Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Resher Caner, One critical flaw in you thought regarding randomness, just because it's random to us human species doesn't means it's random to you god.
I understood it to be an honest description of their approach (as opposed to an honest representation of the content of their philosophy).Your statement was, "Creationists define their conclusions with respect to their wishes of how they want the world to be." Is this an honest attempt to represent creationist philosophy?
So? As I said before, cesium is just a measure of time, it isn't time itself. Electricity also existed before we had ammeters and voltmeters.
Considering how well the science has done in figuring out the world works, perhaps it is better to take scientists findings more seriously, considering you are untrained in the field.
It isn't a serious standard.
What is word and sacrament? What have they got to do with experiences of God which can't be just the mind doing funny things. I say funny things, but some of the feelings religious get aren't exactly rare in non-religious people.
I would like something specific that you mean. I may seem quite anti-belief, but I am quite interesting in what you consider to be justified reasons to believe.
I'm not sure how you think this all happens. Do we tell the first creature this, or do we leave the species alone for a while, and then come back later and tell them?
I assume that there would be a paper trail and documentation on the creation of the species. A lack of fossil and genetic evidence for evolution from anything would also be a problem. A lack of history books documenting their history would be a problem.
Those are just some possibilities. Does that help? You situation seems to over look the evidence for evolution which a fully competent create wouldn't make, such as that nerve to the voice box I said about before.
I understood it to be an honest description of their approach (as opposed to an honest representation of the content of their philosophy).
Did you think Loudmouth was dishonest with his comment? I made a similar comment in post #25, and you did not call me on it.Maybe so, but what I asked for was an honest representation of their philosophical position.
What is your point here? Are you concerned about honesty, fairness, or accuracy? A comment may be completely honest and accurate, and still offence may be taken.And put yourself in the creationists' shoes. If I called your approach "wishful thinking" how would take that? Would you take it as an honest assessment? As a fair representation of your position?
What process are you refereeing to? It's not random in a sense that we can't make predictions on it.I covered this. If some being can predict the process, it simply means the complexity of the process is currently beyond our capabilities. When I asked that question in the science forum, the reply was: No, it is not simply a matter of a complex process beyond our capability to understand. The process is random.
Did you think Loudmouth was dishonest with his comment? I made a similar comment in post #25, and you did not call me on it.
What is your point here? Are you concerned about honesty, fairness, or accuracy? A comment may be completely honest and accurate, and still offence may be taken.
That your feelings were hurt does not, in itself, make it an ad hominem.You want credit for an ad hominem?
Wishful thinking, noun, interpretation of facts, actions, words, etc., as one would like them to be rather than as they really are; imagining as actual what is not. - Dictionary.comI'm still trying to get at my original question regarding the differing philosophies of different views of life's origins. As best I can recall, 3 answers were offered.
1. Paradoxum: "The big difference seems to be belief, rather than taking hugely difference philosophical positions." quatona seemed to say something similar.
2. souper genyus: "The difference, it seems, is whether one thinks Being has purpose or not."
3. Davian: (paraphrasing) One believes it is a guided process. The other does not.
None of those seemed to go very far. 1) If there's no difference, then I guess there isn't much to talk about. 2) souper genyus' answer to my last question was (paraphrasing): There is no 'why'. It just is. 3) Your answer was that you think the process is unguided because you "do not have reason/evidence to think so." (I'll get back to that.)
I don't consider "wishful thinking" to be an answer. You can check papers such as "Wishful Thinking and Self-Deception" by Bela Szabados, Analysis v.33(6), Jun 1973, p.201-205 to read up on what philosophers argue that term to mean, but the bottom line is that they consider it a fallacy. See: Fallacies[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
I don't consider accusing someone of a fallacy to be an expression of an opponent's philosophy.
Not at all. I do not consider the falsification of a claim to prove the veracity of another.It's an attempt to prove one's own position correct.
