on a fair background of positive sciences. Certain things mentioned here are not at all illogical to me and as i stated before, I'm not an atheist nor someone that disrespects highly religious persons.

The so called sciences are a conglomerate of ideas perpetuated in the branch of each one by the unchecked taking of preceding 'discoveries' and theories. Born in the ideologically ossified society, one is brainwashed since young and has not the inspiration to reconsider all this tradition from its origins. When he/she becomes a licentiate and get a profession he may reach the necessary maturity to question these theories but it would mean to lose his/her job and social advantages so he/she rejects the idea.

Originally posted by Jams

Well, so what's illogical about it? You have said that several times in this thread, but you have substantiated nothing.

Its illogical to believe that from nothing can appear something or that something can exist from eternity without its existence having an explanation. God is the only explanation because an absolute rational and alive Being has the explanation of His existence in Himself: the nature of existence is infinitely different than what we naturally think. We think with our mind which see its sort of existence as the absolute kind of existence but actually this is a relative form of existence, bring from non-existence by a infinite superior Being Who has the real form of existence. So, the existence is far more different and grandious than we usually think.

And this kind of miraculous (for us) existence (of God) has the explanation in itself.

Now compare the materialist theory with this one. Which is more logical?

Is it logic to have a belief that goes against all that we can observe? What is the logic in that?

Yes, is logical, because nothing tell us our senses represents absolute guide marks.

I've already mentioned that the Bible is based on a long oral tradition, and the people who wrote it down surely had to use concept that they themselves understood.
That seems pretty logical to me. I see no reason to believe that everything in the old testament (or Torah) is a literal truth.

I disagree with your first idea but agree with the second one. I disagree because nothing happens fortuitous and I agree because Bible is not the literal truth (as most of Christians believe) but a helpful book and nothing more. God's plans are more complex than we think and the idea of a message of God to humanity is a human prejudice. Bible is a relative book but it serves God's purposes precisely.

I don't contest that I took involuntary this idea from Bible, as I took ideas which I consider good from profane books. (Not as an order from God but as a useful source of inspiration)

Again, I don't know how or what you think, but claiming such a young age for the whole world seems very illogical to me, especially if you came to this conclusion without the bible.

Again, stop trusting your feelings, use your reason.

Originally posted by gcle2003

That's a really bad start. I don't see how you can recover from it. However you have to be prepared to accept that for most people 'logic' and 'common sense' are diffferent things entirely.

I may have used wrong this expression. In Romanian it means both "common understanding" and "well aimed".

There is nothing anyway logical or illogical about the age of the earth, whether you are arguing the creationist side or the generally accepted one. Logic doesn't deal with reality.

There is a superficial logic and a more profound one. From the perspective of God's plan, we see no reason for Him to wait millions/billions of years to create the material world and animal species when He can bring anything into existence instantaneously. And even He would wished to make His creation in a long period of time, it would be the same thing because He is outside time.

So, the age of world coincides with the apparition of the first human consciences, the first human beings which from the most reasonable POV is some thousands years BC. Why? Because God has a purpose for creating the humanity and that purpose is more reasonable the one explained by a young existence of world than one in which savage people lives in caves hundreds thousands years, as scientists 'discovered'.

Yes, there are proofs that such things (the savages) existed. God created the material world in such way that some may consider that it has not a creator because else (if the world would obviously has a creator) it would harmed the human conscience of free and respected being.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 07:48

Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by Al Jassas

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:

http://discuss.infidels.org/showthread.php?t=210239 - http://discuss.infidels.org/showthread.php?t=210239

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.

Constant Mews was one of my history lecturers in university, and head of Monash Univerity's Theology Department. He is a real boffin too, tweed suit and bow tie and university style nerdy English accent. Oh wow!

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 11:02

Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by gcle2003

That the deluge was caused by God is then a derived belief - a rationale created in order to explain the fact (at least, accepted fact) of the deluge.

Deluge motifs may have a true core to it, but that deluge story was so and so it is about several religiously derived beliefs. Examples:

- the chronology of the deluge related to the creation of the world, it is a moment when god wanted to wash away the sins of humanity and start afresh

- they save all the species by preserving a pair of each

and similar such claims which can be refuted by scientific investigation if they are to be taken literally.

Again you're mixing up religious beliefs with factual assertions. That the flood happened, that one family only survived, that they kept with them representatives of all the world's animals are all factual assertions, that are subject to scientific investigation. That God had something to do with all this, that it happened because the world was evil, and so on are all religious assertions that are not so subject.

And at least for some of them arguably no experience in the past of the community is responsible directly for such motifs in the narrative.

I pointed out that, for instance, it could be simply poetic imagination. Maybe it happened, maybe something happened that got exaggerated, maybe it didn't happen at all. It's still a factual assertion.

It is a myth constructed (probably un-intentionally, though) to highlight some symbols, to emphasize a certain worldview. Some parts of it are oral memories, some other parts are derived from the religious beliefs that community held.

Well that's where we disagree. Religious beliefs are developed to account for observed events - mostly not old historical ones but just the events of ordinary contemporary life - like rain. Religion starts with animism.

Creationists start from observing the world, and construct the belief that God created it. They don't deduce the world's existence from a prior premise that God created one.

We're using 'creationism' here in different senses. By 'creationism' I simply meant the belief that God created the universe. If people didn't observe the world, how could they construct a theory that it was created by God?

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 11:08

Originally posted by Al Jassas

I don't think the "religionification" (

) of atheism is a new phenomenon. It's always been a religion, since etymologically it develops not as a-theism but as athe(os)-ism - not as 'without believing in god(s)' but as 'believing in being without god(s)'.

In general I agree with your post, though of course I don't share your religious beliefs.

