Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Chalnoth]

The reasoning is that in the Christian worldview God created the universe to be uniform and orderly. God gave us the intelligence to understand the universe. That is what the reasoning is. That implies supernatural.

Um, that's not reasoning. It's simple assertion. And it's also wrong.

A god is actually the only sort of thing that could lead to a universe that doesn't obey orderly laws. The reasoning for this is simple: whatever contents of the universe do, they must behave in some fashion. If the way in which they behave changes in time, then it is possible to describe how that change in time occurs with a set of unchanging laws.

Now, there is no reason why these unchanging laws have to be simple, but in practice they turn out to be. But a natural universe without unchanging laws is impossible. Unless you have a god that can, willy-nilly, step in and change things.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Um, that's not reasoning. It's simple assertion. And it's also wrong.

A god is actually the only sort of thing that could lead to a universe that doesn't obey orderly laws. The reasoning for this is simple: whatever contents of the universe do, they must behave in some fashion. If the way in which they behave changes in time, then it is possible to describe how that change in time occurs with a set of unchanging laws.

Now, there is no reason why these unchanging laws have to be simple, but in practice they turn out to be. But a natural universe without unchanging laws is impossible. Unless you have a god that can, willy-nilly, step in and change things.

First of all, all you are doing is asserting your opinion with no evidence to back it. Secondly, it is nonsensical.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you saying there's another way of acquiring knowledge of the universe than through the senses?

I am saying to acquire knowledge of the universe you have to assume that the universe is uniform, orderly, always has been and always will be. That is an assumption that is not based on empirical evidence.

 

[Chalnoth]

First of all, all you are doing is asserting your opinion with no evidence to back it. Secondly, it is nonsensical.

Not at all. It's basic logic. We have a universe made of some sorts of things. Those things interact with one another in some ways.

Just based upon those two statements, we can say that it is possible to describe how those things interact. We may not necessarily know how they interact, but it is in principle possible to do so.

Now, the way in which these things interact may or may not change. If it does change, then it is trivial to write down a set of rules that includes the changes. That new set of rules will now be unchanging, and we have our invariant set of laws.

The only possible way out of this is to invoke something that is inherently indescribable, and that means something supernatural.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not at all. It's basic logic. We have a universe made of some sorts of things. Those things interact with one another in some ways.

Just based upon those two statements, we can say that it is possible to describe how those things interact. We may not necessarily know how they interact, but it is in principle possible to do so.

Now, the way in which these things interact may or may not change. If it does change, then it is trivial to write down a set of rules that includes the changes. That new set of rules will now be unchanging, and we have our invariant set of laws.

The only possible way out of this is to invoke something that is inherently indescribable, and that means something supernatural.

Hum. Imagine that.

 

[Non sequitur]

Hum. Imagine that.

I think the point was that it would be inherently indescribable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am saying to acquire knowledge of the universe you have to assume that the universe is uniform, orderly, always has been and always will be.

And you would be wrong in that assertion. Why would we need to assume it's eternal? Why would we need to assume it's uniform? Evidently, it's not - matter is clumped into gravitationally bound structures, not evenly distribution throughout space.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Yes, indeed we agree. The base of the argument is that science or really any other epistemology for that matter has untestable, unverifiable assumptions behind it. It is that untestability that science for instance is dependent on to even begin to use the scientific methodology. So it is first of all contradictory to ask that the believer to give empirical evidence for God, when they can't even do so for their own system.

No this is nonsense.
It can and has been tested. If it did not work no results would be produced, But we did get results thus that is evidence. (Look at your pc for such a result)
You do not get to make an assertion that your claim does not require evidence.
Also you should keep in mind occam's razor when trying to piggyback on the results of others by saying their results depend on your worldview.

Why do you think that? What brings you to that conclusion. You have no verified evidence to claim that. You have no empirical evidence that you can provide to demonstrate your claim.

we look and we see a consistant universe, so I know one can exist.
we have never seen a inconsistant universe, so I do not know if one can exist.
It is really that simple.

Now I am not saying I know why it is that way. but you are, and claiming an additional element that the supernatural is why. Maybe you are right but you have to back up that claim or be dismissed. But instead you just say you do not need any evidence which is nonsense ofcoure you do. (with the exception of practical assumptions like accepting the claim that your senses atleast in part show reality, without which you can go no further.)

We are talking about worldviews, we are talking creation vs. naturalism. You look at my worldview which is Christianity, and claim I can't "prove" what I claim; yet you can't "prove" yours.

This is why we have what we call occam's razor. You are making alot of assumptions am which you cannot back up. While I can easily back up mine, in the history of the world the supported answer to any question has always been a natural cause, never supernatural.
Yet you assume it exists without being able to give any reason to do so, it does not give any indication of being correct or useful in discovering truth that you have been able to demonstrate while mine has.

