Is creationism and Christianity dying in the US?

[SteveB28]

If Christians were deluded you need to show what is that superior evidence to the contrary of their belief.

Whilst I wouldn't hold much stock in a Wikipedia definition of just about anything, let's play your semantic game for a moment.
The "superior evidence" you seek we usually refer to as "reality", or the "real world". We don't have to scour the world looking for one of Mr Newton's apples to 'fall up' to pronounce anyone who claimed such a thing to be deluded. We don't have to search to find a brain-dead corpse coming back to life, in order to assert that someone who claimed this to be deluded. We don't have to search the dark side of the moon in order to declare it a delusion of those who would believe that the Russians have a secret base there.
Similarly, we are within the bounds of reasonableness to declare that those who believe in resurrected corpses, the ability to walk on water, the driving of demons into pigs, the ascension of a person into the heavens, etc, etc in a world wherein these things simply do not happen as part of our reality, to be deluded.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Whilst I wouldn't hold much stock in a Wikipedia definition of just about anything, let's play your semantic game for a moment.
The "superior evidence" you seek we usually refer to as "reality", or the "real world". We don't have to scour the world looking for one of Mr Newton's apples to 'fall up' to pronounce anyone who claimed such a thing to be deluded. We don't have to search to find a brain-dead corpse coming back to life, in order to assert that someone who claimed this to be deluded. We don't have to search the dark side of the moon in order to declare it a delusion of those who would believe that the Russians have a secret base there.
Similarly, we are within the bounds of reasonableness to declare that those who believe in resurrected corpses, the ability to walk on water, the driving of demons into pigs, the ascension of a person into the heavens, etc, etc in a world wherein these things simply do not happen as part of our reality, to be deluded.

In history have we seen any improbable things happen? In reality do we see the improbable happen? Does improbable even come close to impossible?

Note to Ed: See.

 

[Davian]

BC/AD means nothing to you, I take it?

I cannot recall the last time I heard those terms used. It's always CE/BCE now.

 

[SteveB28]

In history have we seen any improbable things happen? In reality do we see the improbable happen? Does improbable even come close to impossible?

Note to Ed: See.

Your questions in order:

Frequently.
Less frequently, but yes.
At the lower levels of probability, yes it does. The probability of me winning the lottery is not quite impossible, but it's closer than the probability of it raining tomorrow.
I'm not sure you know where you're going with this. I was asked to give examples of superior evidence, not absolute certainty, about the assertion that those who believe in things that fly in the face of reality are likely to be deluded. I cannot vouch for absolute certainty that their delusion exists, but I think I can claim a superiority of evidence over what they put forward - which is next to no evidence at all.

 

[SteveB28]

When did this turn into a historicity of Jesus argument?

Sorry, I just noticed this while I was reading over some of the earlier pages.

My apologies if I have contravened a site rule, but I joined in to what I assumed was an historicity discussion.

 

[Audacious]

I cannot recall the last time I heard those terms used. It's always CE/BCE now.

I dunno, I'm in college and the terms are used interchangeably here. For a while I used CE/BCE but eventually stop caring and use them interchangeably myself, considering that BC/AD mean the exact same freaking things.

It might depend on how liberal your area is, though. I recall, back when I lived in Boston, some people (but not all) were huge sticklers about politically correct crap.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your questions in order:

Frequently.
Less frequently, but yes.
At the lower levels of probability, yes it does. The probability of me winning the lottery is not quite impossible, but it's closer than the probability of it raining tomorrow.
I'm not sure you know where you're going with this. I was asked to give examples of superior evidence, not absolute certainty, about the assertion that those who believe in things that fly in the face of reality are likely to be deluded. I cannot vouch for absolute certainty that their delusion exists, but I think I can claim a superiority of evidence over what they put forward - which is next to no evidence at all.

Considering your answers then, you believe that there have been improbable events that have happened. Would you agree that life on this planet is extremely improbable but is 100% certain to have happened? The universe too is an extremely improbable event considering that there is evidence that it had a beginning and certain parameters have to be as they are to have it exist possibly at all, would you agree?

Considering all of this, knowing as we do that the improbable has happened, can happen and has certainly happened in the case of life is it not logical to think that those things that you feel are improbable are based not on the fact that they might be improbable but you simply determine they are "too" improbable in regard to your own presuppositions rather than the events themselves? I know that those things seemed improbable to me prior to God's revelation giving me evidence of Him.

 

[Davian]

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.
Delusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Christians were deluded you need to show what is that superior evidence to the contrary of their belief.

"Superior evidence" includes parsimony. Religious beliefs usually to not take well the application of Occam's razor.

 

[Edial]

"Superior evidence" includes parsimony. Religious beliefs usually to not take well the application of Occam's razor.

We actually had a poster "Occam's razor" some 10 years ago.
I had some great debate with him.

 

[SteveB28]

Considering your answers then, you believe that there have been improbable events that have happened.

Yes

Would you agree that life on this planet is extremely improbable but is 100% certain to have happened?

No, I don't agree that life on this planet is improbable. Given the properties of the planet and the physics and chemistry that persists in this universe, life was almost certain to have formed. In fact, it did!

The universe too is an extremely improbable event considering that there is evidence that it had a beginning and certain parameters have to be as they are to have it exist possibly at all, would you agree?

No. You have no basis upon which to make such an assertion.

Considering all of this, knowing as we do that the improbable has happened, can happen and has certainly happened in the case of life is it not logical to think that those things that you feel are improbable are based not on the fact that they might be improbable but you simply determine they are "too" improbable in regard to your own presuppositions rather than the events themselves? I know that those things seemed improbable to me prior to God's revelation giving me evidence of Him.

Probability isn't a 'personal' function. It is irrelevant what I "feel" might be probable. It comes down to simple mathematics.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Probability isn't a 'personal' function. It is irrelevant what I "feel" might be probable. It comes down to simple mathematics.

Life and the universe being improbable is based on Scientific data.

Simple mathematics tells us what the parameters are that will allow for life and if those were not as they are life would not exist at all. The fact that it does is really just begging the question.

 

[Davian]

Life and the universe being improbable is based on Scientific data.
...

Show your math.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Show your math.

The Mathematical Probability Of Life On Other Earth-Like Planets

“The Earth’s biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet,” said Prof Watson.

“At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”

Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language.

“Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” said Prof Watson.

His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years

 

[Davian]

The Mathematical Probability Of Life On Other Earth-Like Planets

“The Earth’s biosphere is now in its old age and this has implications for our understanding of the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet,” said Prof Watson.

“At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life. If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we’d suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed.”

Prof Watson suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language.

“Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” said Prof Watson.

His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years

Still no math.

 

[Strathos]

I cannot recall the last time I heard those terms used. It's always CE/BCE now.

If AV is going to invoke that, he should know that "AD" stands for "Anno Domini", Latin for "In the year of our Lord". Which kind of doesn't mesh with his KJVO views.

 

[Davian]

If AV is going to invoke that, he should know that "AD" stands for "Anno Domini", Latin for "In the year of our Lord". Which kind of doesn't mesh with his KJVO views.

"It would appear that a falling man will grasp at a blade of grass." - unknown

 

[Oncedeceived]

Still no math.

You have the results of the math, peer reviewed and post in the journal Astrobiology. If you wish to have the equations themselves you will have to do your own research.

 

[Bumble Bee]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has undergone a cleanup. Please remember to address the post and not the poster, and refrain from any flaming or goading remarks.
MOD HAT OFF​