Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[Chalnoth]

That wasn't the whole argument. I wasn't going to spell the whole thing out. I'm suggesting that there are metaphysical arguments of a non-scientific nature. I was not attempting to present one.

If you don't present one, why should we take your suggestion seriously?

 

[Tomk80]

Metaphysical evidences or scientific?

Testable evidence.

No, it does not. Rather, scientists have crafted a ruleset that they choose to follow. There is a difference.

Yes, it does. Logic is the same for science, philosophy, theology, metaphysics etc. Logical rules apply to all fields. Sometimes, for example in theology, logic will be breached. But this is always stated as such by the theologian, for example by saying that this cannot be logically explained. The rules of logic are the same.

But not regardless of the circumstance.

Also regardless of circumstance.

The end result is the same. No need to exercise bias due to differentiations in basis.

què?

Simply read a metaphysical book. And don't ask scientific questions of it. Easy.

Easy up to the point where the book is going to make testable statements.

For example, you have a scientific presupposition that the world is physical/material. The universe also.

I do, yes. But that is not a drawback of science, that is a philosophical assumption of me. Now, this works very well for me, I think it makes sense. I have not heard a good reason from you why it doesn't.

Religion does not rely on or require material empirical evidence.

If faith does not agree with reality, it is blind faith.

No, it has not.

Examples?

 

[VinceBlaze]

You can delude yourself all you want that others aren't listening to you because they are narrow-minded.

That's a narrow-minded statement. I believe that you're narrow-mindedness has nothing to do with me. My original reference was to a comment of yours that you made with no reference to any statement of mine.

 

[VinceBlaze]

If you don't present one, why should we take your suggestion seriously?

If you don't take non-scientific arguments seriously, why should I present one? Would there be any practical reason for me to do so?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Testable evidence.

Not all evidences are testable.

Logical rules apply to all fields.

No, they do not. Please provide an example of a logical rule that applies to all fields.

Easy up to the point where the book is going to make testable statements.

The book may not make testable statements.

I do, yes. But that is not a drawback of science, that is a philosophical assumption of me.

An assumption nonetheless. And one that scientists make as well.

Now, this works very well for me, I think it makes sense.

In the context of your finite experience, I would fully expect this.

I have not heard a good reason from you why it doesn't.

That's because I haven't ventured to offer you one. Our discussion has not even progressed that far at this point.

If faith does not agree with reality, it is blind faith.

Blind to material reality. That's correct. How is this a problem for you?

Examples?

Metaphysicists/religionists have not agreed with scientists on what constitutes 'evidence'. For example, regarding the existence of space aliens or angels.

 

[Tomk80]

Not all evidences are testable.

No, they do not. Please provide an example of a logical rule that applies to all fields.

Yes they do. For example:
if a=b
a=c
then b=c
Holds in all discussions and fomats. All logical rules do. If you have a logical rule that doesn't, please provide it.

The book may not make testable statements.

Then science doesn't enter into it.

[qutoe]An assumption nonetheless. And one that scientists make as well.[/quote]
In their work, yes. How would you like them to work otherwise?

In the context of your finite experience, I would fully expect this.

You know nothing of my finite experience. That I have rejected certain experiences as "supernatural" does not mean I haven't had experiences that others would designate as such.

That's because I haven't ventured to offer you one. Our discussion has not even progressed that far at this point.

Then maybe it is time for you to move to that point.
Blind to material reality. That's correct. How is this a problem for you?

Metaphysicists/religionists have not agreed with scientists on what constitutes 'evidence'. For example, regarding the existence of space aliens or angels.

But they have agreed on what constitutes empirical evidence. They disagree on whether this empirical evidence is all there is.

Alien contenders often claim to have empirical evidence. In their case, however, it just never holds up to scrutiny.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I'm suggesting that there are metaphysical arguments of a non-scientific nature.

We'll get back to this shortly.

You're straining other fields of knowledge through scientific measures. Not all knowledge is scientifically measurable.

But since knowledge is defined as a true or factual understanding, then all knowledge can be tested. So yes, it must be measurable/verifiable by definition.

This is merely a scientific presupposition that you hold. And people do indeed claim to know metaphysical things. So apparently they can claim to know, despite your protests. And they will continue to do so.

