Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[Tiberius]

What in the world are you talkiing about? That made absolutely no sense...

 

[TheReasoner]

he doesn't know; he's blathering.

Anyway, where were we in discussing the Bible? Unless someone's got something to add, I think we've more or less eliminated the Jesus birth narratives as actual history... what's next?

That particular part is not testable though. We can speculate on probability alone. I think it is important that our creationist friends realize there are huge and fundamental differences between the virgin birth as a nontestable single event and creation which - as an event 6000 years ago is as falsified as they come.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That particular part is not testable though. We can speculate on probability alone. I think it is important that our creationist friends realize there are huge and fundamental differences between the virgin birth as a nontestable single event and creation which - as an event 6000 years ago is as falsified as they come.

True, but even the nontestable event can be falsified by the documentation itself, if only creationists would stop worshipping it and actually read it for a change.

meanwhile, the creation event is supported by absolutely nothing except the creationists' inststence on the Bible's historicity and infallibility -- which the examination of the birth narratives soundly shoots down.

That leaves the creationists with nothing but their own pride -- their stubborn refusal to accept that they are mistaken.

Of course, the rest of us knew all along that's all they ever had.

 

[TheReasoner]

That leaves the creationists with nothing but their own pride -- their stubborn refusal to accept that they are mistaken.

Of course, the rest of us knew all along that's all they ever had.

Aye. Though I'd say it is worse. It's not merely a refusal to accept that they are mistaken, but a refusal to accept that they can be mistaken at all. To be honest it seems they worship themselves more than anything else. I don't mean in a hedonistic pleasure-seeking fashion, but in a legalistic "I am infallible" somewhat narcissistic fashion.

Even if the bible is infallible it is beyond mere hubris to say that one's personal reading of any document is infallible. Goodness, give someone a complex math piece and even if it is correct and written plainly and crisply mistakes can easily be made by the reader when interpreting it. And the bible is not as simple as a math equation. Not by far.

 

[paul becke]

"Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. Its methodology is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world."


Interesting that you should quote that, dad. Max Planck, the father of quantum physics was obviously a uniformitarian. He had this to say on the topic, and the broader issues of the role of religion in science and the ultimate mystery of matter:

"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."

He also had these things to say:

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

" Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

 

[Hespera]

Interesting that you should say that, dad. Max Planck, the father of quantum physics made the same point:

"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."

He also had these things to say:

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

" Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

As for physical "laws", or any theory, they are only as good as the experimental or observational evidence.

Since not all observations and experiments can be made its impossible to state with certainty that there could not be exceptions. Axiomatic.

EVERYONE with a beginners grasp of science knows this, its not profound, not does it need a great scientist to say it with authority.

As for what MP has to say about "god", we find it noteworthy that a scientist is a hero and authority if he seems to agree with the theists.

If he doesnt, let alone falsifies one of their notions, like say about the 'flood" they he is a deluded minion of satan.

Would you have a general explanation for why this is?

 

[dad]

What in the world are you talkiing about? That made absolutely no sense...

Claiming that evolution was slow as it now is, or that laws were as now, is not known.

 

[dad]

"Uniformitarianism, in the philosophy of science, assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. Its methodology is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world."


Interesting that you should quote that, dad. Max Planck, the father of quantum physics was obviously a uniformitarian. He had this to say on the topic, and the broader issues of the role of religion in science and the ultimate mystery of matter:

"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."

Nonsense. Of course we know and have every right to assume laws exist.

He also had these things to say:

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

This nature is a temporal one. That is why it alone cannot be used to solve all things.

" Both Religion and science require a belief in God. For believers, God is in the beginning, and for physicists He is at the end of all considerations… To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view."

Most so called science folks are godless. They do not attribute end or begging to God.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

OK. Glad he realized that God was behind it.

 

[TheReasoner]

Claiming that evolution was slow as it now is, or that laws were as now, is not known.