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 11:17

Originally posted by Menumorut

I may have used wrong this expression. In Romanian it means both "common understanding" and "well aimed".

What does? Logic? Logic is neither common 'understanding' and it isn't necessarily 'well-aimed'.

There is nothing anyway logical or illogical about the age of the earth, whether you are arguing the creationist side or the generally accepted one. Logic doesn't deal with reality.

There is a superficial logic and a more profound one.

No there isn't. Logic is simply the (study of) necessary derivations from given premises. It ensures that conclusions necessarily follow from the premises: it has nothing to do with establishing whether those premises relate to the real world or no.

From the perspective of God's plan, we see no reason for Him to wait millions/billions of years to create the material world and animal species when He can bring anything into existence instantaneously. And even He would wished to make His creation in a long period of time, it would be the same thing because He is outside time.

From the premise 'god is outside time' (and 'outside time' is well defined) it would be possible to derive certain conclusions logically. However those conclusions would only be as valid as the initial premise, which cannot be logically proven (except by reference to higher order premises, which in turn cannot be logically proven).

So, the age of world coincides with the apparition of the first human consciences, the first human beings which from the most reasonable POV is some thousands years BC. Why? Because God has a purpose for creating the humanity and that purpose is more reasonable the one explained by a young existence of world than one in which savage people lives in caves hundreds thousands years, as scientists 'discovered'.

What has logic to do with establishing any of that?

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 11:38

Originally posted by gcle2003

Again you're mixing up religious beliefs with factual assertions. That the flood happened, that one family only survived, that they kept with them representatives of all the world's animals are all factual assertions, that are subject to scientific investigation. That God had something to do with all this, that it happened because the world was evil, and so on are all religious assertions that are not so subject.

You, like Bey, like to argue though you don't understand what you argue against. This is exactly my point. They are factual assertions (and thus not metaphysical), but they didn't really happen, it an invention, a myth (and a good part of it conditioned of that god-belief and this is the reason I labelled them 'religious'). And because of this, it conflicts with scientific investigation.

And it was no mix up - those are religious beliefs. Do you need some scholarly quotes to prove it?

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA120 - http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA120

"Religious beliefs also tend to function as explanations regarding the world and events in the world, including the human experience of suffering, the existence of evil, and similar existential issues".

A flood drowning the entire sinful world, a flood from which only god's chosen escaped and started afresh fits the criterion.

Some do, some don't. The religious beliefs that sun stood still, or that Chronos ate his children or that Hell is guarded by a multi-headed dog do not account for any observed events.

Have you read this thread's title?

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 14:30

Originally posted by Menumorut

Originally posted by Jams

Well, so what's illogical about it? You have said that several times in this thread, but you have substantiated nothing.

Actually, none of what you wrote above require a young world. There's no "logical" conclusion about the age of the world from what you wrote.

Is it logic to have a belief that goes against all that we can observe? What is the logic in that?

Yes, is logical, because nothing tell us our senses represents absolute guide marks.

That may be true - but observation doesn't necessarily depend on our human senses. Whether there's more to this world than what we can observe, by human senses or otherwise, is impossible to know. Yet, there's still nothing that demands a young world.

I'm not talking about specific theories like evolution or such, but the world in general. There's really no reason to believe that the world is young.

Still, having a belief that goes against observation doesn't seem logical to me. We may not be able to register the world as it really is, due to our limitations, but that doesn't mean that the things we can observe are necessarily wrong.

I don't contest that I took involuntary this idea from Bible, as I took ideas which I consider good from profane books. (Not as an order from God but as a useful source of inspiration)

Ok, I guess I have to apologize then, because I misunderstood what you said, sorry about that.

Again, I don't know how or what you think, but claiming such a young age for the whole world seems very illogical to me, especially if you came to this conclusion without the bible.

Again, stop trusting your feelings, use your reason.

I don't trust my feelings, it is actually the opposite, I only trust facts, and I even question what is the facts. I certainly do use reason.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 19:35

Originally posted by gcle2003

What does? Logic? Logic is neither common 'understanding' and it isn't necessarily 'well-aimed'.

OK.

I think you should see the logic as a tool, not a purpose.

Originally posted by Jams

Actually, none of what you wrote above require a young world. There's no "logical" conclusion about the age of the world from what you wrote.

Take the other variant, of a billion years old earth. It seems more credible?

The only thing you surely know exists is you. Taking your sensorial perceptions as experiences of reality is a mistake. What you know about these senses? Why you trust them?

I don't trust my feelings, it is actually the opposite, I only trust facts, and I even question what is the facts. I certainly do use reason.

You said Again, I don't know how or what you think, but claiming such a young age for the whole world seems very illogical to me, especially if you came to this conclusion without the bible.

If you would really have reasoned, you would have speak about those conclusions. If you say just it seems illogical to you, I tend to believe you relate your superficial impressions.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 20:00

Originally posted by Chilbudios

You, like Bey, like to argue though you don't understand what you argue against.

Personally that seems to be attributable to you.

This is exactly my point. They are factual assertions (and thus not metaphysical), but they didn't really happen, it an invention, a myth (and a good part of it conditioned of that god-belief and this is the reason I labelled them 'religious'). And because of this, it conflicts with scientific investigation.

Whether the factual assertion is true or not is immaterial. The point is that because it is a factual assertion it can be investigated scientifically (in principle anyway). That I make or believe the factual assertion because of my religious beliefs is also immaterial to the point.

Assume I believe my guru can walk on water. The proposition 'my guru walks on water every moring' is in principle testable and is a factual assertion. However the proposition 'My guru has special supernatural powers that enable him to walk on water', while it has the guise of a factual assertion, in fact is not, because it is inherently not falsifiable. And it is therefore a religious statement.