Yes, Muslims and Jews may claim to know that El/Allah/Abba/YHWH created the world, and Christians may claim to know that Jesus created the world instead. At the same time, Hindus can -and do- claim that either Krsna, Vishnu or Brahma created the world. But the very fact that all of these people claim metaphysical "knowledge" that is mutually exclusive means that most of them, -if not all of them- don't really know what they claim to know; instead they only believe it. They all claim a metaphysical "truth", but obviously it cannot be truth no matter how desperately they claim otherwise. You're right about the fact that they'll still claim it, but they do it dishonestly.

It is a lie to pretend to know
what you know
no one even can know,
and no matter how loudly you insist that lie is truth,
it is still a lie.

since you say you're using another definition for the word, 'evidence', what is it?

I had referenced your definition as opposed to my own. Or perhaps you were using more of a 'formula' instead?

You're strategically avoiding the question. Now define 'evidence' and cite your source for verification.

...And into the realm of fancy where no one really knows anything, but pretends to anyway; Where everything is just an equal opinion, and anyone's blind speculation may be declared "truth" in a loud voice full of conviction no matter how wrong he is.

Tough luck on that one.

What does that mean?

Not everyone shares your perspective, nor have they agreed with you on what constitutes the 'real world' as you put it.

It doesn't matter. Because the fact that they cannot defend any part of their position where I can easily substantiate all of mine -invalidates their disagreement.

"'Cuz its magic, that's why"-is not an explanation of anything.

And where has this assertion been made?

Go back and read the first thing you said in this post.

 

[razzelflabben]

Because god-proponents have historically shown a willingness either to shove their deities into empirical gaps or to evolve them into vague generalities consistent with every observation and bit of philosophy.

This sounds like an arguement for conclusiveness rather than for ability to test. Two different things, and if I was of the mind to, I could argue the same about most scientific things, including but not limited to evolution. Whether or not the evidence would be conclusive is irrelavent to our ability to test for something. Now you could argue that if the test cannot be conclusive it is invalid, but not that it cannot be tested. And the arguement then could be made that if it can be tested, it would in fact be potentially, theoretically conclusive would it not?

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't think I've ever said that a god is not possible. But I don't think that the evidence suggests that a god exists. I think that the evidence, in fact, suggests that no god exists.

I don't know what you personally believe, I simply said that it was possible and went on to show a logical progression of the evidence to conclude god/gods/God, consistant with the question, 'what evidence is there for god/gods/God?" I have seen nothing to suggest this is wrong, or other evidence to show or demonstrate as it were that no god/gods/God is possible, why not give it a go?

Anyway, I'll recast part of my argument in another way:
One cannot use complexity as an argument for god because intelligent beings could only arise out of a complex environment. For example, we don't expect to find intelligent beings in the interior of a star, because the interior of a star is a uniform heat bath where no complexity can emerge. We don't expect to find intelligent beings in the space between galaxies because there is nothing of which to make them. We do expect to find intelligent beings on a planet of just the right temperature and environment to produce intelligent beings through a long and involved process (Darwinian evolution).

And how does any of that say no god/gods/God? If I am following your line of thinking accurately, then what I might see is that the creator god is smart enough to know what is needed for life. Let's go back to the example of my daughters cedar chest. Certain wood would not work on the chest at all, others would work but not well. I as the creator knows what will work and what will not for the given project and how to manipulate it to work. A creator of the universe would also know this I would expect. In fact, I would expect that a creator would know that energy was necessary and thus would include energy from the get go. So how about testing that theory for a moment. If there is a creator, one of the first things needed for the creation would be energy. So let's do a mini test and see. I am most familiar as all ready stated with God and in Gen. 1:2bAnd the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. NIV used the word hovering. NOw many scholars of the text beleive that this is like a "ripple" or energy pulsating throughout the heaven and earth just created. Don't you find it at least interesting if not fascinating that the writer of the book of Gen. understood that energy was needed for life to exist. Remember we are talking about a time when people worshiped the sun god and water god. Point being, a creator would know these things, the people of the time would most likely not have known, and so, we can follow our line of reasoning for the evidence you presented and say that if a creator created the universe he/she would have known exactly what was needed for life to exist and thrive and would have not only created what was necessary but have created it for the purpose of sustaining life. See the problem is, both are logical conclusions, both are viable conclusions, both are possibles.

One can say the same thing about our universe: we observe the universe to be complex and interesting because intelligent beings could emerge in no other situation.

exactly, both are possible.

Now, if you had a god doing things, on the other hand, you wouldn't need to have a complex and interesting universe at all. You could have special creation, greatly disconnected phenomena, no evidence of deep history, and so on. The existence of a god doesn't predict the absurd mathematical consistency of our universe, because the existence of a god allows us to exist in a universe that is not nearly so patterned and complex.