Nothing is known, dad. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am" which referred to the only axiomatic truth he could find. The sole irrefutable standpoint he thought he could find. Even our physical existence as we feel it is not certain. Which is why he brought his second axiom onto the philosophical playing field: God. God is good, and serves as a guarantor that everything around us is not merely a deceitful illusion concocted by vile demons. Without this one guarantee nothing at all is known. More modern interpretations replace the demons with brains in a vat hooked up to a giant computer. Or indeed merely software in an illusion.

All that to say: If you accept Descartes second axiom and consider God a guarantor for the reliability of the universe around us your creationism collapses like a house of cards, because if God is real and indeed serves as a guarantor to the reality we see then your own perception is at odds with it because your interpretation also requires that God lie to us. Which is a polar opposite of Descartes' second axiomatic truth.

And if you do NOT accept Descartes' second axiom nothing apart from that you are something (whatever that something is) is known to be true. Not even your experiences, your relationships, nothing becomes known.

So, which is it?
Can we know anything at all, or can't we?
If we CAN know anything at all apart from our existence this must be because God is good and will tell us no lies. Therefore it follows your creationism is a human concoction and is worthless.
And if we cannot, why on earth should anyone have any reason to believe your side of the story? After all, if we cannot know anything any position is as good as any other.

 

[HAPMinistries]

So do you guys think Kurt Gödel blew the doors off of Methodological Naturalism in realizing that we will never escape Axioms? If we will never escape axioms, then is in not reasonable or rational to think you can question and explain everything. You simply can not make that approach without conceding to axioms, but now that we know we will never escape them, wouldn't it be beneficial to establish what can be an axiom and why, and establish that into the scientific method approach?

 

[Nathan Poe]

So do you guys think Kurt Gödel blew the doors off of Methodological Naturalism in realizing that we will never escape Axioms? If we will never escape axioms, then is in not reasonable or rational to think you can question and explain everything.

So, what exactly is there that you believe can never be questioned or explained?

 

[sandwiches]

Ah, wish I had that quote when I was posting with Eastern Orthodox over Apostolic Succession.

Ok, for serious, I know the OP, but when I came in, the conversation was literally at 'Racism'. I am not inputing anything on that.

So do you guys think Kurt Gödel blew the doors off of Methodological Naturalism in realizing that we will never escape Axioms? If we will never escape axioms, then is in not reasonable or rational to think you can question and explain everything. You simply can not make that approach without conceding to axioms, but now that we know we will never escape them, wouldn't it be beneficial to establish what can be an axiom and why, and establish that into the scientific method approach?

I always thought that using Gödel incompleteness theorems outside of mathematics was a stretch and a mere fallacy of analogy in much the same way that social Darwinism is a misinterpretation and misuse of evolution. So, in short, Gödel did nothing of the sort you suggest.

 

[HAPMinistries]

So, what exactly is there that you believe an never be questioned or explained?

My questions can be answered by faith.

I am simply meaning now that the dream of having a rational, reasonable, and explainable answer for everything will never happen, which destroyed the Naturalist Paradise or Heaven. Shouldn't there be a standard, beyond ad populum, for Axioms?

I am sure God can be shown to be an axiom, as soon as the definition for an axiom gets unified.

It's a waste of time, I just believe it can be done.

 

[sandwiches]

My questions can be answered by faith.

I am simply meaning now that the dream of having a rational, reasonable, and explainable answer for everything will never happen, which destroyed the Naturalist Paradise or Heaven. Shouldn't there be a standard, beyond ad populum, for Axioms?

I am sure God can be shown to be an axiom, as soon as the definition for an axiom gets unified.

It's a waste of time, I just believe it can be done.

You can use whatever axiom you wish. Just keep in mind that regardless of whether your god axiom dictates that you can fly without aid, gravity will win in all cases.

 

[HAPMinistries]

I always thought that using Gödel incompleteness theorems outside of mathematics was a stretch and a mere fallacy of analogy in much the same way that social Darwinism is a misinterpretation and misuse of evolution. So, in short, Gödel did nothing of the sort you suggest.