Give me this instance, just this instance and pretend to accept that God exists. That He in fact created the universe as He claims. That the Bible gives clear information on the creation of the universe and that universe is just as God says it should be. That is evidence. It is due to your presuppositions that you will not allow that.

Now what if I use the same process and accept allah exists, that the koran gives clear information on creation.
Or Krishna, or Zeus or any other world view out there.
Each of those give the same kind of 'evidence' speculation on how the universe was created, a holy book describing the world as it is today. If its evidence for one, its evidence for all of them. Or you could set your standards higher and see which actually helps discover truths, and you quickly find none of them do.

It is consistent with my worldview. It is consistent with Christianity. Its not that I can't think of anything better. It is that God who did create the universe has told us that it will be uniform and understandable.

Thats not actually answering the question. I asked "Why do you believe that" and you answered with "Because I believe it"

That is where your presupposition comes in.

My presuppostion is simple, If you cannot evidence it you have no reason to believe it.
I'm not changing that as it would mean letting every religion and supersition in the world into my worldview uncritically.
If any of those religions or superstitions are true then there will be good evidence that they are.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think the point was that it would be inherently indescribable.

I know what he meant.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And you would be wrong in that assertion. Why would we need to assume it's eternal? Why would we need to assume it's uniform? Evidently, it's not - matter is clumped into gravitationally bound structures, not evenly distribution throughout space.

Not necessarily eternal, just that it is going to be in the future.

If it were not uniform nothing that we do in science would work.

It is. I'm not claiming this, it is an assumption science works upon.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not necessarily eternal, just that it is going to be in the future.

If it were not uniform nothing that we do in science would work.

It is. I'm not claiming this, it is an assumption science works upon.

And you've hit on the key phrase -- "science works." A fact which I've noticed annoys religious types to no end.

So what exactly are you complaining about?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not necessarily eternal, just that it is going to be in the future.

If it were not uniform nothing that we do in science would work.

It is. I'm not claiming this, it is an assumption science works upon.

Assumptions or not, like you said, science works. Besides, it's not the assumption scientists make. You said that the assumption is, among other things, that:

The universe always was,
The universe always will be,
The universe is uniform, and
The universe is orderly.

Science doesn't work on any of those assumptions, except maybe the last one, in the guise of "the universe is comprehensible", though even that is open to disproof. Science certainly doesn't assume that the universe always was - it is entirely possible, and thus open to science, that the universe is of a finite age. Similarly, nothing in science presumes a universe that will always be - again, it's entirely possible that the universe will end in a finite time. For all science cares, the universe could end tomorrow. Uniformity means something quite specific in science, so you'll have to clarify that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Assumptions or not, like you said, science works. Besides, it's not the assumption scientists make. You said that the assumption is, among other things, that:

The universe always was,
The universe always will be,
The universe is uniform, and
The universe is orderly.

Science doesn't work on any of those assumptions, except maybe the last one, in the guise of "the universe is comprehensible", though even that is open to disproof.

Of course, if we hadn't noticed that the universe does operate in a predictable manner (call it "laws of nature") then it' d be impossible to accomplish any science.

Science certainly doesn't assume that the universe always was - it is entirely possible, and thus open to science, that the universe is of a finite age.

About 14.5 billion years, give or take, IIRC.

Similarly, nothing in science presumes a universe that will always be - again, it's entirely possible that the universe will end in a finite time.

Big Crunch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For all science cares, the universe could end tomorrow. Uniformity means something quite specific in science, so you'll have to clarify that.

I eagerly await a clarification...

 

[Oncedeceived]

No this is nonsense.
It can and has been tested. If it did not work no results would be produced, But we did get results thus that is evidence. (Look at your pc for such a result)

This is circular.
It works so we can get results/evidence so it works.

The fact that it works rests on the assumption that the earth will still rotate the way it does, that the universe will still behave the way it does, that tomorrow will be the same as today. If you couldn't depend on that, which can't be tested or verified science wouldn't work.

You do not get to make an assertion that your claim does not require evidence.
Also you should keep in mind occam's razor when trying to piggyback on the results of others by saying their results depend on your worldview.

Exactly! You have it! Science cannot piggyback on the Christian worldview and claim it doesn't require evidence. Which it does.

we look and we see a consistant universe, so I know one can exist.
we have never seen a inconsistant universe, so I do not know if one can exist.
It is really that simple.

Its simple but that doesn't mean you can just say that it is the way it is and I can't imagine another way; that doesn't provide evidence.

Now I am not saying I know why it is that way. but you are, and claiming an additional element that the supernatural is why.

Yes. The point is that in your worldview it contradicts the system. In a system that claims everything must be in evidence to support the assumptions being claimed...yours aren't.

Maybe you are right but you have to back up that claim or be dismissed.

