Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[coffee4u]

I never understood why you guys think quoting sentence fragments makes a good argument.

I quote a fragment so there are less words to my overall post. I tend to switch off if a post contains a wall of text. The last time I included all the words in a section I was asked about burning people in fires. So make up your minds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a reference to infinite regress that is so often the fall-back for atheistic metaphysics. You assure me that every cause has an infinite number of causes, but if I question a cause you cannot explain the response I get is to discredit my skepticism. So you are like the woman who tells me that there are turtles all the way down when pressed on her belief that the world is on the back of a turtle by asking her what each subsequent turtle is based on.

It is not needed. That is what is called a strawman argument. And it is why it appears to be more in line with your beliefs.

By the way, there is no such thing as "atheistic metaphysics". Do you think that atheism is an organized belief?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is God's breathed word to us.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Scripture makes some big claims. It's either all true or non is true. None of this cherry picking, well this bit is true but the rest isn't nonsense.

I know it is true because God is true. I trust God and God would not place his name on a book full of half truths.
I am talking about the Hebrew and Greek here. Translations are good and we need them but they always miss something somewhere, even if it is just that an English word like 'death' doesn't explain that means creatures with a soul.

No, that is merely your belief. The burden of proof is upon you to show that that is the case.

And no, the scripture is not either all true or untrue. That is a black and white fallacy. Some of it may be right. A lot of it is clearly wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Other religions exists because the spiritual realm is real. If it wasn't real mankind would not have dozens of religions which span all through the ages from 'primitive' to 'cultured' people. People look for the spiritual in all kinds of places, whether in a church or in tarot card readers. Your position of there being no spiritual realm at all is a small minority.

Evolution won't fail as such, it is one of the signs and wonders. It is a strong delusion.
2 Thessalonians 2:11



11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

No, that is an unjustified conclusion. All religions could be wrong. There is no need for one of them to be right. Religion may be just an emergent trait of our evolution. Religion helps to keep groups together and that is a positive trait when it comes to survival. No "real religion" needs to exist for there to be some positive outcomes of a religious belief.

And I see that you think that God can lie to others. If that is the case why can't he lie to you? It is a huge theological problem if one's God can lie.

 

[coffee4u]

No, that is merely your belief. The burden of proof is upon you to show that that is the case.

And no, the scripture is not either all true or untrue. That is a black and white fallacy. Some of it may be right. A lot of it is clearly wrong.

I'm not here to show proof to you. God says you have enough proof.

 

[Fervent]

It is not needed. That is what is called a strawman argument. And it is why it appears to be more in line with your beliefs.

By the way, there is no such thing as "atheistic metaphysics". Do you think that atheism is an organized belief?

Oh? Then you will justify your assumptions? What do you base your confidence on the laws that govern the universe(whatever they may be) existing in all places at all times?

And as for your objection, I've been over this. "Atheistic metaphysics" refers to any metaphysic that posits that there isn't a god governing the universe. Do you know why the Greeks never developed a robust physical science program?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not here to show proof to you. God says you have enough proof.

Incorrect. The Bible says that. You only believe that is the word of God. You cannot seem to support that claim.

By the way, many holy books have "defensive verses". They indicate that they writers had a feeling that what they wrote was false. Their intention is to reassure the believers, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu or other religions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh? Then you will justify your assumptions? What do you base your confidence on the laws that govern the universe(whatever they may be) existing in all places at all times?

And as for your objection, I've been over this. "Atheistic metaphysics" refers to any metaphysic that posits that there isn't a god governing the universe. Do you know why the Greeks never developed a robust physical science program?

Science works. If it did not work then there would be valid reasons to doubt it.

Do you have anything more reliable?

 

[Fervent]

Science works. If it did not work then there would be valid reasons to doubt it.

Do you have anything more reliable?

What you are doing is begging the question. If I quoted the Bible to prove God, you would rightly recognize that as inappropriate. Why do you think it's appropriate to refer to science to prove science?

 

[coffee4u]

No, that is an unjustified conclusion. All religions could be wrong. There is no need for one of them to be right. Religion may be just an emergent trait of our evolution. Religion helps to keep groups together and that is a positive trait when it comes to survival. No "real religion" needs to exist for there to be some positive outcomes of a religious belief.

And I see that you think that God can lie to others. If that is the case why can't he lie to you? It is a huge theological problem if one's God can lie.

I am not talking about how right or wrong they all are, just by there very existence it points to the truth of the spiritual realm. That it exists.

The vast majority of the world has some form of religion or spirituality. You will find it everywhere, down every age, and in every country.
If indeed it was something made up your numbers would be much greater. Only 7% of the world population identify as being atheists.

God doesn't lie, that is why he gave us scripture.
John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you are doing is begging the question. If I quoted the Bible to prove God, you would rightly recognize that as inappropriate. Why do you think it's appropriate to refer to science to prove science?

Nope. I made a point that you had no answer to. And begging the question is only an informal fallacy at best.

I can see that you do not understand the sciences. Technically anything in the sciences is take as provisionally true because formal proofs simply do no apply to the sciences. There is no way to be absolutely sure. One accepts science because it works. Meanwhile you appear to have nothing. At least you were not ready to state your own beliefs and why you believe them. Except for the pointless claims of direct contact with God. Since countless people have had such events and most of them appear to contradict one another such a claim is of no value in a debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not talking about how right or wrong they all are, just by there very existence it points to the truth of the spiritual realm. That it exists.

