Vox Day's demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

You said that science is not a viable test to determine whether or not things are real.

Then you just said that

"I have not said that science cannot test the reality of anything"

Ok, so at least in some cases, we can agree that science can be used to determine what is real.

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

You've done this before too. You make statements that appear to contradict one another. If science can be used to test the reality of something, that means that it is viable, as it pertains to whatever that entity is.

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

"There is no science without a mental ability to conceive of science - it is a result of human imagination."

And this is irrelevant.

We can use our imagination to conceived elephants in our bedrooms, and we can use our imagination to conceive ideas about gravity. The difference is that in science we test our conceived ideas and we study what is physically real.

The elephant in the bedroom cannot be tested or observed or touched, it exists purely in our imagination.

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

And just because we both believe in God, this does not make our imagined ideas about God real. So to go back to the topic, a lot of younger creationist formulate their worldview around imagined ideas that cannot be corroborated with anything in physical reality.

Now this does not mean that their imagined ideas are automatically not real, however when their imagined ideas run contrary to what is physically observed and tested through science, we really have no idea but to abandon said imaginary ideas when they contradict what we can physically observe and test in our everyday lives through science.

RC Tent · Feb 28, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
That doesn't mean that the elephant does not exist, the elephant in my bedroom could actually exist. Regardless when I imagine the elephant I am not detecting the elephant I'm not observing or touching the elephant either.

An imaginary elephant is not a physical elephant by definition.

However, you are observing something if you have an image of an elephant going on in your mind - what you are observing is what is happening in your mind. You might well also be detecting something, that would depend on other details we don't have here.

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

And this doesn't mean that everyone should abandon belief in God just because God is not a physical entity. The existence of God does not contradict anything we know about physical reality.

Younger is creationism on the other hand does contradict what we know about physical reality.

Both God and youngers creationist imaginary ideas cannot be tested through science. But well God does not run contrary to physical reality, younger's creationism does run contrary to physical reality.

And seeing as hell God is the creator of physical reality, we can reach the simple conclusion that young Earth creationism is no different than the imagined elephant in the bedroom. Which is to say that it is not real.

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

RC Tent said:
An imaginary elephant is not a physical elephant by definition.

However, you are observing something if you have an image of an elephant going on in your mind - what you are observing is what is happening in your mind. You might well also be detecting something, that would depend on other details we don't have here.

When you think about an elephant in your imagination, you are not perceiving something such as light waves from an elephant nor are you touching the elephant smelling the elephant tasting the elephant. I would disagree and I would say that when you imagine an elephant, you are not actually observing the elephant, you are not detecting the elephant.

Indeed it is just an imaginary elephant that does not actually exist in your bedroom.

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

To be perfectly honest I just made the elephant up purely for the sake of this discussion. Tell if it does not exist just because you and I are talking about it.

Though I suppose it is possible that it could exist however if I find that such and imagine that idea contradicts reality when I look in my bedroom, then I would be wise to abandon such an imagine idea upon recognition of physical reality and a lack of the physically real elephant in my bedroom.

RC Tent · Feb 28, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
we really have no idea but to abandon said imaginary ideas when they contradict what we can physically observe and test in our everyday lives through science.

Or we can reject the philosophical notion that science should be utilised to test reality and check on imaginary ideas.

Especially when science actually does not have the ability to observe the first life on earth, cannot test anything about a God that has no physical presence at this time, and is entirely dependent on abstract concepts to even exist in the first place.

RC Tent · Feb 28, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
Indeed it is just an imaginary elephant that does not actually exist in your bedroom.

Is not physically present in your bedroom.

RC Tent · Feb 28, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
You said that science is not a viable test to determine whether or not things are real.

Things is not everything.

RC Tent · Feb 28, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
And just because we both believe in God, this does not make our imagined ideas about God real.

Our ability to detect God with our minds and living experience of God certainly is not what makes God real - we don't need anything to make God real - He already is real.

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

RC Tent said:
Is not physically present in your bedroom.

Why would my imagination create a metaphysical reality (or any form of reality) of an elephant in my bedroom?

I suppose we'll just have to disagree I will remain with my claim that there is no elephant in my bedroom.

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

RC Tent said:
Or we can reject the philosophical notion that science should be utilised to test reality

If you would like to abandon science with respect to it's ability to derive reality, in favor of beliefs in some sort of abstract quasi metaphysical elephants of bedrooms, I suppose you're welcome to. As for me, I'll pass.

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

Eh, I guess I'll leave it at that. Seems sufficient.

Job 33:6 · Feb 28, 2019

RC Tent said:
Our ability to detect God with our minds and living experience of God certainly is not what makes God real - we don't need anything to make God real - He already is real.

To detect:
"To discover or identify the presence or existence of."

To detect, implies that you are experiencing something external to yourself.

A metal detector, detects metal that exists beyond itself.

When you imagine something, such as an elephant in your bedroom, you are not necessarily experiencing something beyond your own imagination. And when you imagine God, likewise, you are not necessarily doing so, either.

And so, basing your perception, purely around imagined ideas, while simultaneously having those ideas go against testable, observable, physical reality, I would say is dangerous. You would essentially be putting imagined ideas at a higher level of truth than physical experiences.

The Barbarian · Feb 28, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
What do you mean?

Are you saying that they suggest that braille is poetry?

Seems so.

RC Tent · Mar 1, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
And so, basing your perception, purely around imagined ideas, while simultaneously having those ideas go against testable, observable, physical reality, I would say is dangerous. You would essentially be putting imagined ideas at a higher level of truth than physical experiences.

So you regard it as dangerous to believe in God? You have stated that any notions of God are in our imagination, that whatever we conceive of via imagination is "not real", and now it is dangerous to understand that what we perceive with our minds is real - unless it is whatever mainstream science currently thinks (which excludes God for sure).

Are you saying it is dangerous to believe that our minds can inform us of real things?

Are you saying it is dangerous to believe that there is a God?

RC Tent · Mar 1, 2019

The Barbarian said:
Seems so.

I have already said, reading poetry in braille is touching it - not that all braille is automatically poetry.

RC Tent · Mar 1, 2019

KomatiiteBIF said:
To detect, implies that you are experiencing something external to yourself.

God is external to us.

Our minds pick up on things that are external to us all the time.

The presence of another person, that is external to us, and it affects us, our feelings, our thoughts.

We interact with things that are not inside us - all the time.

Vox Day's demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency