-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
How many creationist here think that atheism and evolution go together?
- Thread starter Jay Follett
- Start date
In situ
in vivo veritas
It might be a logical fallacy to appeal to an authority to validate a claim or try to give credibility to it. It is not always so, but in this case it is, because as wikipedia explains it:
"An argument from authority may be fallacious if used to infer that the conclusion is certainly correct, if the cited authority is stating a contentious or controversial position"
Upvote
0
In situ
in vivo veritas
According to criminology - eyewittness report is the most unreliable form of evidence. There are good, and well documented, reason for why this is the case. Just to pick the most obvious one; people sometimes lies. This is why technical evidence often supersed eye witness account.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
Certain fundies, don't accept the well evidenced facts that there is zero geological evidence for a biblical flood.
Certain fundies, deny the well evidenced facts, that life had evolved over millions of years.
Certain fundies, deny the well evidenced facts, that the earth is not 6,000 years old.
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,593
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
He is the one making the claim. I am only quoting what Collins said.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
But that is hardly a contentious or controversial position. Actually Collins is the perfect person to site for this particular argument. Strangely you ignored the most common "appeal to authority" error that some make and that is when "such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert." I see creationists site people that are well out of their comfort zone quite often. This was not a case of doing so.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
The problem is that you misquoted him. Quotes out of context that clearly imply something that the speaker did not intend is called quote mining and is a form of lying. Now odds are that this is not your lie. You probably got your quote from a dishonest creationist source and did not bother to see if they were being honest or not.
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,593
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Moses deals with all of that in the Bible. I have been studying ancient history now for about 50 years so I know quite a bit about it. Written history actually began about 1000 years before Moses. The Phoenicians gave us the alphabet along with Phonics. The story of Noah was around on clay tablets before Moses. Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago is the first story about people to be written or recorded.
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,593
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I give the book and the page that I got the quote from. You are really out in left field this time. Anyways, I don't care, it is to much trouble to try to explain it to you and it is not that important.
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,593
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Keep reading the posts, I already looked up his exact quote.
Upvote
0
In situ
in vivo veritas
I am not avoiding anything. You did not ask the question to me so I did not felt obligated to answer it.
But sure I can answer the question if you want. My answer is; your question is malformed.
We know the universe has a well defined history backwards in time - until time stops exists. Now did you notice something strange with that sentence? What does it mean for time to stop? Does it mean existence stop to exists? Does it mean there is nothing left? Does it mean the universe was created ex nil? What happen before it existed? What does it mean to "exists"? Does time exists "outside" the universe? What does "outside" mean? I don't know...
None of these question I can answers. Can you? If you don't it is okay with me, I can live with that because I don't feel the need to make up an answer to things I do not know the answer to!
Anyway, the problem we deal with here is not only the origin of the universe but that of our language as well. To talk about a "being" or "before" any time did exist is meaningless unless we define what we mean with a beginning. In physics the "beginning" of the universe is defined as when time emerged in the universe. Let me illustrate this with this picture:
This should not be understood as the universe popped into existence from nothing or begun to exists at "the beginning" or that it was a "time" before the beginning. This is only a language constructs to mark when time started to tick in our universe history. That time point was aprox 13.6 billion years ago. It is possible the universe existed as a pure space configuration with not time "before" the "the beginning". Take note! This is not the same as saying the universe is eternal or infinite old - because then you need to refer to a time frame again, a frame which does not exists in such configuration.
So does this mean the universe sprang into existence from "nothing" 13.6 years ago or had a beginning? No it does not. As far as I understand the math the universe existed in a timeless state as in the picture above. But to talk about "a before", or "a creation" or "a beginning" before (that word again) that timeless state is meaningless. The point is that we don't know whether the universe might have "always" existed or not - we don't even know what it means to say that it "always existed". But I know I am justified to claim it did not had a beginning in the sense you ask.
That is why I said your question is malformed. And I needed to use a lots of words, even a picture, to explain why I can answer your "simple" question that way.
The point I try to make here (which is the very same point I made previously) is that you are still trying to simplifies reality to fit into your simplified view of what reality "must" be according to yourself.
You seams to think the universe must obey some rules of what you have decided make sense to you - but you are wrong because the universe does not need to follow your logic, or any logic at all for that matter. The universe is not obligated, in any way, to have to make sense to us. But somehow it most often does - in other times it does not... like when we considering the question if the universe had a beiginning or not. I don't know. Such questions does not make any sense to me to ask the universe.
Your, or mine, or anyone's, argument does not matter - the only thing that matter are observations - only facts matter. Facts you ignore on a daily basis when you stick your nose in the bible (= not reality) looking for the "truth".
In the way you use the word truth; no there is no truth in the bible - none whatsoever.
Since I don't agree, then whatever follows after 'then' can safely be ingored.
So this is what it is all about - your personal opinions about what everone needs?
I never felt I needed religion for anything. You may feel that way, and that is fine with me. So if religion make you feel more complete, yea sure go for it. But frankly, I believe the "need" for religion is a taught thing - you are told you need religion by you culture. We don't need religion inherently. In fact we are probably better of without religion. However, I realize that some people for some reason or the other want to believe. I am not in favor of telling people what and what not they shall believe in, so I think what you believe in is, and should be, a private matter. Something you do at home, and what you do at home is nobodys business (as long you follow the law).
It only become a problem when religion manifest itself like it does in you - when you try press your opinion onto other as "truths". I then reserve my right to wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In situ
in vivo veritas
You want some context: Francis Collins is a leading expert, yes, but he is also a devoted believer... so some of what he say outside the context of peer-reviewed my not be opinion shared by the rest of the research community but simply personal reflecting based on his own believes. I also doubt Francis Collins share any of joshua's beliefs about an infallible bible, and would not sign on any of those claims.... joshua is using Francis Collins as an "appeal to authority" to try give credibility to unsubstantiated claims.
Upvote
0
I take a different view, Insitu. In short, I am a theist and I believe that God is eternally creative. So, before this universe, there was an other, different one, and so on. Time, by which I mean movement, change, something happening, is eternal.
Upvote
0
If not evolution, what is it that most atheists believe in, that would answer the origin of time, space, matter, and life?
Upvote
0
I think, bhsmte, that God began as an unconscious imagination, s storehouse of all creative potentiality. The divine imagination sought to become conscious, self=actualize. Hence, creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into consciousness and self-actualization as a genuine personality. I don't think, however, there ever was a time when God was purely unconscious, merely potential. There has always been some sort of universe. I view God as a social-relational being. God continually arises out of his or her relationships with the universe. God grows as the world goes.
Upvote
0
In situ
in vivo veritas
Well, nobody really knows so one is free to believe whatever one like. Why a god would like to creates a lot of universe, one after the other is beyond me. It sound to me that you like to try to adopt your picture of god with the current thought streams in science. I have no problem with that, I respect that kind of belief. However, all multiverse models are speculative - nobody really knows - they are possibilities though. That does not mean I do not enjoy to speculate in and think about the possible alternatives - but they are just that; possibilities.
In my opinion, science is not the process of telling the truth but, the process to find and eliminating possibilities. That is why science is not an enemy of religion but instead a help for religious people to find the truth they seek. This is why I find it so easy to know if a religious person really seeks the truth or just trying to confirm their own dogmatic beliefs...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
