Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[Hammster]

I have to disagree with Scripture's claim.

And I'm not sure how nice it is to accuse others of being unrighteous just because they disagree with your own religious views.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
— Romans 1:18-19

 

[SelfSim]

Or do you mean that when God does something "in nature" in real life and does not hand us the science text book so we too can do what God does - it is still a historic fact, literal and reliably true... just not given in the form of "a lab experiment"??

What you mean here by 'it is still a historic fact, literal and reliably true' is derived by way of belief and I cannot objectively test a belief simply held as 'being true'. (See below operational definition of 'a belief')

My claim is that creationism is fully compatible with scientific fact - observed reality. Where does "scientific objective testing process completely shoved aside" come from ?

'God' is not operationally definable.

I simply point out that a more realistic illustration of the problem that is faced is the one I posted with the fibonacci pool table example - an adaptation of your example to illustrate what the problem is.

I have no idea what your example is supposed to show .. it is extremely unclear to me.

I define a belief as: 'Any notion which I hold to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

 

[Kylie]

What does that have to do with creation or evolution?

Because there are people who claim creationism is correct even though there is no evidence from the real world to support it. My analogy demonstrates that to make that claim simply because there is some documentation that makes the claim is flawed logic.

 

[Kylie]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
— Romans 1:18-19

As an atheist, I am not going to be swayed by a passage from the Bible. Would me quoting the Harry Potter novels at you convince you that Hogwarts is real?

In any case, this comes across as a threat of the wrath of God against me, which most definitely isn't nice.

 

[SelfSim]

The discussion is about the logic and reasoning we use when we are faced with a source that says one thing, yet evidence from reality does not support that claim.

What does that have to do with creation or evolution?

I think I might be able to have a go at answering that also(?), as follows:

If we are shown that the set of postulates Creationists hold as being true, (analogy is the document left on the table, the Scriptures), leads to contradictions in objective, physical evidence (the state of the pool table, or the chronological sequences of species underpinning Evolution by natural selection), then we can simply accept that Creationist beliefs are just not a means of logically proving the causes of physical observations, (without any requirement 'imposed' to abandon those beliefs). Where it is chosen to not abandon those beliefs though, Creationists then have to navigate those inconsistencies by carefully monitoring the contexts of those beliefs when it comes to logical inferences concluded from physical observations.

(The exact same principle applies in say, physics eg: where contradictions arise between say Classical Physics and Quantum domains .. eg: Stephen Hawking (classical) acknowledged 'no information loss' for infalling matter into black holes, which didn't bring on any collapse of the 'truth' value of classical physics).

I hope the above clarifies(?) .. (just tryin' to explain a slightly broader viewpoint here).

 

[Hammster]

Because there are people who claim creationism is correct even though there is no evidence from the real world to support it. My analogy demonstrates that to make that claim simply because there is some documentation that makes the claim is flawed logic.

There is evidence from the real world, though. That evidence would be the existence of the real world. And the Creator was gracious enough to tell us about it.

 

[Hammster]

As an atheist, I am not going to be swayed by a passage from the Bible. Would me quoting the Harry Potter novels at you convince you that Hogwarts is real?

In any case, this comes across as a threat of the wrath of God against me, which most definitely isn't nice.

Obviously I would hope that you’d be swayed. However, at this point you refuse to believe. Keeping that in mind, I don’t see how you see it as a threat.

 

[SelfSim]

There is evidence from the real world, though. That evidence would be the existence of the real world. And the Creator was gracious enough to tell us about it.

A belief is: 'Any notion which I hold to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

 

[Kylie]

There is evidence from the real world, though. That evidence would be the existence of the real world. And the Creator was gracious enough to tell us about it.

That's proceeding from the assumption that the real world was created, and that's circular logic. There is no investigation of the real world by reputable scientists that has ever lead to the conclusion that some deity must have been responsible.

 

[Kylie]

Obviously I would hope that you’d be swayed. However, at this point you refuse to believe. Keeping that in mind, I don’t see how you see it as a threat.

Well, if I told you that you'd better believe in Harry Potter because of the Harry Potter novels and if you didn't, Voldemort would use the killing curse on you, you'd think I was being rude, wouldn't you?

If you really wanted to sway me, you'd provide objective evidence for your claims, not just, "The Bible says it, and I believe the Bible, so it must be true."

 

[Hammster]

A belief is: 'Any notion which I hold to be true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

I don’t think that’s right.

 

[Hammster]

That's proceeding from the assumption that the real world was created, and that's circular logic. There is no investigation of the real world by reputable scientists that has ever lead to the conclusion that some deity must have been responsible.

It’s not an assumption.


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
— Genesis 1:1

 

[Hammster]

Well, if I told you that you'd better believe in Harry Potter because of the Harry Potter novels and if you didn't, Voldemort would use the killing curse on you, you'd think I was being rude, wouldn't you?

If you really wanted to sway me, you'd provide objective evidence for your claims, not just, "The Bible says it, and I believe the Bible, so it must be true."

Actually, the Bible says it so it must be true. Your belief in it (not mine) doesn’t make it so.

 

[SelfSim]

I don’t think that’s right.

I'm not presenting it as being right though .. its what I mean when I'm referring to beliefs.

IOW: Its a way of distinguishing between science's objective reality and notions in conversations.

BTW: I'm not an Atheist.

 

[Hammster]

I'm not presenting it as being right though .. its what I mean when I'm referring to beliefs.

IOW: Its a way of distinguishing between science's objective reality and notions in conversations.

BTW: I'm not an Atheist.

Okay.

 

[Allandavid]

Since this is CF, and I’m a Christian, we can trust the biblical account because it was given by God Himself.


For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
— Exodus 20:11

Wasn't that account written by a man?

 

[AV1611VET]

And I'm not sure how nice it is to accuse others of being unrighteous just because they disagree with your own religious views.

I believe he is referring to this kind of righteousness ...

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

 

[AV1611VET]

I see it as more of a 'challenge' directed at the core principles of human ethics, myself (the link and diagram are just one example adopted in businesses ... but captures the essence of the concept, I think)..

If I remember my theology correctly, there are three sources of righteousness: self, the Law, and Jesus Christ.

Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

 

[AV1611VET]

Wasn't that account written by a man?

No.

He was quoting from the Ten Commandments, one of the four things in the Bible that God actually wrote with His own hand.

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

 

[Hammster]

Wasn't that account written by a man?

It was written down by man.