How? Again lets look at our daughters cedar chest, in order to achieve the look we want, we must go through a series of steps, one collect the wood, long story why this is necessary, but recycling the wood is an important step in achieving the look we want, and so we collect the wood and choose carefully what woods we will be using, then the wood is prepared for use, as scraps, it is not ready to use and must be prepared, then we begin manipulating the wood to inclusion in the project. After a series of manipulations, we have tiny pieces to begin the project. These tiny pieces are then placed percisely to create the design and then the piece is worked and worked some more to "fine" tune it. It is only then that the piece is ready to put togehter and finish. See, the process is complex just as life is complex, but the very process speaks of a creator, if the wood just sat in the dumpster, it would never become a work of art, even if I got it to the point of tiny little squares and triangles, what is the likelihood that throwing the pieces on a board would acheive the look I want? Hint, you could try from now till the day we both die and wouldn't even come close. I purpose to you that if we see the universe as what if there was a creator, all your arguements are for not. The universe is consistant with a creator, and the evidence we see of what a creator does and how the process works. Now, that is not to say that the evidence is conslusive, only that it is consistant. Nor is it to say that only one creator is possible.

 

[razzelflabben]

I didn't know that there were "physical laws of survival"? First I have heard of them. Anyway, it would seem that not everyone who hits the ground without a fully deployed chute ends up in a coffin. So what? Actually, the amniotic sack is a very good shock absorber. It's a bit like being inside a water balloon. I don't see why the fetus could survive if the mother did. In fact, I don't see why the mother surviving is impossible either. Due to terminal speeds in a fluid you can only reach a top speed of around 120 mph, if memory serves. So it doesn't matter if you are jumping four stories or four thousand feet, you will strike the ground at the same speed.

Well seeing how I clarified the word miracle in this discussion to be the unexpected and not the impossible, I am not sure the sugnificance of this areguement of yours. It seems to me that your trying to create a strawman for us. You can clarify your point if you want but it seems from your comments that you understand the difference between the broad use of miracle and the percise use and as stated several times now, I am using the broad sense for reasons that are now is painfully obvious. pquote]

Again, it is unexpected that someone would survive such a fall, but it is not unprecedented. Miracles would be something like an amputee spontaneously regrowing a leg in a matter of microseconds.[/quote] Miracles in the strict sense would include a whole host of things that again could be dismissed and excused by those who are bent in proving otherwise which is percisely why I use the broad meaning of miracle in such discusssions as this, because that way the discussion doesn't go from the topic into all the reasons that could contribute to the miracle. The bottom line is that miracles no matter how they are defined happen and through logic we can concluse this is due to a supreme being/beings. It is a logical possibility.[/quote]

I think the sudden regrowing (within microseconds) of an amputated leg would be on the scale needed. It should also be mentioned that the god proposed, the Judeo-Christian God, is capable of anything so no proposal, no matter how preposterous, should be within the capabilities of this deity.[/quote] Now I am lost. What does the ability have to do with the ability of those bent on justifying have to do with it? You seem to like the idea of going into the theological part of the discussion, I would be happy to delv into that with you but think it best to do so on another thread.

And we can go to a television factory and watch humans make tv's. We have evidence of the designer outside of the actual design. This is no different than Paley's Watchmaker argument, and it was refuted long ago.

Not familar with Paley's watchmaker argument. Care to summarize?

When trying to detect something it is just as important to predict what one SHOULD NOT find as it is what one SHOULD find. If every possible outcome is evidence of the actions of a deity then the proposal is useless. We need something to distinguish between the actions of a deity and the non-action of a deity.

Right, which is exactly why the evidence is not conclusive from a scientific standpoint.

And you have missed a very important concept. The ToE makes predictions of things WE SHOULD NOT SEE. For instance, we should not see birds with teats, or bats with feathers. We should see genetic, morphological, and physiological features that fit into a strict nested hierarchy. Anything that does not fit into that nested hierarchy should NOT BE SEEN. This is why the ToE is testable, and why the actions of deities are not.

How did I miss this? The discussion began with the question what evidence is there for god. Not is the evidence conclusive, does the evidence suggest any other possibles, etc. and yet I freely and readily admit that the evidence suggests (in a nut shell) that we don't know if said diety/dieties exist, but that doesn't mean that evidence does not exist, it means that the conclusions are not convincing from a scientific standpoint. This then would suggest that I do understand that theories and tests work both ways. A logical conclusion based on the discussion evidence. So what evidence draws you to the conclusion that I don't know this?

