Star Formation and why evolution is not true

[Chalnoth]

I recommend you step through Thomas' Aquinas' logic here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.toc.html. It is difficult for me to improve upon what Thomas Aquinas has already reasoned. Specifically, you might zero in on this page after reading the earlier syllogisms. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q2.FP_Q2_A3.html

Yeah, no. His logic is soundly defeated by the use of one, simple example:

Can this argument be used to argue for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Every single one of those five arguments is exactly as effective in "proving" the existence of the FSM as it is the Christian God. Therefore there is clearly something wrong with his logic, the primary thing being that positing a deity to explain these things is a massive violation of Occam's Razor.

 

[tanzanos]

Yeah, no. His logic is soundly defeated by the use of one, simple example:

Can this argument be used to argue for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Every single one of those five arguments is exactly as effective in "proving" the existence of the FSM as it is the Christian God. Therefore there is clearly something wrong with his logic, the primary thing being that positing a deity to explain these things is a massive violation of Occam's Razor.

Blasphemer, heretic, pagan, heathen! How dare you compare his Noodliness to the Christian God?
The almighty creator of everything shall surely keep you in mind the next time you partake in a meal of pasta.

What is this world coming to?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I recommend you step through Thomas' Aquinas' logic here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.toc.html. It is difficult for me to improve upon what Thomas Aquinas has already reasoned. Specifically, you might zero in on this page after reading the earlier syllogisms. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP.ii.FP_Q2.FP_Q2_A3.html

We discussed each of Aquinas' five proofs in RE when I was about 16. They weren't too hard to refute .

 

[True_Blue]

We discussed each of Aquinas' five proofs in RE when I was about 16. They weren't too hard to refute .

Alright, smart guy, give it a shot...

 

[Chalnoth]

Alright, smart guy, give it a shot...

For starters, you haven't responded to my post #181 yet.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Alright, smart guy, give it a shot...

Having read; Thomas Aquinas: Reasons in Proof of the Existence of God, 1270, it is quite clear that he was wrestling with unanswered questions, such as “if all objects move there must be a mover” and all his arguments follow the same lines, which are then answer with the quote “it must be god”.

As interesting a read as it is, the only thing Thomas Aquinas proves is the lack of knowledge about the natural world that medieval Europe possessed. He then blindly answers all unanswered questions by stating god must be the initiator of all things.

The biggest flaw in Thomas’s rational is that he does not subject god to the same scrutiny as he does the world around him, if he did, it would lead to one obvious conclusion, the Spaghetti monster must have created god, but then who created the Spaghetti Monster.

But I suppose his logic sufficed for the poorly educated, religiously indoctrinated masses of the dark ages; funny that it serves the same purpose today.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Alright, smart guy, give it a shot...

Which one do you want me to start with? Given your tendency to use common terms in uncommon ways, it might also expedite matters if you outlined the argument in your own words (or, at least, paraphrase Aquinas).

Though this would take us a tad off-topic, it's your topic and your challenge, so I think that's OK.

Anyway, Aquinas' arguments generally boil down to a plethora of unjustified (and, as modern science has since shown, false) assumptions. The cosmological and teleological arguments are classical examples of this.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yeah, no. His logic is soundly defeated by the use of one, simple example:

Can this argument be used to argue for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Every single one of those five arguments is exactly as effective in "proving" the existence of the FSM as it is the Christian God. Therefore there is clearly something wrong with his logic, the primary thing being that positing a deity to explain these things is a massive violation of Occam's Razor.

I don't recall Aquinas concluding with the Christian God, merely a 'First Cause', or a 'Prime Mover', or some such.

"Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."

And besides, isn't it interesting enough that he's 'proven' the existence of what is, effectively, a deity?

 

[Chalnoth]

And besides, isn't it interesting enough that he's 'proven' the existence of what is, effectively, a deity?

Not really, because even if we were to take his proofs at face value, they could as easily point to a fully naturalistic process as an intelligent creator. Occam's Razor eliminates the intelligent creator as being obscenely unlikely.

 

[True_Blue]

For starters, you haven't responded to my post #181 yet.

You used Occam's Razor like some sort of buzz word, that is, without analysis.

 

[True_Blue]

For starters, you haven't responded to my post #181 yet.

You used Occam's Razor like some sort of buzz word, that is, without analysis. Let's assume that Occam's Razor is correct: the simpliest explanation is the correct one. Also, that which is finite is immeasurably simplier than that which is infinite. Since creationism believes that the laws and construct of the universe and everything in it arose at a precise, specific moment, beginning at Time 0, creationism is a simplier explanation than atheistic naturalism, which relies on a series of effects, one proceeding the next, going back to infinity. I don't think one can come up with a simpler explanation for things than saying that the universe arose from the spoken word of God. Therefore, by Occam's razor, creationism is the correct choice between the two paradigms.

that which

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You used Occam's Razor like some sort of buzz word, that is, without analysis.

Not really: if you don't know what Occam's razor is, or if you can't see how obviously it applies to this situation, I'd abandon my profession as a lawyer and follow up on that single Thermodynamics course.

