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

[PsychoSarah]

Im sorry,

Have to help you here. Atheism doesn't have a premise?

Nope, it has no premise, no creeds or rituals either. Unless you consider its definition to be a premise, but I find that wording odd.

Atheism makes a claim to knowledge that there is no God, for which you obviously think you have evidence.

-_- only gnostic atheists have that view, and they are an extreme minority within the atheist community. I am an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in deities because of the lack of sufficient evidence for me to believe in them. No more and no less. I am quite open to the possibility of deities existing, so much so that I have been a seeker for 9 years. Recognizing that the basic premise of deities can't be disproven, since it isn't the type of negative that can be disproven, I will NEVER be a gnostic atheist. In fact, gnostic atheists are so few that they are generally treated as a straw man when their position is brought up.

For example, there's only one gnostic atheist that pops up in this subforum ever, named consol, that generally gets banned within a month of activity with a new sock puppet account because he's rude as all heck. That's the only one I've talked to EVER, despite there being plenty of atheists participating in these debates. 5 years on this site and I know of 1 gnostic atheist.

And on top of that you say you are an agnostic atheist, which is like saying you are a married bachelor, INCOHERENT.

Nope, it's the equivalent of saying "I don't believe in deities, and I do not have evidence that supports concluding that they do or don't exist".

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.

I'm not.
agnosticism. [(ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm)] A denial of knowledge about whether there is or is not a God.
atheism. ˈ[(āTHēˌizəm)] Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I do not claim to know if any gods exist, and I don't believe in any gods. Not my fault people that want to avoid drama like to call themselves just agnostic and not reveal the belief statements. The misuse is so prevalent that it's become a secondary definition for agnosticism, but that doesn't mean I can't use the word for the other definition. Plenty of words have multiple definitions.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How could we have a "well evidenced explanation" for such a thing?

For deities, or for the beginning of the universe? Because I can think of plenty of ways solid evidence for deities could be discovered.

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.

It's entirely possible to never know something. It's not like Aristotle ever knew what viruses were. That I may never know the answer to something is not an excuse to insert an answer.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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."

-_- dude, you know very well what an agnostic atheist is, you've been on here more than a decade.

 

[Sanoy]

For deities, or for the beginning of the universe? Because I can think of plenty of ways solid evidence for deities could be discovered.


It's entirely possible to never know something. It's not like Aristotle ever knew what viruses were. That I may never know the answer to something is not an excuse to insert an answer.

For naturalism.

You don't need to "insert" something. You can arrive at the best explanation through abduction. But even so it seems to require it by metaphysical neccessity.

 

[PsychoSarah]

For naturalism.

It's the default, actually. Like a null hypothesis. For example, let's say I hypothesize that a specific drug treats cancer. The null hypothesis is that it doesn't. Until I produce solid evidence that the drug does treat cancer, the null hypothesis is the default conclusion. The more and more studies that don't support my hypothesis, the stronger the null hypothesis becomes until I am left with it being the reasonable conclusion. Alternatively, if a significant number of cancer patients in the experimental group experience remission compared to the control group, then my hypothesis becomes stronger and the null hypothesis becomes weaker.

Understand? Deities interacting with the universe is the hypothesis, and natural processes explaining all events in the universe is the null hypothesis. The more we investigate the universe and don't find deities, the stronger the null hypothesis gets. But no hypothesis or theory is ever considered an absolute, because they always have the capacity to be disproven.

Unless we find evidence for deities, I just go by the default, like I do for unicorns and giant purple people eaters.

You don't need to "insert" something. You can arrive at the best explanation through abduction. But even so it seems to require it by metaphysical neccessity.

Sometimes the best explanation has so little evidence that it is more honest to say "I don't know". Such is the case with the origin of the universe.

 

[Sanoy]

It's the default, actually. Like a null hypothesis. For example, let's say I hypothesize that a specific drug treats cancer. The null hypothesis is that it doesn't. Until I produce solid evidence that the drug does treat cancer, the null hypothesis is the default conclusion. The more and more studies that don't support my hypothesis, the stronger the null hypothesis becomes until I am left with it being the reasonable conclusion. Alternatively, if a significant number of cancer patients in the experimental group experience remission compared to the control group, then my hypothesis becomes stronger and the null hypothesis becomes weaker.