So what potential and possible phenomena should we NOT see if a god or gods exist?

How about if you tell me. I would think that we might see things that just happen, for example you are exposed to a germ, you get sick. (just a mini example, I don't see much use for this part of the discussion since I already readily and willingly discussed that no being/beings is possible and you apparently believe that no being/beings exist I am finding it impossible to see what the fruit of this direction in discussion will benefit. Now I do think this line of discussion would be interesting by I don't see it's benefit on this thread in this particular discussion. at the moment)

 

[razzelflabben]

See what I mean? This is for the Bachelors! Say nothing of the Masters, what you see above are the minimum requirements to be a professional scientist these days!

Its so much easier to be a professional evangelical creationist! You don't have to know anything at all because you can just make it up as you go along. So as long as you can prevent honesty from hindering your performances, then all you'll need to be is a high school drop-out with $100.00 which you can then pretend is tax free!

Think that over again, well, maybe an evengelical creationist, I don't think I have ever heard of one of those before, but to be a "biblical scholar" thus the elite, you need your B.S, as well as your Masters and before you are in the know, published at least several times. Usually travel abroad to "historical" locations is also required. The study for this includes but is not limited to hermonutics,(sp?) and at least two lang. Hebrew and Greek. Depending on where you study you may need more lang. Should I find a course load for you to view? It is a lot of work and a lot of time and many people who persue it live in poverty because of their "passion" to know truth. If you really feel the need, I will find a course of study for you to look over. From the sounds of it, more is required than to be a scientist. Do you think that might be because there are so many people wanting to pursue this avenue of truth verses that of scientific truth? Just a thought for what it's worth.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't know what you personally believe, I simply said that it was possible and went on to show a logical progression of the evidence to conclude god/gods/God, consistant with the question, 'what evidence is there for god/gods/God?" I have seen nothing to suggest this is wrong, or other evidence to show or demonstrate as it were that no god/gods/God is possible, why not give it a go?

I don't think you even came close to showing this. What I remember you saying is that there was somebody who attempted to measure the human soul and found something, but that was just a bad experiment. And then you said that complexity suggested a god, but there is no reason to believe that either.

If I am following your line of thinking accurately, then what I might see is that the creator god is smart enough to know what is needed for life. Let's go back to the example of my daughters cedar chest. Certain wood would not work on the chest at all, others would work but not well.
...

Omphalos suggestion. I see it as logically inconsistent in that you are suggesting the existence of a being that can break the rules, and then you somehow expect that it isn't breaking the rules?

The universe is consistant with a creator, and the evidence we see of what a creator does and how the process works. Now, that is not to say that the evidence is conslusive, only that it is consistant. Nor is it to say that only one creator is possible.

The idea has to be consistent with itself first. Proposing a being that can mess with natural laws that somehow doesn't is inconsistent.

 

[razzelflabben]

But since knowledge is defined as a true or factual understanding, then all knowledge can be tested. So yes, it must be measurable/verifiable by definition.
Yes, Muslims and Jews may claim to know that El/Allah/Abba/YHWH created the world, and Christians may claim to know that Jesus created the world instead. At the same time, Hindus can -and do- claim that either Krsna, Vishnu or Brahma created the world. But the very fact that all of these people claim metaphysical "knowledge" that is mutually exclusive means that most of them, -if not all of them- don't really know what they claim to know; instead they only believe it. They all claim a metaphysical "truth", but obviously it cannot be truth no matter how desperately they claim otherwise. You're right about the fact that they'll still claim it, but they do it dishonestly.

Question, whether or not I believe something because I believe it, is irrelevant to whether or not there is evidence to support it is it not? For example, I might believe in evolution because I believe it but does that automatically mean there is no evidence to support it because it is my belief and not my scientific conclusion!? I think the point is that just because something is commonly held belief doesn't mean there is no evidence to support it and that is something I don't see many scientists accepting. (May not be the point you were trying to make but spurred the thought in me none the less.)

 

[Chalnoth]

The idea that arguments stand by their own merits instead of by who supports them is an absolutely core philosophy of science.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't think you even came close to showing this. What I remember you saying is that there was somebody who attempted to measure the human soul and found something, but that was just a bad experiment. And then you said that complexity suggested a god, but there is no reason to believe that either.