Seriously, you're contesting with people who've devoted their entire lives to the study of thermodynamics, and you've done but a single hour. An hour! I'm aghast.

Let's assume that Occam's Razor is correct: the simpliest explanation is the correct one.

Except that's not what Occam's razors says. Occam's razor says that, all things otherwise being equal, the less wasteful explanation is more likely to be true.

That is all.

You really must pay attention to those qualifiers.

Also, that which is finite is immeasurably simplier than that which is infinite.

That depends entirely on what you're talking about, not to mention your definition of 'simplier (sic)'.

Since creationism believes that the laws and construct of the universe and everything in it arose at a precise, specific moment, beginning at Time 0, creationism is a simplier explanation than atheistic naturalism, which relies on a series of effects, one proceeding the next, going back to infinity.

Atheistic naturalism demands no such premise, nor is your "infinity" conclusion thereof justified. Double fail.

I don't think one can come up with a simpler explanation for things than saying that the universe arose from the spoken word of God. Therefore, by Occam's razor, creationism is the correct choice between the two paradigms.

Since there is a simpler explanation, your point is moot. You, in your prejudice, surmise atheism with the most obvious strawman I have ever seen. For shame!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not really, because even if we were to take his proofs at face value, they could as easily point to a fully naturalistic process as an intelligent creator. Occam's Razor eliminates the intelligent creator as being obscenely unlikely.

Ah, but if the proof was valid (and sound), it would have proven the existence of an intelligent Creator. That is, an intelligence that is at least on par with humans. As multi-faceted as the natural laws are, they still pale to the power of an intelligent Creator (which is, in part, a disproof of the latter).

 

[Chalnoth]

You used Occam's Razor like some sort of buzz word, that is, without analysis. Let's assume that Occam's Razor is correct: the simpliest explanation is the correct one. Also, that which is finite is immeasurably simplier than that which is infinite. Since creationism believes that the laws and construct of the universe and everything in it arose at a precise, specific moment, beginning at Time 0, creationism is a simplier explanation than atheistic naturalism, which relies on a series of effects, one proceeding the next, going back to infinity. I don't think one can come up with a simpler explanation for things than saying that the universe arose from the spoken word of God. Therefore, by Occam's razor, creationism is the correct choice between the two paradigms.

You'd like to think so. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

It seems to me that you are using a caricature of Occam's Razor that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Basically, Occam's Razor, when used correctly, comes down to this: if an explanation is to be an explanation at all, then it must have fewer free parameters than it explains. Those explanations with fewer parameters are more likely to be accurate.

Simplicity in this sense does not in any way, shape, or form equate to, "simple to explain." To show why this cannot be the case, I'll use your claim that "God did it" is a simple explanation. If it were true that "God did it" were a simple explanation, then this would be the most parsimonious explanation for everything. After all, "God did it," can potentially explain anything at all, as given by the postulates used to define God. And the more things that something explains, the better an explanation it is. So, this means that the correct answer to, "What causes lightning," is not, "static electricity buildup," but rather, "God did it." The same is true for cell division, why rocks fall when you drop them, why the Moon goes around the Earth, and so on and so forth.

But this is clearly nonsense: we've demonstrated the efficacy of not resorting to, "God did it," for mundane descriptions of the universe around us. Something is wrong here, and that something is that God is not simple in the Occam's Razor sense. Here's why:

Let's say we want to use God to explain why the cosmological constant is less than 10^-120 in natural units (an as yet unsolved question in physics). Okay, God did it. Now, what does this explanation mean? Why does God make the value less than 10^-120? What postulates of God lead to him making the value of the cosmological constant so small? The answer is: none. You can't deduce from the properties of God that he would make the value less than 10^-120. It's impossible. Heck, you can't deduce from the properties of God anything about what he would or would not do: God works in mysterious ways, after all. Therefore, if you want to use God to explain the value of the cosmological constant, you have to add another property to God: "God desires the cosmological constant to be less than 10^-120 in natural units." In fact, you have to do this with everything that you want to use God to explain, whether it's the origins of the universe, the existence of human morality, the existence of a particular religion, or anything else. Therefore God has one property for each and every property that God is supposed to "explain".

And it's even worse: added onto these properties are additional properties that are exclusive to God, things like omniscience, omnibenevolence, and so on and so forth.

Add it all up, and in order to fully define what is meant by a creator god, you need to use more parameters than whatever it is you choose to explain. Thus Occam's Razor states that far from being an explanation, proposing a god to explain anything is worse than simply throwing up your hands and saying, "It just happens."

 

[Chalnoth]

Ah, but if the proof was valid (and sound), it would have proven the existence of an intelligent Creator. That is, an intelligence that is at least on par with humans. As multi-faceted as the natural laws are, they still pale to the power of an intelligent Creator (which is, in part, a disproof of the latter).

Sure, but that's exactly what he was claiming is going on. Heck, that's what basically all theologians who resort to these sorts of arguments are claiming.

 

[Vene]

I like how Einstein put it, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." True_Blue makes everything too simple.

 

[Chalnoth]

I like how Einstein put it, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." True_Blue makes everything too simple.

Simple to state, maybe. But not simple in any meaningful sense.

 

[Drwhat]

Hi True Blue,
if, as you say in your post that you do indeed truly care about peoples souls, then why aren't you flat out preaching eternal torment and the need for salvation quickly by volition of self choice, door to door if necessary to the lost, via your passionate heart wrenching conviction, instead of waffling on about stars and evolution on this forum with Atheists who don't care and proffessing Christians who according to you must already be saved?

Or is it that you don't really care or worse still your not sure what the hell, hell is and you think you can postulate on how God does things even how He created the universe when you cling to false doctrines like hell fire punishment. And you think an Atheist is going to listen for one second to your point of view?

God bless.

 

[True_Blue]

Hi True Blue,
if, as you say in your post that you do indeed truly care about peoples souls, then why aren't you flat out preaching eternal torment and the need for salvation quickly by volition of self choice, door to door if necessary to the lost, via your passionate heart wrenching conviction, instead of waffling on about stars and evolution on this forum with Atheists who don't care and proffessing Christians who according to you must already be saved?

Or is it that you don't really care or worse still your not sure what the hell, hell is and you think you can postulate on how God does things even how He created the universe when you cling to false doctrines like hell fire punishment. And you think an Atheist is going to listen for one second to your point of view?

God bless.

I can and do maintain multiple threads and multiple discussions at once, Drwhat. Different people come to Jesus in different ways, some by science, some by relationships, some by Heaven and Hell. I have a good friend who came to Christ because he was scared of Hell and knew to his bones that he was destined to go there, as if a storm cloud was always hanging over him. I know what that feeling is like. Hell is a very scary place, and it's interesting that so many cultures and religions across the span of history and across the span of the world believe in it. If you are interested in the topic of Hell, here is the best description of Hell by a person who says he spent 23 minutes there. http://www.spiritlessons.com/Documents/BillWiese_23MinutesInHell_Text.htm. I'm completely certain he will take your phone call if you want to quiz him on his account and gauge his credibility. I got back on Christian Forums after a four-year hiatus after reading this account and being absolutely blown away. By posting on Christian Forums, I AM doing the online equivalent of going door-to-door. I am absolutely scared that people on CF will go to Hell, and I absolutely want to spend eternity having nice conversations with these people in Heaven.

You're right--maybe I am absolutely wasting my time posting about science to people who won't understand. I'm spending 2 hours+ per day on CF during the middle of my bar exam preparation, so I'm taking a huge risk and making a big personal sacrifice. But it's worth it for me if even one person comes to Christ as a result.

 

[True_Blue]

You'd like to think so. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

It seems to me that you are using a caricature of Occam's Razor that has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Basically, Occam's Razor, when used correctly, comes down to this: if an explanation is to be an explanation at all, then it must have fewer free parameters than it explains. Those explanations with fewer parameters are more likely to be accurate.

Simplicity in this sense does not in any way, shape, or form equate to, "simple to explain." To show why this cannot be the case, I'll use your claim that "God did it" is a simple explanation. If it were true that "God did it" were a simple explanation, then this would be the most parsimonious explanation for everything. After all, "God did it," can potentially explain anything at all, as given by the postulates used to define God. And the more things that something explains, the better an explanation it is. So, this means that the correct answer to, "What causes lightning," is not, "static electricity buildup," but rather, "God did it." The same is true for cell division, why rocks fall when you drop them, why the Moon goes around the Earth, and so on and so forth.

But this is clearly nonsense: we've demonstrated the efficacy of not resorting to, "God did it," for mundane descriptions of the universe around us. Something is wrong here, and that something is that God is not simple in the Occam's Razor sense. Here's why:

Let's say we want to use God to explain why the cosmological constant is less than 10^-120 in natural units (an as yet unsolved question in physics). Okay, God did it. Now, what does this explanation mean? Why does God make the value less than 10^-120? What postulates of God lead to him making the value of the cosmological constant so small? The answer is: none. You can't deduce from the properties of God that he would make the value less than 10^-120. It's impossible. Heck, you can't deduce from the properties of God anything about what he would or would not do: God works in mysterious ways, after all. Therefore, if you want to use God to explain the value of the cosmological constant, you have to add another property to God: "God desires the cosmological constant to be less than 10^-120 in natural units." In fact, you have to do this with everything that you want to use God to explain, whether it's the origins of the universe, the existence of human morality, the existence of a particular religion, or anything else. Therefore God has one property for each and every property that God is supposed to "explain".

And it's even worse: added onto these properties are additional properties that are exclusive to God, things like omniscience, omnibenevolence, and so on and so forth.

Add it all up, and in order to fully define what is meant by a creator god, you need to use more parameters than whatever it is you choose to explain. Thus Occam's Razor states that far from being an explanation, proposing a god to explain anything is worse than simply throwing up your hands and saying, "It just happens."

Science to me is about practicality. It's worth doing if private parties are willing to pay you to conduct the research. The most practical things in science have little to do with the origin of things, and the origin of things doesn't easily mesh with the scientific method (no experimental data or human observation). It isn't the case that belief in God precludes science--it merely sharpens the focus of science on things that have good practical value, like pharmaceutical research, for example.