Understand? Deities interacting with the universe is the hypothesis, and natural processes explaining all events in the universe is the null hypothesis. The more we investigate the universe and don't find deities, the stronger the null hypothesis gets. But no hypothesis or theory is ever considered an absolute, because they always have the capacity to be disproven.

Unless we find evidence for deities, I just go by the default, like I do for unicorns and giant purple people eaters.


Sometimes the best explanation has so little evidence that it is more honest to say "I don't know". Such is the case with the origin of the universe.

You were supposed explain how we could have a well evidenced explanation for the universe coming into being naturally. If you start with the null hypothesis, then you start with "it didn't" come into being naturally. You can't aquire that information from inside the universe because the universe is not the cause of itself. That's why some Naturalists dead end with a brute fact. They can't go outside their assumption that only the natural world exists, and they can't go inside naturalism because it didn't exist yet.

You can know by getting to know the one who created our universe and the mental faculties we use to acquire truths about that universe.

 

[MaudDib]

I certainly don't view it that way.


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.


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.


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, 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.


-_- 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.


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.

Hi,

Christianity is falsifiable and testable, when you say that the evidence for the Christian God is no stronger than for any other god, you are betraying your lack of inquiry into the other side of your coin.
You cannot possibly have just said what you said above?

There is plenty of evidence for God, your synopsis of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is testament to your unwillingness to take the evidence seriously. It is also testament to your being arbitrary as to when you adhere to science and reason to suit your contradictory world view.

Let me help you re a philosophical syllogism.

The structure of a philosophical argument is typically denoted by some premises followed by a conclusion that flows from the premises.

So ito Premise 1 and Premise 2, if you can show them to be more likely to be true than their negation, then the conclusion follows necessarily.

You can't blithely assert that Premise 1 and 2 are not 'properties' as you say without giving evidence. Take Premise 1 for example.
How would you show it to be more likely false than true? Give it a bash. You do not take anything seriously as long as it doesn't fit your funny world view.

Interact with the argument for a change.

Premise 2, of course the universe had a beginning, science has demonstrated that over and over. You are willing to admit to the world that we have no idea whether the universe had a beginning? did you hear yourself? there goes rationality out of the window.

Again, I can help.

Time is synonymous with the beginning of the universe, or as Stephen hawking puts it, space and time are correlative with the beginning of the universe. You are confusing something being temporally prior with something being CAUSALLY prior. The laws of logic extend everywhere.

You are irrationally dismissive of rational evidence, which indicates to me that you are not openminded.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You were supposed explain how we could have a well evidenced explanation for the universe coming into being naturally.

The answer simplified: by continuing not to find evidence to the contrary. That's how null hypothesis type positions work. They are the default, and continuing not to find evidence contrary to them serves as evidence for them.

The default is that giant purple people eaters do not exist, and to show otherwise demands evidence for their existence. The default is that the universe developed naturally, and to show otherwise demands evidence.

If you start with the null hypothesis, then you start with "it didn't" come into being naturally.

This is how the hypothesis and null hypothesis are in regards to the topic:
hypothesis: a deity/deities created the universe
null hypothesis: a deity/deities didn't create the universe.

The naturalistic view becomes the null hypothesis since it is the perspective that fits will all relevant null hypotheses. The null hypothesis to creation is "no creation". To assert otherwise just makes it seem like you either don't want to provide evidence for your position, or you don't have any.

You can't aquire that information from inside the universe because the universe is not the cause of itself.

You actually don't know that any more than I do, it's an unsupported premise.

You can know by getting to know the one who did it.

-_- they aren't answering my calls. 9 years and I am still on hold, apparently. Or they don't exist at the other end of the line. I have no idea which.

 

[Sanoy]

The answer simplified: by continuing not to find evidence to the contrary. That's how null hypothesis type positions work. They are the default, and continuing not to find evidence contrary to them serves as evidence for them.

The default is that giant purple people eaters do not exist, and to show otherwise demands evidence for their existence. The default is that the universe developed naturally, and to show otherwise demands evidence.


This is how the hypothesis and null hypothesis are in regards to the topic:
hypothesis: a deity/deities created the universe
null hypothesis: a deity/deities didn't create the universe.