And it was no mix up - those are religious beliefs. Do you need some scholarly quotes to prove it?

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA120 - http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA120

I don't see anything there that supports your view at all. Unfortunately I can't copy from it, but it quite plainly states that there are three positions that can be taken about religious beliefs (truth-claims). One is that they are all false because they attempt to provide explanations in ways contrary to scientific method. One is that they are neither true nor false: truth and falsehood are inapplicable because their meaning does not depend on truth conditions, but depend on emoptional states or moral considerations. The third is that the truth of religious statements is beyond verification since they refer to events that are inherently not investigatable, such as "the beginning of all things, the meaning of life, and life after death'.

The assertion that there was deluge doesn't fit any of those categories. It is not an attempt to provide an explanation. It is either true or false, and does not refer to morality or emotional state. And it does not refer to something that is inherenty uninvestigatable.

So it isn't a religious statement.

And - from the text you yourself quote - religious statements are not investigatable by science and therefore cannot be refuted (or proven) by science.

A flood drowning the entire sinful world, a flood from which only god's chosen escaped and started afresh fits the criterion.

No it doesn't. It doesn't explain anything. The statement 'God caused the flood' explains the flood, but the statement 'there was a universal flood and only Noah's family escaped' doesn't explain anything.

Some do, some don't. The religious beliefs that sun stood still, or that Chronos ate his children or that Hell is guarded by a multi-headed dog do not account for any observed events.

Have you read this thread's title?

Yes. Creationists have been around a long time. The fact that they have only explained fossil fuels since fossil fuels were discovered doesn't mean creationists sprang into existence just for that purpose.

Incidentally creationists have been explaining fossil fuels for a lot longer than scientists have.

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 20:04

Originally posted by Menumorut

Originally posted by gcle2003

What does? Logic? Logic is neither common 'understanding' and it isn't necessarily 'well-aimed'.

OK.

I think you should see the logic as a tool, not a purpose.

I do see logic as a tool. Tools have a purpose: that's what makes them tools. If I use a rock with the purpose of killing an animal with it, it's a tool. If the rock is just lying around it's not a tool.

Logic is the tool one uses to verify that one's conclusions are required by (or possibly just compatible with) one's premises. It isn't a tool one uses to verify or falsify those premises.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 20:11

Now I understand. Thanks

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 20:24

Originally posted by gcle2003

Personally that seems to be attributable to you.

Since you attacked my views, not I yours, your opinion is unfounded. Or perhaps once more you proved you didn't actually understand what I wrote there.

Nothing I disagree with. If you intended to give it as a correction to what I said, it proves my earlier point that you attack views you don't understand.

It also contradicts your position that the myth of Deluge is not a religious belief, because the Deluge happened following god's (a supernatural power) will and plan.

Though this is a straw man (we were discussing about what religious beliefs are, not what positions non-religious people take on them), it touches our point so I'll answer. I believe the religious beliefs fall under all three categories, but in particular I've dealt here with the first (refutable by science) and third (irrefutable because they are non-empricial, are metaphysical).

What you emphasized is exactly my point in this debate with you. Again, another evidence you argue against what you don't understand.

So it isn't a religious statement.

Yes, the Deluge is an attempt to provide explanations, refers to morality and has also uninvestigable details (like god's role in it). If you don't understand why, I won't be bothered to explain.

It explains to me (if I'd believe it, but I have no problem imagining that I would and then it indeed does), and it explains to many other people (I know some personally, I've read theological and philosophical books, so I guess I can afford the generalization "many"), maybe it doesn't to you. But that won't change its explanatory power.

That statment is a caricature of what actually the Deluge myth is. Its main flaw is that is completely devoid of god.

Incidentally creationists have been explaining fossil fuels for a lot longer than scientists have

Again you argue against things you don't understand. But I take blame for that, instead of explanation I chose a subtlety. But since from experience trying to explain brings even more denial from your side, I will just drop this point. I will just clarify the other issuess, if anything will be worth clarifying.

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 20:25

Originally posted by Menumorut

Originally posted by Jams

Actually, none of what you wrote above require a young world. There's no "logical" conclusion about the age of the world from what you wrote.

Take the other variant, of a billion years old earth. It seems more credible?

Yes, I have no reason to think otherwise. The notion that everything is an illusion and thus nothing can be concluded does not make a young earth any more logical than any other position. If you really believe that nothing can be trusted, that our senses tell us nothing of the world, then you can conclude nothing about the age of the earth - or anything else, for that matter.

Again, I don't know how or what you think, but claiming such a young age for the whole world seems very illogical to me, especially if you came to this conclusion without the bible.

If you would really have reasoned, you would have speak about those conclusions. If you say just it seems illogical to you, I tend to believe you relate your superficial impressions.

In this case - yes, that was an impression, surely. That is because it was my impression of you, and therefore not something I could truly know. Hence I said "if". Nothing to do with the subject of the age of the world. You have actually not provided any good reason what so ever that the world should be only a few thousand years old. You only claim that it is "illogical" to think that it is old, and that "common sense" dictates that it is young.

I don't really think we can get any further with this, unless you provide some kind of reasoning.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 20:56

Originally posted by Jams

Yes, I have no reason to think otherwise. The notion that everything is an illusion and thus nothing can be concluded does not make a young earth any more logical than any other position. If you really believe that nothing can be trusted, that our senses tell us nothing of the world, then you can conclude nothing about the age of the earth - or anything else, for that matter.

I don't think that nothing can be trusted. But that you have to be careful what you trust.

I don't consider our senses useless but see different their utility. I see them as a way God communicates to us things.

1. I excluded the materialist theory because mattery cann't exist without a cause.

2. From a theistic point of view, I compared the two variants, young earth and old earth and found the first one more probable, for the reasons I presented (the age of earth coincides with the age of humanity which could not be very old as I don't see why would God keep people in caves hundreds thousands years).

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 22:54

Originally posted by Menumorut

1. I excluded the materialist theory because mattery cann't exist without a cause.

2. From a theistic point of view, I compared the two variants, young earth and old earth and found the first one more probable, for the reasons I presented (the age of earth coincides with the age of humanity which could not be very old as I don't see why would God keep people in caves hundreds thousands years).

1. Well, then either nothing exists, or there is a cause. This still has nothing to do with the age of the world. It is quite irrelevant. The whole sentence lacks logic.

2. You call that reasoning? So, you decide what Gods intentions was? That is an assumption on your part, an idea in your head, and nothing more than that. And you criticise me for relying on my senses!

Don't forget that people didn't live in caves, that's only something people say for fun. Some people some time may have, but it is definitely not a general thing. Not that it really matters if they did.

Never mind, as I already stated, this is pointless. No one truly answered the OP's question.

-------------

Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2008 at 23:11

Originally posted by Jams

1. Well, then either nothing exists, or there is a cause. This still has nothing to do with the age of the world. It is quite irrelevant. The whole sentence lacks logic.

2. You call that reasoning? So, you decide what Gods intentions was? That is an assumption on your part, an idea in your head, and nothing more than that. And you criticise me for relying on my senses!

1. No. Mattery cann't have the explanation of its existence in itself, as can God.

2. God is not senseless and irrational. And also he is not playing with humans' lives. We know these from Bible where we are told about a good God. Why take Bible for understanding God? Because there is not other book that has such strong ideas about God, that hardly can be the creation of a human mind. Yes, is not perfect what I say. I tried to come with a theoretical-logical demonstration, but it seems that is not working. The Atheists want philosophical debates, I want to learn the truth beyond prejudices, we have not common objectives.

No one truly answered the OP's question.

I think I did, perhaps others too.

-------------
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3992/10ms4.jpg">

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 11:41

Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by gcle2003

Personally that seems to be attributable to you.

Since you attacked my views, not I yours, your opinion is unfounded. Or perhaps once more you proved you didn't actually understand what I wrote there.

Your original comment was silly and childish. My response was meant to make that point (since it too was obviously silly and childish. 'You are...', 'No you are...', 'No you are...' is not a way to conduct any kind of sensible discussion.

Nothing I disagree with. If you intended to give it as a correction to what I said, it proves my earlier point that you attack views you don't understand.

It also contradicts your position that the myth of Deluge is not a religious belief, because the Deluge happened following god's (a supernatural power) will and plan.

No it doesn't. It's perfectly in line with my original position which was that the statement 'There was a deluge' is NOT a religious assertion, but 'God sent the deluge' IS a religious assertion.

I'm suprised you continue to confuse the two.

Though this is a straw man (we were discussing about what religious beliefs are, not what positions non-religious people take on them),

Nope. An unnecessarily snide remark and not a straw man at all. You quoted the source. It classifies religious beliefs under three headings (positions). My stating that was therefore not erectiing a straw man, it was merely recapitulating what you had introduced. If you now don't want to accept that classification, then why quote the passage in the first place?

it touches our point so I'll answer. I believe the religious beliefs fall under all three categories, but in particular I've dealt here with the first (refutable by science) and third (irrefutable because they are non-empricial, are metaphysical).

What you emphasized is exactly my point in this debate with you. Again, another evidence you argue against what you don't understand.

You don't appear to understand the word 'explanation' (the first position).

So it isn't a religious statement.

Yes, the Deluge is an attempt to provide explanations, refers to morality and has also uninvestigable details (like god's role in it). If you don't understand why, I won't be bothered to explain.

What youj mean is you're beaten. The story of the deluge does not explain anything at all. What's to explain? There was a universal flood. A man and his family survided with a load of animals. What does that 'explain'? Where's the 'morality' involved? In fact there's not even any supernatural power involved (so far).

That story is investigatable by science, at least in principle - in fact it's refutable simply on the ground that in the lifespan of humanity there hasn't been enough water to completely cover the earth.

However, once the story is 'explained' by attributiing it to God's will then it becomes a religious statement, and it is no longer refutable by scientific investigation. (As no religious statement is.)

I note you dodge around confronting my point. What does it explain? In that whole paragraph you don't address that issue.

That statment is a caricature of what actually the Deluge myth is. Its main flaw is that is completely devoid of god.

But it is devoid of God. That's the point you keep missing. The assertion I made in the first place has no God in it at all. The statement that 'there was a universal flood' (which is common to more than the Abrahamic traditions) has nothing about God in it at all.

Which is part of the reason it isn't a religious statement, and is therefore testable empirically.

Incidentally creationists have been explaining fossil fuels for a lot longer than scientists have

Again you argue against things you don't understand.

[/QUOTE]

What on earth are you talking about? Just what are you claiming I don't understand? People have believed the universe was created by God for much longer than we have ever known fossil fuels existed. When fossil fuels were discovered (without checking, in western Europe that would be in the later middle ages, no? - certainly long before Darwin) any cleric would have told you that, like the rest of the world they were created by God (as a help to mankind, or whatever).

Scientific theories about the origin of fossil fuels aren't more than what? A couple of centuries old?

It isn't me that's demonstrating misunderstanding.

But I take blame for that, instead of explanation I chose a subtlety. But since from experience trying to explain brings even more denial from your side, I will just drop this point. I will just clarify the other issuess, if anything will be worth clarifying.

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 13:02

Originally posted by gcle2003

Your original comment was silly and childish. My response was meant to make that point (since it too was obviously silly and childish. 'You are...', 'No you are...', 'No you are...' is not a way to conduct any kind of sensible discussion.

My original comment was and still is true. You fail to understand most of the things I hold. I can only pity the one who finds sillyness when he's told he's missing the point.

No it doesn't. It's perfectly in line with my original position which was that the statement 'There was a deluge' is NOT a religious assertion, but 'God sent the deluge' IS a religious assertion.

I'm suprised you continue to confuse the two.

Continuous denial. My original position was "God sent the deluge" (I was talking about the Biblical Deluge all along, should I quote myself? Have you read the Bible?). I'm surprised as well by your incapacity of understanding, moreover as it seems to be a chronic symptom.

Nope. An unnecessarily snide remark and not a straw man at all. You quoted the source.

I linked a source for defining the religious beliefs, I quoted something from the source, as well (a part of the definition I found relevant for our discussion). Since you obviously do not understand what I say, you're stripped off from the lucidity to claim what is a straw man or not. To realize such a thing, you need first to understand what I hold.

(positions). My stating that was therefore not erectiing a straw man, it was merely recapitulating what you had introduced. If you now don't want to accept that classification, then why quote the passage in the you now don't want to accept that classification, then why quote the passage in the(positions). My stating that was therefore not erectiing a straw man, it was merely recapitulating what you had introduced.

I accepted the classification and I didn't quote that passage.

It's a symptom I noticed often common to many forum trolls. They often jump to reply before they actually read what their opponent has to say. You practice it quite often, and I noticed it in our past debates. For instance in this case, you accused me of not accepting the classification, though in the next sentence (in the same paragraph!) I confirmed I accept all three categories of classification. Of course, my acceptance was ignored even when you replied to that portion of text which contains it. Which is another common trolling practice to dodge the inconvenient and continue monologuing.

You don't appear to understand the word 'explanation' (the first position

Since you don't know what it explains, you can't afford such a judgement.

It explains, if you don't understand it's your problem, not mine, not the myth's. Honestly I am tired of providing free lessons for idiots and/or ignorants (whether they are really so or they just fake it). It's not my fault some people did not read the Bible, it's not my fault some people did not read scholarship related to it or simply they do not have the intellectual capacity to understand.
I'll just throw few references:
- of course, the Bible, Genesis, chapters 6-8, though some NT books worth rearding like Peter's epistles or apocryphals like the book of Enoch
- cultural anthropology: Andrei Oişteanu, Legenda românească a potopului (The Romanian legend of Deluge), a study on syncretic pagan-Christian account, some of the elements analysed are those from the Bible - the opposition between god's order and chaos, the ark symbolism, sending animals to check for land, etc. Among others the study focuses on the meanings (themselves mythical or not) of the elements present in this myth
- theology: Michel Quinot, De l'icône au festin nuptial. Image, Parole et Chair de Dieu, it discusses the meaning of various motifs, elements, narratives from the Bible, from iconic perspective but not only. Among others it shows the cosmis roles of waters, their sin cleansing nature. For clearer parallels with the Deluge check the "classical" Christian theology, e.g. John of Damascus about the three prefigurations of the Christian baptism
This could expand endlessly, topic for an entire thread, for an entire book.

Though I believe one needs not to be a rocket scientist to realize the baselessness of your position if he'll just sacrifice a bit of time to read the Bible:
gcle2003: In fact there's not even any supernatural power involved (so far)
Bible, Genesis, 6.13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Bible, Genesis, 7.4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth

However, once the story is 'explained' by attributiing it to God's will then it becomes a religious statement, and it is no longer refutable by scientific investigation. investigation. (As no religious statement is)

You have a short memory. Let me quote from that site what you have already summarized: "The first position asserts that all religious beliefs are false: they attempt to explain perceived phenomena in a way that is often contrary to scientific principles, and in any case religious beliefs cannot be empirically verified". So, according to some, religious beliefs can be refuted by science when they cross each other's paths or they can be simply get ignored (because they are not empirically testable).

I note you dodge around confronting my point. What does it explain? In that whole paragraph you don't address that

You have no point, you have a limitation in understanding. I don't owe you any answers. It explains to me. Call me a liar and join my fanclub, or trust me and concede the argument. Or change your personality and maybe I'll be giving more answers.

But this is your strawman, we're not talking about your statement (maybe you do, but I don't and you attacked my position), but about the Biblical flood. And God is everywhere in those passages. And at the same time, some of the claims made there can be tested empirically (or refuted by scientific grounds, based on other theories built empirically).

Like I said, I'm not going to clarify this point to you. You're further off the track, but I won't ruin your pleasure to keep monologues.

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 14:11

Originally posted by Menumorut

No one truly answered the OP's question.

I think I did, perhaps others too.

Not really, you may have explained your personal reasons, but that isn't necessarily the explanation of "creationists" in general.

Gcle2003 did provide one explanation, that it was created by God as is. But the argument sort of drifted into a discussion about the timeframe of various explanations. His explanations is just an extrapolation of a generic idea about the world in general, not a specific modern day Creationist explanation of the existence of fossil fuels, even though it may be the same in the end.

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 14:37

not a specific modern day Creationist explanation of the existence of fossil fuels

You're correct, the OP did not quite get his answer. Because almost no one has dealt with modern Creationism and its claims and methods. I'm not very familiar with them (I had patience to read only one Creationist book, and that was too much for me, most of the information I have from discussion boards like IIDB) but if I reckon correctly an often position is that of denying the scientific results. I encountered two positions, sometimes held together:

- fossilization happened more recently and took less time than mainstream scholars argue

- fossil fuels are abiotic, i.e. not from fossils - on this one I remember some creationists gloating when the estimates for oil reserves failed/changed, in their view that proved the mainstream fossil fuel theoretization is wrong

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 15:26

Funny, but those two arguments contradict each other very much. It can only be one or the other. Actually there are scientists that believe that the majority of the CH or C in the earths surface has an abiotic origin - it is not a creationist idea. Still, the process does require a fair bit of time, so the YEC's shouldn't gloat too much just because of that.

Anyho, the recent findings of oil and gas are actually based on the usual idea of formation - the idea predicts where oil and gas can be found, and often that's where it is found. Going in to detail about it is probably besides the point here.

A last thing with relation to the last part you wrote -sometimes the oil reserves are adjusted not because new reserves are found, but because the exploitaion of the fields have become much more efficient. And the un-profitable fields that couldn't be used now may be profitable because of new methods and high prices.

There's a lot more to it than that.

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 16:07

Originally posted by Chilbudios

My original comment was and still is true. You fail to understand most of the things I hold. I can only pity the one who finds sillyness when he's told he's missing the point.

Just continuing childishness. 'Do', 'Don't', 'Do', 'Don't'....

No it doesn't. It's perfectly in line with my original position which was that the statement 'There was a deluge' is NOT a religious assertion, but 'God sent the deluge' IS a religious assertion.

I'm suprised you continue to confuse the two.

Continuous denial. My original position was "God sent the deluge" (I was talking about the Biblical Deluge all along, should I quote myself?

That is simply untrue. Look at my post of November 18 at 12:42 CET (GMT+1).

Originally posted by gcle2003

That's not a religious belief, it's a scientific (historical anyway) assertion.

I then added:

A religious belief would be that the deluge was caused by God to punish the people of Earth.

Your statement that I opposed was "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".

It didn't say God sent anything, it didn't mention God at all. God has nothing to do with it. "There was a deluge in the times of Noah so that only Mount Ararat was above the waters" is not a religious statement whatsoever. It's a simple, wrong, historical assertion.

Have you read the Bible?). I'm surprised as well by your incapacity of understanding, moreover as it seems to be a chronic symptom.

Can't avoid the ad hominems can you? They lose you credibility, they don't improve it. And yes I have in fact read all the Bible, a consequence perhaps of a misspent youth. But I don't see what that has to do with anything, since we're discussing a statement you made not one the Bible made. (See above.)

Nope. An unnecessarily snide remark and not a straw man at all. You quoted the source.

I again notice you actually dodge the issue. You produced a set of definitions of what a religious statement is (whether you agreed with it or not, or whether at the time you had read it, I can't say). I in fact accepted the definitions. So how on earth you can call that a straw man (something I invented that you hadn't said) I have no idea.

I accepted the classification and I didn't quote that passage.

Well, providing a link to a source is in a sense quoting it. I assume you did it that way because the referenced site did not allow copying - the same reason I avoided literal quoting.

It's a symptom I noticed often common to many forum trolls.

And a recourse frequently adopted by people who know they are wrong but won't admit it is to yammer on about straw men, and how they'se been misunderstood, and to start accusing others of trolling.

The issue here is simple. "There was a deluge in the times of Noah" says nothing about god or morals or emotions and it in general soes not deal with metaphysical themes. It just doesn't. And you for some reason only you can know, but others can guess, simply refuse to admit it.

They often jump to reply before they actually read what their opponent has to say. You practice it quite often, and I noticed it in our past debates. For instance in this case, you accused me of not accepting the classification,

No I didn't. It would possibly be more relevant for you to read the thread than me read the Bible. I said "If you now don't want to accept that classification".

though in the next sentence (in the same paragraph!) I confirmed I accept all three categories of classification. Of course, my acceptance was ignored even when you replied to that portion of text which contains it. Which is another common trolling practice to dodge the inconvenient and continue monologuing.

You don't appear to understand the word 'explanation' (the first position

Since you don't know what it explains, you can't afford such a judgement.

It explains, if you don't understand it's your problem, not mine, not the myth's.

Again you simply dodge the issue. If it explains something then what does it explain? Since you can't answer you simply switch to calling me an idiot or ignorant or a troll faking idiocy or ignorance. That isn't going to impress anyone. A simple straightforward answer might.

All the rest of the stuff you quote below about the bible and theology and cultural anthropology and so on is completely irrelevant, faux savant though it may be. We are discussing the simple statement that there was a flood in the times of Noah such that only Mount Ararat was above the waters. That's all. And it's not a religious statement, which makes it in principle falsifiable by God.

Honestly I am tired of providing free lessons for idiots and/or ignorants (whether they are really so or they just fake it).

You might bear in mind that I published a book on cultural anthropology around the time you were born.

It doesn't make me unchallengeable, but it does indicate something.

It's not my fault some people did not read the Bible, it's not my fault some people did not read scholarship related to it or simply they do not have the intellectual capacity to understand.
I'll just throw few references:
- of course, the Bible, Genesis, chapters 6-8, though some NT books worth rearding like Peter's epistles or apocryphals like the book of Enoch
- cultural anthropology: Andrei Oişteanu, Legenda românească a potopului (The Romanian legend of Deluge), a study on syncretic pagan-Christian account, some of the elements analysed are those from the Bible - the opposition between god's order and chaos, the ark symbolism, sending animals to check for land, etc. Among others the study focuses on the meanings (themselves mythical or not) of the elements present in this myth
- theology: Michel Quinot, De l'icône au festin nuptial. Image, Parole et Chair de Dieu, it discusses the meaning of various motifs, elements, narratives from the Bible, from iconic perspective but not only. Among others it shows the cosmis roles of waters, their sin cleansing nature. For clearer parallels with the Deluge check the "classical" Christian theology, e.g. John of Damascus about the three prefigurations of the Christian baptism
This could expand endlessly, topic for an entire thread, for an entire book.

And you're just makiing stuff up. The quotation is correct. Personally I would say that the first position is true of only some religious beliefs (because I also accept the second and third positions. However, the quotation does not say or imply that such beliefs can be refuted by science, but that 'in any case' they cannot be empirically verified. If they cannot be empirically verified (a Popperian would of course say falsified) then they cannot be refuted by science, because science relies on empirical verification.

I note you dodge around confronting my point. What does it explain? In that whole paragraph you don't address that

Again you duck the question. Why is it so terrible for you to state what the proposition that there was a deluge explains? Apart from the obvious reason, which is what faute de mieux everyone will assume.

But this is your strawman, we're not talking about your statement (maybe you do, but I don't and you attacked my position), but about the Biblical flood. And God is everywhere in those passages.

I've quoted above the statement of yours that I said was non-religious. It had absolutely no mention of God in it whatsoever. It was a simple statement, a statement of yours, not even a Biblical quotation.´

If anything partakes of the nature of a straw man it's your bringing God into it - which, as I said very early on, would make it a religious statement.

[/QUOTE]

And at the same time, some of the claims made there can be tested empirically (or refuted by scientific grounds, based on other theories built empirically).

[/QUOTE]

The religious statements can't be. The factual assertions can. That's the difference between the two.

Like I said, I'm not going to clarify this point to you. You're further off the track, but I won't ruin your pleasure to keep monologues.

Do you really think that kind of dodging around is clever? My statement was that creationists have been explaining the origin of fossil fuels for longer than scientists have. You quite obviously are just running away from admitting you were wrong to challenge that, obvious though it undoubtedly is.

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 16:11

Jams,

I guess the tactic is something like holding abiotic origin for fossil fuels, and if in case someone will demolish that claim, they can always resort to the other argument that fossils are not that old and still keep their model viable.

I might have projected a caricature of what their actual arguments are because I didn't find anything worth remembering. If you have the patience, perhaps you should check some creationist sites or books and see what they really hold.

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 16:22

Originally posted by Jams

Originally posted by Menumorut

No one truly answered the OP's question.

I think I did, perhaps others too.

Not really, you may have explained your personal reasons, but that isn't necessarily the explanation of "creationists" in general.

It did at least provide an answer from one creationist in particular.

Well it's the explanation I get from modern day creationists in and around Atlanta, Primitive Baptists for the most part. It is of course the same religious answer you would have got at pretty well any point in history (at least western history) after fossil fuels were discovered, but I don't think that disqualifies it as representing creationist thought.

It occurs to me that the phrase 'fossil fuels' to some extent immediately biasses the issue. To a creationist after all they aren't 'fossil' fuels in the first place. Coal is coal and oil is oil and gas is gas and that's what they always have been.

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 17:38

Originally posted by Gcle2003

Just continuing childishness. 'Do', 'Don't', 'Do', 'Don't'....

It seems I have a toy, don't I?

That is simply untrue. Look at my post of November 18 at 12:42 CET (GMT+1).

Originally posted by gcle2003

That's not a religious belief, it's a scientific (historical anyway) assertion.

I then added:

A religious belief would be that the deluge was caused by God to punish the people of Earth.

"there was a Deluge in the times of Noah so that only mount Ararat was above the waters" refers to the Biblical Deluge (Noah, Ararat, obvious hints!) which was sent by God. I can't take fault for my opponent's ignorance (real or faked) or for pathological attempts of taking everything ad litteram and create annoyance in discussions.

What you call ad hominem is a simple fact you don't have the heart to admit: you miss my point continously, chronically. The statement I made was a reference to the Biblical Flood myth, not to anything else. My statement is not meaningful if taken as it is (who's Noah?).

You jumped in a discussion without understanding what was it about. Who's fault is it?

I didn't quote that passage to prove my point, passage which in itself was not about defining religious beliefs, but about showing how non-religious people react to them.

Well, providing a link to a source is in a sense quoting it. I assume you did it that way because the referenced site did not allow copying - the same reason I avoided literal quoting.

Not really. I actually linked that site to support my quote which followed (I usually provide references for my quotes), but you replied before finishing reading and understanding my point. Your assumption is thus wrong, and confirms that chronic inability I already pointed out.

And a recourse frequently adopted by people who know they are wrong but won't admit it is to yammer on about straw men, and how they'se been misunderstood, and to start accusing others of trolling.

Q.E.D.

No I didn't. It would possibly be more relevant for you to read the thread than me read the Bible. I said "If you now don't want to accept that classification".

It seems you're unable to quote yourself, even less to understand the thread or the Bible, you actually said "If you now don't want to accept that classification, then why quote the passage in the first place?" . And my point thus still stays. The two paragraphs from above are further evidence for it.

I don't know how you really are but you certainly look like an idiot if you deny something you don't know or you start guesswork to decypher my motives for refusing you. Maybe you're ugly.

You have not read those books, what do you know about their relevance?

And they fully support my point, I was discussing about the Biblical Deluge (caused by God). I don't know what are you discussing about and I don't really care, you attacked my position, it's your job to understand my points properly in order to justify your criticisms.

You might bear in mind that I published a book on cultural anthropology around the time you were born.

It doesn't make me unchallengeable, but it does indicate something.

Not really, crap gets published everywhere by everybody. If you're a scholar you'd brag with good reviews and showing in many bibliographies. You'd show the respect from your peers. Publishing a book is easy, getting recognition is hard.

And it's utterly irrelevant if it doesn't relate to the myths we're discussing.

You may want to read again, because it says as clearly as it can: "they attempt to explain perceived phenomena in a way that is often contrary to scientific principles"

Because you don't deserve it. Because I wouldn't waste margaritas ante porcos. Because I see no use why would I feed even more trolling from your side, even more denial, why would I invest some hours in building interpretations (perhaps quite complex if they are supposed to clearly express my views), just to get trashed, massacred, by someone who has troubles in understanding much simpler points, like for instance, I'm talking about the Biblical account of the Flood. With such a poor record in understanding and with so much annoyance created to understand a one-liner from me, why do you expect I'll give you anything, except for killing my boredom? Do you really believe I choose you for debate because you're smart or well-read? Don't lie to yourself!