So science must be dismissed?

But instead you just say you do not need any evidence which is nonsense ofcoure you do. (with the exception of practical assumptions like accepting the claim that your senses atleast in part show reality, without which you can go no further.)

Oh so practical assumptions are ok? That contradicts your claim that everything must have empirical evidence or be dismissed.

This is why we have what we call occam's razor. You are making alot of assumptions am which you cannot back up. While I can easily back up mine, in the history of the world the supported answer to any question has always been a natural cause, never supernatural.

That is a metaphysical statement which in itself can not be in evidence. It is contradictory to your worldview. It is patently false as well. The fact that you do not have empirical evidence that any question in history has always had a natural cause you are making a metaphysical judgement. You simply can't know every question that has been asked or if it indeed was always natural.

Yet you assume it exists without being able to give any reason to do so, it does not give any indication of being correct or useful in discovering truth that you have been able to demonstrate while mine has.

It is the complete opposite. You have absolutely no proof that your worldview stands alone without mine in discovering truth. In fact, using just your own worldview it doesn't stand at all.

Now what if I use the same process and accept allah exists, that the koran gives clear information on creation.
Or Krishna, or Zeus or any other world view out there.

First of all, I am making the claim of Christianity. My claim is that and to bring in other claims is meaningless. You can bring in other arguments but that does nothing to help your worldview.

Each of those give the same kind of 'evidence' speculation on how the universe was created, a holy book describing the world as it is today. If its evidence for one, its evidence for all of them. Or you could set your standards higher and see which actually helps discover truths, and you quickly find none of them do.

If you knew the differences and the nuances of each you would see how ridiculous your argument is. Blanket denial isn't an argument against one.

Thats not actually answering the question. I asked "Why do you believe that" and you answered with "Because I believe it"

And I asked you why you believe what you believe and you are saying the same thing.

My presuppostion is simple, If you cannot evidence it you have no reason to believe it.

Then you have no basis in believing anything.

I'm not changing that as it would mean letting every religion and supersition in the world into my worldview uncritically.
If any of those religions or superstitions are true then there will be good evidence that they are.

This is the problem and you are blind to it. You have your own problems when you don't understand that your own worldview...your own claims do not have evidence to support them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And you've hit on the key phrase -- "science works." A fact which I've noticed annoys religious types to no end.

So what exactly are you complaining about?

Why would it annoy "religious types". It proves our point. Science, intelligence, order, laws of nature, laws of logic all support our worldview.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course, if we hadn't noticed that the universe does operate in a predictable manner (call it "laws of nature") then it' d be impossible to accomplish any science.

Exactly. If this was a poisonous snake you'd be dead.

About 14.5 billion years, give or take, IIRC.

Read again what I said. You are arguing with Wiccan_child not me.



Big Crunch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I eagerly await a clarification...

I hope he gives one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Assumptions or not, like you said, science works. Besides, it's not the assumption scientists make. You said that the assumption is, among other things, that:

The universe always was,
The universe always will be,
The universe is uniform, and
The universe is orderly.

No I didn't say that the universe always was, I said the assumption is that the universe has always been uniform and orderly and would always be.

Science doesn't work on any of those assumptions, except maybe the last one, in the guise of "the universe is comprehensible", though even that is open to disproof. Science certainly doesn't assume that the universe always was - it is entirely possible, and thus open to science, that the universe is of a finite age. Similarly, nothing in science presumes a universe that will always be - again, it's entirely possible that the universe will end in a finite time. For all science cares, the universe could end tomorrow. Uniformity means something quite specific in science, so you'll have to clarify that.

Since you misquoted me it seems your whole paragraph is irrelevant.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No I didn't say that the universe always was, I said the assumption is that the universe has always been uniform and orderly and would always be.

Ah, I see. Just so long as you know that science doesn't presuppose a universe that's infinite in either temporal direction.

Since you misquoted me it seems your whole paragraph is irrelevant.

Not entirely, I still don't know what you mean by 'uniform'.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ah, I see. Just so long as you know that science doesn't presuppose a universe that's infinite in either temporal direction.

Ok.

Not entirely, I still don't know what you mean by 'uniform'.

Source

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok.



Source

So when you say science must work from the assumption that the universe is, has been, and always will be uniform, what you actually mean is that scientists make the pragmatic assumption that the large-scale structure of the universe is largely the same across the universe? Because that's no different than assuming that the gravitational acceleration on Earth is 9.81 m s[sup]-2[/sup] - it's not, but it's just a useful assumption that simplifies the maths.
Like I said, uniformity has a quite particular definition in science. If that's the one you're using, I fail to see the problem, and your initial claim - "That is an assumption that is not based on empirical evidence" - is false.

Uniformity, as defined by your link, is very well supported by the evidence. We can look up and see. What's the problem?