The naturalistic view becomes the null hypothesis since it is the perspective that fits will all relevant null hypotheses. The null hypothesis to creation is "no creation". To assert otherwise just makes it seem like you either don't want to provide evidence for your position, or you don't have any.


You actually don't know that any more than I do, it's an unsupported premise.


-_- they aren't answering my calls. 9 years and I am still on hold, apparently. Or they don't exist at the other end of the line. I have no idea which.

The hypothesis would be that the universe came about naturally, that's the question I asked. So the the null hypothesis is that it didn't, and that is the default according to what you described. "Until I produce solid evidence that the drug does treat cancer, the null hypothesis is the default conclusion." That is the exact opposite of what you are saying now. We are not considering creation, I only asked about Naturalism.

There is no default to the naturalistic explanation, that is just a world view.

How could the univese cause itself to come into existence. It's logically impossible, I can't give any support for an axiomatic observation.

Maybe you dialed the wrong number?

 

[USincognito]

Let me be specific, the theory of evolution was not reached by conducting experiments of observation and repeatability.

This is 100% false.

The theory of evolution is a philosophical one. Inference as to the best explanation. Just like forensic science is a philosophical endeavour. You get a crime scene, no one observed the murder, and you can't repeat it, so now what.

This doesn't even make any sense.

You are missing the point. Creationism is based on reason and evidence (here we appeal to history and science to support our philosophical inferences), it is most certainly not an assertion?

Also 100% false. Creationism is based on a literalist interpretation of Genesis combined with Seventh Day Adventist theology wrapped in a poorly fitting lab coat.

"Choose one of the following that best explains the law of internal combustion:
1. the motor car or
2.Henry Ford"

Neither because there is no "law of internal combustion".

 

[PsychoSarah]

The hypothesis would be that the universe came about naturally, that's the question I asked. So the the null hypothesis is that it didn't, and that is the default according to what you described.

The null hypothesis is that deities don't exist, etc etc. This is because the existence of deities is a positive claim. Since items naturally forming is the most common source for said formation, it's the null hypothesis for items forming.

"Until I produce solid evidence that the drug does treat cancer, the null hypothesis is the default conclusion." That is the exact opposite of what you are saying now. We are not considering creation, I only asked about Naturalism.

And I am only talking about specific examples, such as the origin of the universe. I'm not claiming that everything absolutely must have come about naturally, only explaining how the hypothesis dynamic works.

There is no default to the naturalistic explanation, that is just a world view.

It becomes the default because all hypothesis related to potential creators are positive claims to the existence of those creators. If I claim that giant purple people eaters exist and then try to say "but you can't disprove the existence of them", as true as that is, that provides no support for their existence. That natural processes exist is well established, which is why they end up being the null hypothesis in such cases.

How could the univese cause itself to come into existence.

The simplest one I can explain would be if an event that happens within it creates it retroactively, such as a person inventing time travel, travelling to the beginning of the universe, finding nothing there, and the break down of the time machine creates the universe. This is just an example. Time based paradoxes don't really apply in a context that is partially without definable time.

This is why making proposals about the beginning of the universe amounts to little more than an exercise in creativity. There are so many equally possible ideas and so little to limit them, you might as well just say "I don't know".

It's logically impossible, I can't give any support for an axiomatic observation.

Like I said, time paradoxes don't really apply in a context that "predates" time as we know it.

Maybe you dialed the wrong number?

Lol, how would I tell the difference between than and "being tested"?

 

[pitabread]

The Theory of evolution or any theory of the origin of life is not science

Yeah, that's wrong.

 

[Sanoy]

The null hypothesis is that deities don't exist, etc etc. This is because the existence of deities is a positive claim. Since items naturally forming is the most common source for said formation, it's the null hypothesis for items forming.


And I am only talking about specific examples, such as the origin of the universe. I'm not claiming that everything absolutely must have come about naturally, only explaining how the hypothesis dynamic works.


It becomes the default because all hypothesis related to potential creators are positive claims to the existence of those creators. If I claim that giant purple people eaters exist and then try to say "but you can't disprove the existence of them", as true as that is, that provides no support for their existence. That natural processes exist is well established, which is why they end up being the null hypothesis in such cases.