Gödel demonstrated that any non-contradictory formal system, which was comprehensive enough to include at least arithmetic, cannot demonstrate its completeness by way of its own axioms.
David Hilbert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are right that going from a mathematicians work to philosophy is a jump, but remember, in philosophy it is all related. The only point I am drawing from Gödel is that we will never eliminate Axioms, the unexplainable will always exist. Since the unexplainable will always exist, should not the approach change? You are just going to beat your head against a wall, and you know it. Funny part is, you never know whether you are dealing with a answerable problem, or a axiom.

 

[HAPMinistries]

You can use whatever axiom you wish. Just keep in mind that regardless of whether your god axiom dictates that you can fly without aid, gravity will win in all cases.

What if mass goes to zero?

 

[dad]

Nothing is known, dad. Descartes said "I think, therefore I am" which referred to the only axiomatic truth he could find. The sole irrefutable standpoint he thought he could find. Even our physical existence as we feel it is not certain. Which is why he brought his second axiom onto the philosophical playing field: God. God is good, and serves as a guarantor that everything around us is not merely a deceitful illusion concocted by vile demons. Without this one guarantee nothing at all is known. More modern interpretations replace the demons with brains in a vat hooked up to a giant computer. Or indeed merely software in an illusion.

Funny, that the 'brains' end up with more baseless doubts than demons cause.

All that to say: If you accept Descartes second axiom and consider God a guarantor for the reliability of the universe around us your creationism collapses like a house of cards, because if God is real and indeed serves as a guarantor to the reality we see then your own perception is at odds with it because your interpretation also requires that God lie to us. Which is a polar opposite of Descartes' second axiomatic truth.

No, I have no admiration for the ideas of this guy, let alone accept them.

God was telling the truth all along about the flood and creation. It is so called science that conned some into thinking it was a lie.

And if you do NOT accept Descartes' second axiom nothing apart from that you are something (whatever that something is) is known to be true. Not even your experiences, your relationships, nothing becomes known.

Plenty is known. Sounds like Decartes had trouble with reality. Better to have the peace of God.

So, which is it?
Can we know anything at all, or can't we?
If we CAN know anything at all apart from our existence this must be because God is good and will tell us no lies. Therefore it follows your creationism is a human concoction and is worthless.

The ones that would think God lied are the ones confused by the lies of so called science.

And if we cannot, why on earth should anyone have any reason to believe your side of the story? After all, if we cannot know anything any position is as good as any other.

We can know stuff...relax.

 

[Tiberius]

Claiming that evolution was slow as it now is, or that laws were as now, is not known.

And as I've said before, we can look at things in the past and assume that the state of the universe back then was pretty much the same as it is now, and we get meaningful answers. How is this possible if the laws operated differently in the past?

Stop repeating your tired old mantra and address the question, Dad.

 

[dad]

And as I've said before, we can look at things in the past and assume that the state of the universe back then was pretty much the same as it is now, and we get meaningful answers. How is this possible if the laws operated differently in the past?

Stop repeating your tired old mantra and address the question, Dad.

We can look at things now, and assume the past was different also! That would agree with the bible and ancient records. That is meaningful. You have not given an example of how anything was 'pretty much the same' back then! Says who!!???

 

[Tiberius]

We can look at things now, and assume the past was different also! That would agree with the bible and ancient records. That is meaningful. You have not given an example of how anything was 'pretty much the same' back then! Says who!!???

Assume the past was different based on what? Your desire not to contradict a book you have decided is true without considering the real world?

And as for an example of how things were the same back then? I've already mentioned radiological dating. The different elements used allow us to cross check. And many of the different elements used allow us to measure time going back several billion years. All the different techniques agree with each other. if the laws by which the radioactive decay of each element worked differently in the past, why do they all agree?

This is the third time at least I have told you of this. Why do you keep forgetting it?