Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[truthpls]

Are you serious?

You think that we couldn't see a mountain jumping up and throwing itself into the sea?

You couldn't see why.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You seem angry, as most in your position do, however I will note that no one has ever gave a thumbs up to those who answered gaps in knowledge with religion,

Given the things you mention next, no gaps in scientific knowledge were answered by religion. (And historically, only accurately by pure luck.)

nor are you giving the Catholic Church the credit it deserves for its scientific inquiry.

They sure took their time...

Moreover, early 20th-century scientists like Einstein adhered to a steady-state model,

Famously Catholic as everyone knows.

the Big Bang theory, formulated in its published form by a priest

You misspelled "physicist". I know they start with the same letter, but they are not hard to tell apart. And before that physicist with a white collar formulated and published part of the Big Bang model a Soviet scientist had already done it. (Both were independent)

and supported by evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation,

the motivating evidence was the recession velocities of the spiral nebulae (galaxies). The CMB wasn't discovered for a few more decades.

suggested the universe had a finite singularity, which shifted many thinkers to the metaphysical Kalam Cosmological Argument, which argues for a transcendent cause for the universe's beginning.

The Kalam is a useless argument, but interest in it only seems been revived in the 1970s by that infamous non-Catholic Bill Craig.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your God? Yeah. Mine, not so much.

And who is your god?

I ask because, according to AI Overview:

Humanists do not believe in a god or gods. Humanism is a philosophy that focuses on the welfare of humanity, and humanists believe that people can live good lives without religion. Humanists value reason and science, and they believe that people can use their efforts to meet their needs.

 

[Juvenal]

Hardly. It's very relevant.


I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound like you're qualified as either a scientist or as a philosopher to make the call as to when an ad hominem has been committed and when it has not. Moreover, you don't show any evidence that you can cite support for your "scientific assertion."

If you can't support your own statement, you need to shut up.

As a math professor and philosopher, I affirm that Kylie is correct in identifying the given phrase, ""You can't believe Kylie, she hasn't had a formal education in a scientific field!" as both ad hominem and an attack.

Really 2PV, I think you're taking this discussion far too personally.

 

[Juvenal]

And who is your god?

I ask because, according to AI Overview:

Humanists do not believe in a god or gods. Humanism is a philosophy that focuses on the welfare of humanity, and humanists believe that people can live good lives without religion. Humanists value reason and science, and they believe that people can use their efforts to meet their needs.

Humanists need not believe in any god or gods, but the lack of belief in gods is no more a criteria than belief. I'm personally familiar with many Christians who are also humanists. It would be better, I think, to say that humanists do not believe in a god or gods qua humanists.

Having already admitted to being a mathematician and philosopher, I don't imagine it will come as any surprise to also admit to being a Platonic idealist. My God is an idea, more formally a Platonic ideal, and my chosen philosophical disposition tells me that ideas exist. That ideal encompasses the spirit of caring for the well-being of my fellow humans.

If it's not too presumptuous, I think it's fair to say you believe in a very specific God, and more, the very specific God described in your sacred texts. Unfortunately, and I say this with no inherent unkindness, the God described in your sacred texts created a universe described in your sacred texts, with historical events described in your sacred texts, that we know, objectively, do not exist.

There was no founding pair of humans. There was no global flood. Your God cannot pass an academic test on these criteria. My God isn't required to meet your God's definition, and hence is immune from such a test.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a math professor and philosopher, I affirm that Kylie is correct in identifying the given phrase, ""You can't believe Kylie, she hasn't had a formal education in a scientific field!" as both ad hominem and an attack.

That same ultracrepidarian argument is used against [the late] Dr Henry M Morris, who authored the footnotes of his Defender's Study Bible.

Do you see THAT as both an ad hominem and an attack?

 

[AV1611VET]

... My God is an idea, more formally a Platonic ideal, ... There was no founding pair of humans. There was no global flood. Your God cannot pass an academic test on these criteria. My God isn't required to meet your God's definition, and hence is immune from such a test.

And what is your god's name?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As a math professor and philosopher, I affirm that Kylie is correct in identifying the given phrase, ""You can't believe Kylie, she hasn't had a formal education in a scientific field!" as both ad hominem and an attack.

Really 2PV, I think you're taking this discussion far too personally.

It's not an ad hominem to state that someone else isn't proficient enough to make the assertions that they do. You, as a "philosopher," should know this. She is committing epistemological trespassing, and I for one will CITE such trespassing when and where I see it being done by .......... ANYONE, whether it's Kylie, including myself.

Moreover, if you look at the original speech act I placed before Kylie, I didn't make a statement. No, I asked a peremptory question which she then responded to with manipulation.

Asking a preemptory question ISN'T an act of committing an ad hominem fallacy. WE should all know this. If we don't know it, it's time to learn better.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Humanists need not believe in any god or gods, but the lack of belief in gods is no more a criteria than belief. I'm personally familiar with many Christians who are also humanists. It would be better, I think, to say that humanists do not believe in a god or gods qua humanists.