The simplest one I can explain would be if an event that happens within it creates it retroactively, such as a person inventing time travel, travelling to the beginning of the universe, finding nothing there, and the break down of the time machine creates the universe. This is just an example. Time based paradoxes don't really apply in a context that is partially without definable time.

This is why making proposals about the beginning of the universe amounts to little more than an exercise in creativity. There are so many equally possible ideas and so little to limit them, you might as well just say "I don't know".

There is no default to naturalism, that is only true under metaphysical naturalism. Naturalism is a positive claim, absolutely without a doubt in it's first assumption. The existence of a natural world does not make naturalism a default. The latter is a world view.

I didn't ask if deities exist. I asked how can we get a well evidenced explanation from naturalism. You keep throwing deities back into the equation to avoid what you just set up for naturalism in the null hypothesis, but I didn't ask about Deities, I asked about naturalism.

There is no default to naturalism, that is only true under metaphysical naturalism. Naturalism is a positive claim, absolutely without a doubt in it's first assumption. The existence of a natural world does not make naturalism a default. The latter is a world view.

The universe has to exist to have an event in it that creates the universe. TV shows make great entertainment not logical reality.

God is not seeking a relationship with a lab technician at this time.

 

[MaudDib]

Yeah, that's wrong.

Hey pita bread,

Try not to take text out of context and then use it as a pretext for your own ideas.

It is certainly not a clever thing to do.

The full sentence, which then all of a sudden makes sense, goes like this: "The Theory of evolution or any theory of the origin of life is not science (read scientific method)."

You do know that there are multiple methods of inquiry, right? And the difference between them too, right?

 

[pitabread]

The full sentence, which then all of a sudden makes sense, goes like this: "The Theory of evolution or any theory of the origin of life is not science (read scientific method)."

You do know that there are multiple methods of inquiry, right? And the difference between them too, right?

I could have quoted more, but your argument seemed to be that inductive reasoning was not scientific. When in fact the scientific method does utilize inductive reasoning.

Claiming the Theory of Evolution is not scientific on those grounds is, well, wrong.

 

[MaudDib]

I could have quoted more, but your argument seemed to be that inductive reasoning was not scientific. When in fact the scientific method does utilize inductive reasoning.

Claiming the Theory of Evolution is not scientific on those grounds is, well, wrong.

My argument was not that inductive reasoning wasn’t scientific , my argument is that those theories were not arrived at using the scientific method , ie through observation and repeatability. No one observed one species evolving into another. And no lab experiment has repeated that.

Inductive reasoning, when used in the scientific method, serves only to come up with a hypothesis which is then deductively proven to be true or false, through repeated experimentation.

This scenario does not apply to the ToE.
With me?

 

[USincognito]

I encourage you to go on and learn about this from Michael Behe and his mouse trap.

You mean the one that Ken Miller showed could be used as a tie clip?

No lab experiment has demonstrated the transition of one kind to another.

Well, apart from all the genomic analysis that has demonstrated common ancestry. Also, could you give us a hypothetical of what you mean by "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.

It's apparently a little known fact that the fruit fly experiments were meant to understand how mutation effected certain body parts and development. They were never meant to cause speciation.

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...

That is false.

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

 

[pitabread]

Inductive reasoning, when used in the scientific method, serves only to come up with a hypothesis which is then deductively proven to be true or false, through repeated experimentation.

This scenario does not apply to the ToE.

Of course it does. Hypotheses made with respect to the ToE are formulated and tested all the time.

Furthermore, hypotheses don't need to be explicitly tested only via experimentation. The point of a hypothesis is to derive a prediction based on what one would expect to see if the hypothesis were true and then test that. In some cases, hypotheses can be tested experimentally; in others, it is through observation of gathered evidence.

Have you ever read any scientific literature on the theory of evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

The hypothesis would be that the universe came about naturally, that's the question I asked.

That's an interesting question and I see two ways to read it: Do you mean to ask, did the universe come about through the action of (potentially determinable) natural forces and in accordance with (potentially determinable) natural laws? Or do you mean to ask, did the universe come into existence absent divine providence?

 

[USincognito]

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.

Incorrect. Scientific theories are not "philosophical in nature". They explanations for a body of related observations. In the case of evolution it explains the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record. And there are no theories for the origin of life. Currently there are theories, but none are broad enough in scope to constitute a theory.

Please be more careful and diligent.

Luke 4:23