If anything partakes of the nature of a straw man it's your bringing God into it - which, as I said very early on, would make it a religious statement.

Ad nauseam. Already dealt with - point missed.

I provided a hint (and had nothing to do with fossil fuels), you didn't understand it, perhaps my fault. I won't explain. Learn to receive "no" for an answer.

Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 18:01

Well I don't know if the last few pages were informative or not but it was an entertaining read for me. I have an idea. How about interested members present a conclusive closing arguement regarding your respective perspectives. That way we could cut through all of the supposed 'straw' from cloggin up the thread!

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 18:12

Or we can move to another thread or just abandon the discussion. I was merely defending a position I held, I'm not sure if anyone else but Graham is interested in that.

Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 18:16

I wouldn't want this thread to be closed though Chilbudios. Try my idea first. All interested parties can make closing arguements about their repective points of view. One other suggestion. Let's all refrain from comapring ourselves to other members or even mentioning them in posts.

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 18:41

Originally posted by Seko

Well I don't know if the last few pages were informative or not but it was an entertaining read for me. I have an idea. How about interested members present a conclusive closing arguement regarding your respective perspectives. That way we could cut through all of the supposed 'straw' cloggin from up the thread!

A factual statement about something that happened in the world is susceptible in principle (not always in practice) to scientific analysis based on empirical observation.

A statement that attributes an event or other phenomenon to divine (or, more generally, supernatural) causation is not susceptible to such analysis. Such a statement is religious.

Examples ( a= category 1, b= category 2):

(a) Look over there and you will see a rainbow

(b) The rainbow was placed there by God as a sign to man.

(a) Humans are more intelligent than other animals

(b) God made humans superior to animals

(a) The dollar dived yesterday against the euro

(b) International currency speculators drove the dollar down yesterday against the euro.

(a) The planets were formed at the same time as the sun.

(b) God created the planets at the same time he created the sun.

In particular:

(a) Vegetation left undisturbed for millions of years will turn into oil, coal and gas.

(b) Oil, coal and gas reserves were laid down by God for humainity's benefit when he created the earth.

(a) There was a universal flood that covered the whole earth.

(b) God covered the earth with a flood to punish humanity.

Note that if you simply believe there was such a flood, you can be convinced otherwise by contrary evidence. However if someone believes that God sent such a flood, then he cannot be refuted even by evidence showing there was no such flood because he has God's word that he did, and God's word trumps scientific evidence.

Beliefs that can be refuted by empirical analysis and testing are scientific. Beliefs that cannot be refuted by any argument or observation are religious (or, in a more general sense, 'metaphysical', religion being a subset of metaphysics).

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 19:04

Okay, my concluding statement: Anyone can just read the Bible, the book of Genesis, chapters 6, 7 and 8. The Biblical myth of Flood has both claims which can be verified and which cannot. In its entirety it is a religious belief that Flood happened as it is described in the Bible. To save Biblical literalism, God cannot be used always to trump science (or logic, because Bible also holds internal contradictions), unless we end in a 'all-is-simulation' type of worldview.

Religion is not only about having unverifiable claims (after all, there are religions without metaphysics, without transcendence), but about the way the belief are formed or changed, about holding sacred values and/or rituals, about having gods and/or prophets, and of course, about providing worldviews and justification for human experiences.

Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 19:13

Thank you gentlemen. Excellent closures. Feel free to continue the discussion with the hgih standards you both are known for.

-------------

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 21:10

1: I agree that the Bible contains both testable ('scientific' or at least empirical) truth-claims and non-testable ('religious' or at least metaphysical) truth-claims. The same is true of pretty well all primarily religious works that make assertions about the world, just as it is true of most primarily scientific ones.

Some of those truth-claims are 'myths' - i.e. stories that explain observed phenomena. Such a myth is the story of Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japhet, which claims to explain the existence of racial diversity. Some are not - e.g. the statement that "Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech" (Genesis IV:18) which explains nothing, but would at least at one time have been testable.

Genesis VII:23: "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark" falls into the latter category.

Genesis VIII:1: "But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded" falls into the former category.

2: Of course God's word trumps empirical evidence if you believe God is omnipotent (and that some particular text is his Word). In the same way empirical evidence trumps God's word if you don't believe in God (or him having a Word).

You cannot refute Darwinism by quoting the Bible And you cannot refute creationism by quoting empirical evidence. What's important is to recognise that creationism is not scientific but religious.

3: The above refers only to truth-claims - i.e. assertions about physical phenomena. Many religious statements are not truth-claims in that sense, but are more in the nature of exhortations or principles.

4: I'm using religion in a broader sense than most people would, certainly to include any belief system that relies on inspiration or revelation.

5: I disagree that there are religions without metaphysics, though I agree there are religions without transcendence. I don't for instance think animism is transcendent, but it does depend on the metaphysical stance that everything (at least every living creature) has a soul. In fact I don't think that any human belief systems, religious or not, exist without metaphysics. Some of the differences in attitudes to quantum uncertainty are for instance due to metaphysical positions. I'd welcome an example of a religion without metaphysics.

-------------

Posted By: Jams
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2008 at 21:18

How about all the C bound in compounds with Ca in calcite? After all, unlike oil and gas, the shells of the animals can very obviously be seen. It contain a very large part of the earths carbon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcite - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcite

I guess the answer "it was created by God as it is now, when the world was created" covers this phenomenon as well.

-------------