Having already admitted to being a mathematician and philosopher, I don't imagine it will come as any surprise to also admit to being a Platonic idealist. My God is an idea, more formally a Platonic ideal, and my chosen philosophical disposition tells me that ideas exist. That ideal encompasses the spirit of caring for the well-being of my fellow humans.

If it's not too presumptuous, I think it's fair to say you believe in a very specific God, and more, the very specific God described in your sacred texts. Unfortunately, and I say this with no inherent unkindness, the God described in your sacred texts created a universe described in your sacred texts, with historical events described in your sacred texts, that we know, objectively, do not exist.

There was no founding pair of humans. There was no global flood. Your God cannot pass an academic test on these criteria. My God isn't required to meet your God's definition, and hence is immune from such a test.

Oh good grief! Can you conflate things any more than you already are, Juvenal?

That's right. Take this as a verbal warning shot across your bow.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, if there are no suddenly moved mountains then there is no testable evidence.

But since we're talking about God, you can't know that. It's entirely possible the mountains moved and God just hid it from your view because you're not a true believer.

When we're talking about God, literally anything is possible and no potential outcome can ever be inconsistent with "that's how God did it". IOW "God did it" isn't falsifiable in any way.

 

[River Jordan]

I get what you're saying, and I generally agree with you. But in this case, I am talking specifically about the claim, "If you pray for the mountain to move, then it WILL move."

That claim is indeed testable.

Pray for the mountain to move, and then see if it moved.

If you're actually going to hold that to the standards of scientific testing, you'll have to get a lot more specific.

What specifically are you testing?

What is your null hypothesis?

What are your criteria for a "mountain"?

What are your criteria for a mountain to have "moved" (such as distance, timeframe, mechanism, etc.)?

And since everyone seems to agree that we're testing God, you'll have to define "God" in an empirically meaningful way, complete with abilities, traits, etc. so that we can determine what potential outcomes are potentially within God's skill set and which one's aren't.

There's a lot more work to conducting scientific tests than a lot of people realize.

 

[Juvenal]

That same untracrepidarian argument is used against [the late] Dr Henry M Morris, who authored the footnotes of his Defender's Study Bible.

Do you see THAT as both an ad hominem and an attack?

I expect you meant to type ultracrepidarian, a delightful word I'd never encountered before, used with exceptional accuracy in this instance. Kudos. Alas, being familiar with neither the footnotes in Dr. Morris' Defender's Study Bible nor any specific argument that their content expressed opinions beyond his competence, I have no way of knowing whether any such argument was "ad hominem and an attack."

Wikipedia identifies Dr. Morris as holding a 1950 PhD in hydraulic engineering, which says nothing about his exegetical ability. It identifies the Defender's Study Bible as being published in 2005 and revised and released as the New Defender's Study Bible in 2006, the year of his death. I also note from the list of published books that he has a 1951 title, The Bible & Modern Science, published by Moody Press. I expect any text that receives their imprimatur to be entirely acceptable to conservative evangelical Christians.

More directly, speaking from authority, no formal authority is required to judge a statement as ad hominem or an attack. Going further, being familiar with all formal proof structures, I can say, once again with authority, that there is no such thing as proof by authority.

While recognition that one is speaking outside their field can be used to explain how a given original incorrect argument came to be, it is never enough in itself to prove any given argument is false, or fallacious, or unworthy of attention.

 

[dlamberth]

Yeah I have to disagree with you there, your view that science is without its own philosophy is baseless and unprovable, and thus you cannot say definitively what "science" is.

At least from a geological perspective, the movement of the earth such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, plate tectonics and my favorites, the burn path of the Yellowstone Hot Spot are not philosophy based.

 

[Juvenal]

And what is your god's name?

While gods must have attributes, they need not have names. Are you familiar with the Tao Te Ching? In the classical, Blakney translation, the first stanza of the first poem is rendered:

There are ways but the Way is uncharted;​

There are names but not nature in words:​

Nameless indeed is the source of creation​

But things have a mother and she has a name.​

It's a fascinating text. Even the author is nameless. Lao Tzu, as you may recall, is a title. An illustration that sacred texts need not rest on authority, either.

 

[Juvenal]

Oh good grief! Can you conflate things any more than you already are, Juvenal?

That's right. Take this as a verbal warning shot across your bow.

The first discussion board I ever posted was "It's Happening," run by a Maryland pornographer whose minimal experience with the nascent internet of the time was sufficient to allow him to hack and redirect Jihadi websites to his discussion board. To say they were displeased would be accurate, but woefully insufficient.

Maryland Man Gains Control of Al-Qaida Web Site for FBI Use, But Agency Passes

I think you may be overestimating the caution with which I'm likely to greet warning shots on a moderated Christian discussion board.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The first discussion board I ever posted was "It's Happening," run by a Maryland pornographer whose minimal experience with the nascent internet of the time was sufficient to allow him to hack and redirect Jihadi websites to his discussion board. To say they were displeased would be accurate, but woefully insufficient.

Maryland Man Gains Control of Al-Qaida Web Site for FBI Use, But Agency Passes

I think you may be overestimating the caution with which I'm likely to greet warning shots on a moderated Christian discussion board.

You're apparently new-ish to Christian Forums, aren't you?

But I get it. You're telling me to put a damper on my chosen rhetoric and my boldness of statement against your criticisms about Christianity.

I can do that. But, with that said, I'd like to know what your goal on CF is. Are you here to educate me about math and science? Or are you wanting to disabuse me of my Christian faith? What is your purpose here?

Do you merely seek to have a civil discussion with me as a fellow academic? If so, I can do that. In fact, I prefer it.

 

[BCP1928]

The Kalam is a useless argument, but interest in it only seems been revived in the 1970s by that infamous non-Catholic Bill Craig.

OT, but the mention of the Kalam argument brought it to mind, I am getting the impression--and I would like your input as a physicist on it--that Christian theologians and their channelers in this forum still inhabit a classical Newtonian world. All of the assumptions about space, time, matter, causality, etc. seem topoint to it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OT, but the mention of the Kalam argument brought it to mind, I am getting the impression--and I would like your input as a physicist on it--that Christian theologians and their channelers in this forum still inhabit a classical Newtonian world. All of the assumptions about space, time, matter, causality, etc. seem topoint to it.

A lot of them seem "pre-Newtonian". Unless someone is making a specific scientific claim, I don't have any interest in sorting out someones "viewpoint", physical, philosophical, or theological. Cheers.

 

[Kylie]

You're pointing to a fallacy, by asking a vague question...

I asked no questions in the post you quoted.

then conditioning it to falsify the others point is not good.

No, I was pointing out the flaws in the argument you present. Namely, the Kalam cosmological argument speaks of nothing more than Some undefined thing which set the universe into motion, and then assumes that this thing is something which deserves the label "god."

Also I have to ask, have you actually read the Bible? It isn't an insult, I was just wondering

Yes I have.

The golden rule: I, I, I. With all due respect and love Kylie but I said science plural, not you, I know plenty of scientists who work off of philosophy.

I think you'll find most scientists go by the scientific method as well.

Of course, if you can find a scientist who discards the scientific method and uses something else, please let me know.

 

[Kylie]

Oh, ok. Now that you're offering a qualification and clarification of your previous comments, I'll keep this distinction you've made in mind.

I'll point out that it was abundantly clear what I was referring to the whole time, as I was literally quoting the particular interpretation I was referring to when I said the things you claimed were me not referring to someone's interpretation.

So then, just for the record. Am I correct in now saying that: You are ONLY attempting to scientifically test some one person's INTERPRETATION about faith, prayer, and the "power to move mountains." ????

I am saying that the Bible makes a claim. That claim, as it is written, can be scientifically tested. If a person holds the position that the Bible is meant to be taken literally, then it follows that they believe the claim as written is literally correct, and that claim can be scientifically tested.

I'm sure there are many such people out there in the world.

So it's not just one person, but many. I'm sure you know that there's another passage in the Bible which claims that true believers can handle venomous snakes without being in danger, and there are several sects of Christianity who hold that to be literally true, leading to people getting bitten and dying because of it. I'm sure you don't need specific sources to support this claim, as these events are generally widely known and reported on, but I'll be happy tom provide several such sources if you wish.

In any case, there are many who believe these easily testable claims made within the Bible are true.

When doing science, we have to be extremely specific and precise in identifying what it is we think we're "testing." We have to be able to identify our variables and as to what kind of variables they are. We can't just "do" an experiment. It's not that easy and simple. The following link offers a nice little heuristic I think we can keep in mind where variables are to be identified and assessed. More sources/links can be found that essentially agree with this one:

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/variables

How much time do you have, Kylie? I have about three dozen DIVERSE scholars from various denominations of Christianity to learn from, comparatively. I'm pretty sure that only the most anti-intellectual of Christians (or Skeptics) will have a problem with the scholarly sources from which I've learned biblical exegesis over years. If those who want to discuss the topic of proper biblical exegesis are intelligent, I imagine they would be able to hash out a small set of common principles of interpretation we could all abide by, once the hashing around the table was done.

I don't have that much time, as I have a family and a full time job to worry about as well, and frankly I hold them to be more important than this website.

Do you want to learn? Now is your chance. You seem like an intelligent, even if strong-willed, person. I think you can learn.

"I think you can learn."

Wow.

And I can think you can learn to talk to people without being patronising.

Kylie. In your mind, what exactly would constitute an authority?

I think in order for someone to be an authority in a particular field, then there needs to be some objective truth about that field.

Considering that when it comes to the Bible there are lots of different "authorities" who have completely different interpretations to each other, it seems to me that this is impossible.

I mean, all the world's authorities on cancer treatments are in agreement, right? All the world's authorities on hydrothermal power generation are in agreement, right? So why don't we see the same agreement in the world's authorities on Christianity? Why are there so many different sects of Christianity?

So, "authority" requires agreement among all of those people who are considered an authority. And religion just doesn't have that. Not that I've seen.