Is believing in creationism (e.g. that lifeforms were independently created) required for salvation?

[PsychoSarah]

I'm sure there is a wonderful person in there, but all we get to see is a polemic appologist. But any statement is judged on the assumptions and premises behind it, and that is why I'm lost under Atheism.

Atheism doesn't have a premise. It's just a lack of belief in deities. The only thing you can infer about an atheist is that they haven't observed any evidence of deities that was sufficient enough for them to believe deities exist. No more and no less.

I don't believe the Earth is young, but I am humble enough in my thinking to know I could be wrong. But I am more sure of my belief in and old earth on Theist grounding than Naturalistic grounding. Presupposition is a dangerous thing. There are even naturalistic models that make a world that began identical to 1894 just as likely as the old world we imagine as old. There is no room for arrogance in knowledge. Knowledge should always be approached humbly and graciously. Sheldon is popular not because he is smart but because he is so intellectually and social broken to be found humerous.

You are thinking of knowledge statements. Atheism isn't a knowledge statement. As it is, most atheists, including myself, are agnostic atheists. That means we don't believe in deities, but we don't outright state that they don't exist. Only that we haven't been exposed to sufficient evidence to believe that they do.

To be agnostic is to suggest that you don't feel that you know for sure one way or another, and both theists and atheists can be agnostic. Fence sitters that don't want to be associated with either a theist or atheist label will usually just call themselves agnostic because it creates less drama.

 

[MaudDib]

Lot to unpack here, and I'm short on time, so forgive curtness.



As in, a formal Theory in scientific terms? No. No Theory of Abiogenesis has been formed - it's still a work in progress.

As in, a set of well supported suppositions about the development of biological life from simpler non-biological precursors. Then, yes.



Actually, much of value - if you value understanding the origin of life - has been produced by studying abiotic chemistry and early biochemical replicators.

Hi Gene2meme,

I got the sense that you weren't really engaging with what I was saying.

When I said "The Theory of evolution or any theory of the origin of life is not science (read scientific method)." you proceeded to to tell me that the ToE is not a theory about the origin of life? I never said it was? I didn't say 'or any other theory', I said 'or any theory' so as to include it in the set along with the ToE.

You're presupposing that I don't understand the thesis of descent with modification, which requires something from which to descend in the first place.

The rest of your responses indicate some missing of or ignorance of facts like irreducible complexity for example. A blind, mindless unguided process has no thought for the emergence of properties. I encourage you to go on and learn about this from Michael Behe and his mouse trap.

No lab experiment has demonstrated the transition of one kind to another. In fact lab experiments like those on conducted on countless generations of fruit flies serve as a proof by contradiction really.

The second thesis of evolution, that of random mutation and natural selection, is evident to a small degree. Can it shoulder the full weight of being able to explain the vast level of biological complexity we see in the world today? I think not. A lesson in chemical and cosmic probabilities by Bill Dembski and Fred Hoyle will straighten that out for you very quickly. No inference that ignores the lack of probabilistic resources is a sound one.

To see this, take a trial of 10 flips on a fair coin. You see 10 heads in a row. What was the probability of that happening? Well, 1 in 2^10, or 1/1024.

The probability on its own is one thing, but it needs to be considered against the backdrop of another item, that of probabilistic resources. I now give you more information, that 5000 such trials of 10 flips of a fair coin have taken place, and you have observed this feat of 10 heads in a row no less than 5 times.

How many times do we expect to see the result of 10 heads in a row? well, 5000/1024 = 5 odd.
In this scenario, chance has the explanatory power to explain the 5 occurrences so far.

But if we have only had say, 10 trials, and have seen the result above 5 times, then chance loses its explanatory power, and it would be wise to adjust your inference.

On that point, there is another theory, also based on inference, which has far better explanatory power regarding the evidence we see around us, and which takes into account the probabilities available.
That is the theory of Intelligent Design. Please read Signature in the cell by Stephen Meyer to see this.

These next 3 items are all birds of a feather lol.

1. You try to redefine a theory as a set of suppositions? They are one and the same thing?
2. Agnostic atheist? that is like being a married bachelor, incoherent! the definition of an atheist is someone who makes the claim to knowledge that no God exists, which an agnostic doesn't do at all. An agnostic is rather neutral when it comes to making a claim about the existence of God. You are either an atheist, or an agnostic, but you can't be both. That violates the law of non contradiction.
3. Reasonable but not rational? Lets reduce that down to its implications. How can something irrational be reasonable?

Please sharpen you pencil before you spray at me again. I was hesitant to give this so much attention in the first place.

Thanks and kind regards,

T

 

[PsychoSarah]

When I said "The Theory of evolution or any theory of the origin of life is not science (read scientific method)." you proceeded to to tell me that the ToE is not a theory about the origin of life? I never said it was? I didn't say 'or any other theory', I said 'or any theory' so as to include it in the set along with the ToE.

The grammar of the quoted statement is ambiguous about including the theory of evolution as a theory pertaining to the origin of life or not. Since the origin of life in and of itself is entirely irrelevant to the theory of evolution anyways, it's entirely pointless to group discussions of the theory of evolution with discussions of the various HYPOTHESES associated with the origin of life.

But if you wanted to communicate clearly that you didn't view the theory of evolution as a theory pertaining to the origin of life, the sentence should have been "The theory of evolution, as well as any theory of the origin of life, is not science (read scientific method)." I disagree with both variations of the sentence, I just view my version as less ambiguous and prone to semantic issues.

 

[Sanoy]

Atheism doesn't have a premise. It's just a lack of belief in deities. The only thing you can infer about an atheist is that they haven't observed any evidence of deities that was sufficient enough for them to believe deities exist. No more and no less.


You are thinking of knowledge statements. Atheism isn't a knowledge statement. As it is, most atheists, including myself, are agnostic atheists. That means we don't believe in deities, but we don't outright state that they don't exist. Only that we haven't been exposed to sufficient evidence to believe that they do.

To be agnostic is to suggest that you don't feel that you know for sure one way or another, and both theists and atheists can be agnostic. Fence sitters that don't want to be associated with either a theist or atheist label will usually just call themselves agnostic because it creates less drama.

It entails naturalism, which is what I'm referring to in the context of this long exchanged conversation. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but he is not one them.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It entails naturalism,

Nope, I used to believe in ghosts and an afterlife, and I was still an atheist at that point in my life.

At this point in my life, I only conclude that anything which isn't measurable in any sense and never can be measured probably is incapable of interacting with anything that actually matters as far as our lives and deaths go. There's no point in assuming something exists for which there is no evidence.

If a person states that they do have evidence for deities that's tangible, they aren't breaking away from naturalism in the slightest. In fact, to take issue with naturalism, you'd have to believe in something and at the same time believe there is no evidence for that something. Solid evidence for the existence of deities would just mean they are a natural part of the universe, like gravity.

which is what I'm referring to in the context of this long exchanged conversation. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but he is not one them.

How would you know when you've never asked?

 

[Sanoy]

Nope, I used to believe in ghosts and an afterlife, and I was still an atheist at that point in my life.

At this point in my life, I only conclude that anything which isn't measurable in any sense and never can be measured probably is incapable of interacting with anything that actually matters as far as our lives and deaths go. There's no point in assuming something exists for which there is no evidence.

If a person states that they do have evidence for deities that's tangible, they aren't breaking away from naturalism in the slightest. In fact, to take issue with naturalism, you'd have to believe in something and at the same time believe there is no evidence for that something. Solid evidence for the existence of deities would just mean they are a natural part of the universe, like gravity.


How would you know when you've never asked?

I'm actually talking about naturalistic origins. We have been talking for a while and I'm still in that context. I am pleased to hear Atheism can include belief in ghosts! That is truly good to hear.

I'm pretty sure he believes the world came about naturally. I could be wrong though, I have never asked him.

 

[MaudDib]

The grammar of the quoted statement is ambiguous about including the theory of evolution as a theory pertaining to the origin of life or not. Since the origin of life in and of itself is entirely irrelevant to the theory of evolution anyways, it's entirely pointless to group discussions of the theory of evolution with discussions of the various HYPOTHESES associated with the origin of life.

But if you wanted to communicate clearly that you didn't view the theory of evolution as a theory pertaining to the origin of life, the sentence should have been "The theory of evolution, as well as any theory of the origin of life, is not science (read scientific method)." I disagree with both variations of the sentence, I just view my version as less ambiguous and prone to semantic issues.

You say "Since the origin of life in and of itself is entirely irrelevant to the theory of evolution anyways,", shows me that you too cannot read properly. I never said 'origin of life', I said THEORY on origin of life.
That THEORY, together with the THEORY of evolution are related in that they are THEORIES, i.e. philosophical in nature, not scientific in the case of these two theories. To misrepresent what I said is to commit the strawman fallacy.
Please be more careful and diligent.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm actually talking about naturalistic origins. We have been talking for a while and I'm still in that context. I am pleased to hear Atheism can include belief in ghosts! That is truly good to hear.

-_- being an atheist only means that you don't believe in deities. Anything else goes. As a group, we have about as much in common as "people that do not grow tomatoes".

I'm pretty sure he believes the world came about naturally. I could be wrong though, I have never asked him.

Depends on how you define "natural", though. A theist might consider creating universes to be a natural function of deities, thus they would still be "naturalists". After all, how could one call an ant hill natural and not a house?

As for how the universe itself began, if that is even a valid question, the honest answer is "we don't know". So why not work to find that out rather than make up conclusions for it?

 

[MaudDib]

Nope, I used to believe in ghosts and an afterlife, and I was still an atheist at that point in my life.

At this point in my life, I only conclude that anything which isn't measurable in any sense and never can be measured probably is incapable of interacting with anything that actually matters as far as our lives and deaths go. There's no point in assuming something exists for which there is no evidence.

If a person states that they do have evidence for deities that's tangible, they aren't breaking away from naturalism in the slightest. In fact, to take issue with naturalism, you'd have to believe in something and at the same time believe there is no evidence for that something. Solid evidence for the existence of deities would just mean they are a natural part of the universe, like gravity.


How would you know when you've never asked?

You are assuming a self defeating world view. No scientist can explain consciousness for example, and yet its completely rational for us to believe in it. To say that you only believe in things that are measurable reduces your worldview to scientism. Can we measure what you said? No, you are making a claim about measuring, not of measuring, and so by your own view it doesn't matter!

And when you say, "There's no point in assuming something exists for which there is no evidence.", surely you are not talking about the God of the bible? There is plenty of evidence! Go and have a look at some of William Lane Craigs work on youtube for example.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You say "Since the origin of life in and of itself is entirely irrelevant to the theory of evolution anyways,", shows me that you too cannot read properly. I never said 'origin of life', I said THEORY on origin of life.

There aren't any theories on the origin of life, which is why I put hypotheses in all caps. No hypothesis on the origin of life has met the qualifications to graduate to theory.

Whether it be a theory or a hypothesis or, I guess, how life actually began if that's what you think I was asserting your claim was, how life began remains irrelevant to the theory of evolution. To put it facetiously, life could have originated from a cosmic fart and it wouldn't make a difference as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. A deity producing the first life form on this planet wouldn't make the theory of evolution different from if it formed via natural, unintelligent processes. Now, if you believe in deity-guided evolution, that's different than the standard theory of evolution.

That THEORY, together with the THEORY of evolution are related in that they are THEORIES, i.e. philosophical in nature, not scientific in the case of these two theories. To misrepresent what I said is to commit the strawman fallacy.
Please be more careful and diligent.

I'm not misrepresenting your claims, but I deserve to get some semantic pickiness in return for my own.

 

[Sanoy]

-_- being an atheist only means that you don't believe in deities. Anything else goes. As a group, we have about as much in common as "people that do not grow tomatoes".


Depends on how you define "natural", though. A theist might consider creating universes to be a natural function of deities, thus they would still be "naturalists". After all, how could one call an ant hill natural and not a house?

As for how the universe itself began, if that is even a valid question, the honest answer is "we don't know". So why not work to find that out rather than make up conclusions for it?

You're right of course, I just so rarely run into any that aren't strict metaphysical naturalists that I forget there is anything other.

I see Theism as a metaphysical neccesity, and a necessary foundation for all thought. I'm open to other possibilities but they have not been forthcoming. The closest thing I get is basically what you gave "we don't know" therefore wait till we find a not God explanation.

 

[MaudDib]

Atheism doesn't have a premise. It's just a lack of belief in deities. The only thing you can infer about an atheist is that they haven't observed any evidence of deities that was sufficient enough for them to believe deities exist. No more and no less.


You are thinking of knowledge statements. Atheism isn't a knowledge statement. As it is, most atheists, including myself, are agnostic atheists. That means we don't believe in deities, but we don't outright state that they don't exist. Only that we haven't been exposed to sufficient evidence to believe that they do.

To be agnostic is to suggest that you don't feel that you know for sure one way or another, and both theists and atheists can be agnostic. Fence sitters that don't want to be associated with either a theist or atheist label will usually just call themselves agnostic because it creates less drama.

Im sorry,

Have to help you here. Atheism doesn't have a premise?
Atheism makes a claim to knowledge that there is no God, for which you obviously think you have evidence.
And on top of that you say you are an agnostic atheist, which is like saying you are a married bachelor, INCOHERENT. They have very different world views. One makes a claim to knowledge(atheism) and the other doesn't(agnosticism). You can't just change the definition of something to suit yourself.

 

[MaudDib]

There aren't any theories on the origin of life, which is why I put hypotheses in all caps. No hypothesis on the origin of life has met the qualifications to graduate to theory.

Whether it be a theory or a hypothesis or, I guess, how life actually began if that's what you think I was asserting your claim was, how life began remains irrelevant to the theory of evolution. To put it facetiously, life could have originated from a cosmic fart and it wouldn't make a difference as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. A deity producing the first life form on this planet wouldn't make the theory of evolution different from if it formed via natural, unintelligent processes. Now, if you believe in deity-guided evolution, that's different than the standard theory of evolution.



I'm not misrepresenting your claims, but I deserve to get some semantic pickiness in return for my own.

You are shifting ground, and in a debate, you lose points for doing so.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't just change the definition of something to suit yourself.

Not without a rigged vote anyway.

Welcome to the world of Neoatheism.

"I'm an atheist until someone questions me about it ... then I'm an agnostic."

 

[Kenny'sID]

1) That's not a technical scientific paper or even a journal article. It's a position statement from the New England Complex Systems Institute.

I don't care.

2) It doesn't use the word 'proof', and only uses 'proven' as a negator (ie 'proven wrong').

lol

3) Using 'proven wrong' or 'disproven' is fine.

I see, "proven wrong" is OK even though science doesn't prove one way or another. And that my friend deserves another one of these...lol

 

[Kenny'sID]

As I said, maybe the gopher has run away or whatever, I agree that it would be most likely that they were lying but it's not proof is it? Anyway it's a poor analogy, it posits an impossible fantasy animal, whereas the evolution has been observed, tested and examined for over a century so I don't see much point in continuing this line of discussion.



You have yet to demonstrate that they aren't telling the truth though, there is no reason to think they are. Evidence for evolution is shown in hundreds of thousands of scientific papers and books, that you refuse to address it doesn't mean it isn't there.

I asked you about SFS's post where he linked to a blog.....

"I don't like to drag anyone else into this, but the only professional scientist I can think of who works in the field and regularly posts on this forum is SFS, are you saying he is lying when he says...

"I can find abundant genetic evidence for evolution. Is it possible that some of us know more about genetics than you do? Here is a small part of what I think is genetic evidence. Why isn't it?"

Are you prepared to examine his evidence and demonstrate that he is lying?"


So you are saying that SFS is a liar?

He posted genetic evidence for evolution, which you probably haven't even looked at, and you certainly can't show is wrong, yet you claim it's a lie?

Can you really not see how ignorant and hypocritical this stance is?

That you can call a fellow christian, who has shown himself to be more than happy to demonstrate what he says with empirical evidence, a liar speaks volumes about your character.

Now, please either show where he is lying or retract your statement.

Common sense, Jimmy...common sense.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Care to answer it, instead of lol-ing?

You got all I have for you in particular on this, and you know why. it's senseless to argue with someone who lies, is not truthful, or whatever you wish to call it and as I've explained in detail, you have already overstepped those bounds.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You are assuming a self defeating world view.

I certainly don't view it that way.

No scientist can explain consciousness for example, and yet its completely rational for us to believe in it.

Consciousness is a directly measurable phenomenon that is the result of brain activity. Which is why a person's conscious state can be altered through manipulating the brain alone. This is why having a stroke can change a person or render them indefinitely unconscious. Consciousness is well understood and easily explained, yet you are not the first creationist to state otherwise. I have no idea where that misconception comes from.

To say that you only believe in things that are measurable reduces your worldview to scientism.

Which is underlined with a red squiggle because it isn't a real world. Also, that wasn't my claim. I stated that anything which can NEVER be measured must, by virtue of that quality, not influence anything in any demonstrable way and thus doesn't matter in the context of our existence. Most people would not state that the deity/deities they believe in are utterly incapable of interacting with us and never will interact with us.

Can we measure what you said?

Yeah, it's in writing for any who cares to read it. You could even quantify my words by the number of them in my sentences, their meaning, and even the amount of data they are in terms of what is saved onto a computer.

No, you are making a claim about measuring, not of measuring, and so by your own view it doesn't matter!

No, I said anything which absolutely cannot be measured no matter what is irrelevant to our lives. This does not include things which are not currently measurable but COULD be measured in the future because they do influence the universe.

And when you say, "There's no point in assuming something exists for which there is no evidence.", surely you are not talking about the God of the bible?

-_- the evidence for the Christian god is no stronger than the evidence for any other god, including the ones contradictory to your beliefs. And overall it is all quite weak. We both don't believe in Vishnu for the same reason I don't believe in Yahweh.

There is plenty of evidence! Go and have a look at some of William Lane Craigs work on youtube for example.

I am familiar with his philosophical arguments, and they bring with them some fundamental assumptions which he hasn't provided evidence for. For example, here is one line of reasoning of his:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
3. Therefore:
The universe has a cause.

Premise 1 and 2 are not properties that are necessarily valid. For example, prior to the Big Bang, we have no idea what the rules of time and physics were. It is entirely possible, then, for the universe's "cause and the resulting effect of it" to be completely out of order (something within the universe long after it existed caused the universe, a popular science fiction trope for a reason). We also have no idea if the universe had a beginning or not, and the suggestion of a beginning could be entirely invalid because how time functions as we know it only began at the start of the Big Bang. That is, all we know for sure is that the expansion of the universe had a start, not the universe itself.

Plus, Craig invokes "outside the universe", a concept that is actually invalid. The universe doesn't have an outside. Space itself is a part of the universe; existence is what is expanding. I know a lot of diagrams of the Big Bang depict it from an outside view, but that's simply for demonstration.

-_- I don't want to get too heavy into physics, though, because that is not my major.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're right of course, I just so rarely run into any that aren't strict metaphysical naturalists that I forget there is anything other.

I see Theism as a metaphysical neccesity, and a necessary foundation for all thought. I'm open to other possibilities but they have not been forthcoming. The closest thing I get is basically what you gave "we don't know" therefore wait till we find a not God explanation.

Negatory, I simply wait until we get a well evidenced explanation. I would never exclude deities as an explanation for something purely because "deities". Inserting an explanation for something we honestly do not know, however, just hurts the discovery effort. If there are deities to find, I sincerely hope we find them. If there aren't, then so be it.

 

[Sanoy]

Negatory, I simply wait until we get a well evidenced explanation. I would never exclude deities as an explanation for something purely because "deities". Inserting an explanation for something we honestly do not know, however, just hurts the discovery effort. If there are deities to find, I sincerely hope we find them. If there aren't, then so be it.

How could we have a "well evidenced explanation" for such a thing? That doesn't seem like something we could ever have in these bodies. The problem is so unsurmountable that it's often simply called a brute fact.