The evidence you are going on about was a comment offered after the majority of evidence was offered and discussion to some degree. It was a comment whose center was not even to offer evidence but rather to suggest that it was possible to test for the supernatural. Now whether or not the study was well done, does not change the fact that a test was constructed and can be done. You can go off all you want about the tests validity but that doesn't change the point I was making one little bit and so far you have not shown any rebuttal to my point that had any suggnificance.

Omphalos suggestion. I see it as logically inconsistent in that you are suggesting the existence of a being that can break the rules, and then you somehow expect that it isn't breaking the rules?

Huh? I would speculate as to what you are intending here but I actually have no hint of a clue.
Where did I suggest a breaking of the rules? (though I guess a creator could, and sometimes that would be beneficial, I don't recall ever suggesting such) What I am suggesting is that... Okay, let's take the cedar chest again, one of the unique things about our pieces is that they are 1/4 in thick therefore they can be sanded and refinished if damage occurs in addition, because they are individually pieced, if one little piece is damaged beyond sanding, it can be removed and a new one put in it's place. It can be repaired to such a degree that you would never know it was damaged. Apply "miracles" to this, it is a miracle that the piece can defy at least in appearance the harshness of it's environment. In fact, we get ohh, and ahhs all the time over that cedar chest which needs refinished because of all the abuse, why, because it is holding up well, yet it defys the normal by being well made and repairable. Does that answer your question, I'm not sure what your question really is?

The idea has to be consistent with itself first. Proposing a being that can mess with natural laws that somehow doesn't is inconsistent.

So it is inconsistant that as the maker of the cedar chest, I can also repair it? How is that inconsistant? Or am I totally missing your point?

 

[razzelflabben]

The idea that arguments stand by their own merits instead of by who supports them is an absolutely core philosophy of science.

So just because someone is taught something and they believe it without evidence doesn't mean that no evidence exists. Thanks, I am glad we agree on this at least.

I run into people all the time who believe in God but have no idea that evidence of His existance does exist. (not suggesting conclusive evidence, just evidence) and the vise versa is true as well, in fact few people I run into have any clue that we can even test for god/gods/God, they instead believe that it is untestable because that is what they have been taught but when pushed for reasons why we can't, fail to have a valid answer, thus lack evidence for such. It is sad really, I think we would all be better off if we actually knew why we believe what we believe and what evidence exists or doesn't exist for said belief, but then again, that would mean that we couldn't view our beliefs as infallible which was the OP question as I recall.

 

[TeddyKGB]

This sounds like an arguement for conclusiveness rather than for ability to test. Two different things, and if I was of the mind to, I could argue the same about most scientific things, including but not limited to evolution. Whether or not the evidence would be conclusive is irrelavent to our ability to test for something. Now you could argue that if the test cannot be conclusive it is invalid, but not that it cannot be tested. And the arguement then could be made that if it can be tested, it would in fact be potentially, theoretically conclusive would it not?

I don't know about any of this.

All I am doing is juxtaposing empiricism and supernaturalism (viz. god). All people take an essentially naturalistic approach to the mundane world; the theist inserts his god wherever he feels unsatisfied with an empirical answer to some philosophical question. Usually, that entails placing his god 'outside' the scope of empirical inquiry, whatever that happens to mean.

Given the undeniable progress made by science in making the world observable and reducible by explanation, "outside" has evolved pretty much continuously as a descriptor of "where" God belongs.

 

[Chalnoth]

Where did I suggest a breaking of the rules?

At creation. The event of creation suggests the breaking of physical laws. If you propose a being that can do that, then why doesn't that being continue to break physical laws?

And by the way, Razzelflabben, if you think you have posted decent evidence of a god, could you please either post it or post a link to where you have posted it? This is a very long thread for me to wade through.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Think that over again, well, maybe an evengelical creationist, I don't think I have ever heard of one of those before,

You've never heard of Ken Hamm, Oral Roberts, Kevin Copeland, Henry Morris, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or Kent Hovind, whom I specifically had in mind with that example?

Most Biblical scholars, and all the ones I know of who possess legitimate Master of Divinity and doctoral degrees, and have travelled the world earning those, (Professors Bart Ehrman and Michael Shermer, and my own professor, Dr. Mark Hanshaw are the first examples that come to mind) -are definitely not creationists!

Now show me the coursework to become a professional creation scientist.

 

[ThePenguinMafia]

No, it's not.

I'm not arrogant nor ignorant enough to believe that I fully understand our origins. That I am a related to monkeys I am sure of, but then my perspective is not quite so simple.