The vast majority of the world has some form of religion or spirituality. You will find it everywhere, down every age, and in every country.
If indeed it was something made up your numbers would be much greater. Only 7% of the world population identify as being atheists.

God doesn't lie, that is why he gave us scripture.
John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

But it really does no such thing.

And you claim that God does not lie, but you earlier claims that he did. Sending "strong delusions" to people is a form of lying.

 

[Fervent]

Nope. I made a point that you had no answer to. And begging the question is only an informal fallacy at best.

I can see that you do not understand the sciences. Technically anything in the sciences is take as provisionally true because formal proofs simply do no apply to the sciences. There is no way to be absolutely sure. One accepts science because it works. Meanwhile you appear to have nothing. At least you were not ready to state your own beliefs and why you believe them. Except for the pointless claims of direct contact with God. Since countless people have had such events and most of them appear to contradict one another such a claim is of no value in a debate.

No, I've already addressed your point. I don't believe empiricism to be reliable, so if you expect me to take science seriously you've got to justify your claims. Instead I'm given turtles.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nice note of my typo, but again context makes clear I meant 1x10^-27 and simply missed the exponent and that the number was illustrative. Now, taking your claim has there never been a scientific test that failed? No chemistry student ever conducted an experiment and miffed the results?

Now you're trying to cast the failures of chemistry students onto physics. Chemistry students! Ha Ha Ha!

I could guess what you meant, but I've lost any desire to be magnanimous. I'm not here to fix your ignorance.

It doesn't matter, since the number is clearly just made up. You've provided no reference, just trying to make the scientific examination of the fundamentals of reality look inadequate. Classic anti-intellectualism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I've already addressed your point. I don't believe empiricism to be reliable, so if you expect me to take science seriously you've got to justify your claims. Instead I'm given turtles.

That is not true. I know that you believe empiricism to be reliable. You could easily show that I am wrong by jumping off of a tall cliff. We both know that you won't do that.

You have been misapplying philosophy and relying on a nihilistic argument. As I told you, I won't play that game.

 

[Fervent]

Now your trying to cast the failures of chemistry students onto physics. Chemistry students! Ha Ha Ha!

I could guess what you meant, but I've lost any desire to be magnanimous. I'm not here to fix your ignorance.

It doesn't matter, since the number is clearly just made up. You've provided no reference, just trying to make the scientific examination of the fundamentals of reality look inadequate. Classic anti-intellectualism.

Somehow my questioning of science is anti-intellectual, but your derision for every other field of human inquiry isn't.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I quote a fragment so there are less words to my overall post. I tend to switch off if a post contains a wall of text. The last time I included all the words in a section I was asked about burning people in fires. So make up your minds.

Fundamentally, I don't consider your source material to be of any value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Somehow my questioning of science is anti-intellectual, but your derision for every other field of human inquiry isn't.

It is the misapplication that causes the derision.

 

[Fervent]

That is not true. I know that you believe empiricism to be reliable. You could easily show that I am wrong by jumping off of a tall cliff. We both know that you won't do that.

You have been misapplying philosophy and relying on a nihilistic argument. As I told you, I won't play that game.

Read through the discussion. I recognize empiricism is reliable for mechanical questions, but questions on the nature of reality are not mechanical questions. Questions of history are only partially mechanical questions, but require other fields. Your claims rest upon metaphysical assumptions, which I am skeptical of. You deride my skepticism and refuse to justify your claims except through appealing to the very thing in question. Why should I be skeptical of God, but credulous of irrational universal laws? Why shouldn't I be skeptical of everything until it has been sufficiently justified?

 

[Bradskii]

Not at all, because the main thing I have done is question the assumption that physical laws are uniformly distributed, which is an absolute claim. Absolute claims require absolute proof. How much of the universe do all of those tests amount to? 1x10-27%? Yet that is foisted upon me as sufficient justification for simply questioning the *assumption* as if that sliver of tests somehow amounts to confirmation. All I am asking is that you justify your claims, but of course skepticism only applies to the things you deem worthy of being skeptical of.

I'm not sure that you understand how science works. There are no absolute claims. There is no absolute proof. If we examine a million swans and they're all white then a general statement about swans would be 'All swans are white'. It might even be stated as such in a scientific sense. But there is always a coda to the scientific statement which is implicit even if not explicity noted. Which states '...as far as the current evidence would suggest'. So if a black swan is discovered then the scientific statement would be 'The vast majority of Swans are white...as far as the current evidence would suggest'.

Until such time as a black swan is found then the statement 'All swans are white...as far as the current evidence would suggest' is entirely justified. And the number of swans examined would lend weight to the statement.

So if certain scientific constants are shown to be constant wherever and whenever we can examine them and there are literally zero counter examples, then the statement 'X happens at a constant rate...as far as the current evidence would suggest' is entirely justified.

So what has happened is that using the fact that all swans are white it has been determined that, for example, a rock is a million years old. That's the conclusion. You, on the other hand, have started with the conclusion - the rock is only a few thousand years old, and that not based on any scientific evidence whatsover but only on a personal interpretation of scripture, and then decided that the scientific facts proving otherwise must be wrong. It couldn't be further from the scientific method if you tried. It is completely, utterly and undeniably backwards.

And not only that, but apart from denying the scientific facts, you introduce a scientific claim yourself - a giant purple swan, which you say will lead to the right answer but which doesn't exist but which is derived from the conclusion.

Case dismissed. And if there were any costs involved I'd award against you.