I disagree. I see creationists provide a lot of evidence to support their points. However, this evidence usually has far more parsimonious explanations, or cannot be presented as part of a falsifiable hypothesis.If I were to try to pull a statement from what Loudmouth (and you at one point) have said, it would be: Creationists do not think evidence is necessary to prove their point. I, for one, would not accept that. If you were to amend it to: Creationists do not think scientific evidence is necessary to prove their point, I would note that this is one of the things I have been pressing with Paradoxum regarding how one develops trust in a relationship.
That would be the job for the one positing that a given process is guided, and they would need to do so in a manner that was falsifiable.That point comes to bear again through my scenario. The new species doesn't trust us, and so dismisses our documentation as biased. They demand a demonstration. So how would you build trust?
The second point that comes to bear is the one I was starting to raise with KC as well as your position that you don't have a reason to think the process is guided. OK. What does a guided process look like?
And what difference would this make for you?Or, in KC's case, what is the criteria for saying one species descended from another? Once that criteria is defined, we would know what to look for when claiming for my scenario that the new species didn't evolve.
Out of curiosity I went back to the posts prior to the remark in question, and I couldn´t find confirmed that it was made in response to such a request. Maybe I haven´t looked hard enough?Maybe so, but what I asked for was an honest representation of their philosophical position.
If the remark (btw. introduced by "maybe that´s the difference...") was at the end of an example for what the poster understands to be wishful thinking, I guess I would discuss the example. If your assessment came without support or substantiation I´d probably ask you for such.And put yourself in the creationists' shoes. If I called your approach "wishful thinking" how would take that?
"Honest" I can´t tell. How much effort I´d put in considering this assessment would depend in which context and on what grounds you´d make this assessment. Just try it.Would you take it as an honest assessment?
I wouldn´t even entertain the idea that "your approach is wishful thinking" could be meant to be an attempt to represent my position. It´s clearly a statement about my approach as seen by the person making the statement, not about my position (and even less the attempt to represent it).As a fair representation of your position?
I don't consider "wishful thinking" to be an answer. You can check papers such as "Wishful Thinking and Self-Deception" by Bela Szabados, Analysis v.33(6), Jun 1973, p.201-205 to read up on what philosophers argue that term to mean, but the bottom line is that they consider it a fallacy.
By showing them the mechanism used to create them. I imagine this won't be enough for the hypothetical beings in your hypothetical example, but I'm not sure what that shows. I guess it does mirror the selective hyper-skepticism you seem to be applying to certain facts and theories which are uncomfortable to your faith. But I see no reason to assume that these hypothetical created beings will have mental processes in any way similar to our own.The new species doesn't trust us, and so dismisses our documentation as biased. They demand a demonstration. So how would you build trust?
To pick a guided process at random : http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/Catfish-Gumbo/Detail.aspx?prop24=hn_slide1_Catfish-Gumbo&evt19=1The second point that comes to bear is the one I was starting to raise with KC as well as your position that you don't have a reason to think the process is guided. OK. What does a guided process look like?
I pointed out a number of references to peer-reviewed literature on the subject. What specifically didn't you understand?Or, in KC's case, what is the criteria for saying one species descended from another?
You keep raising this charge that I'm not taking science seriously. I disagree. I have a career's worth of experience with science.
Hey look, poisoning the well.This would be another long conversation. How honest are you in being interested? Past experience indicates most people aren't really that interested. KC will jump in here and tell you to prepare for a lot of dissembling and hand waving. If you're really interested, we can start that conversation somewhere outside this thread.
Sure. It's possible that some species were, for example, seeded by aliens or magiced into existence by a god. But there's no evidence or reason to conclude that this possibility actually happened. Don't confuse "I guess it isn't technically impossible" with evidence for that thing happening.For the "evidence for evolution" piece, are you saying we have specific evidence for every species in existence? If not, are you saying that if we lack evidence specific to a species, it is possible that species didn't evolve?
Or maybe they wouldn't. Who knows. We're now using something a hypothetical being in an imaginary scenario may or may not do as a critique of evolutionary theory back here in our world. That's pretty far removed from anything real. One might even call it hand waving.Further, this new species might claim they evolved from humans, in which case their historical record would be ours.
Internal consistency, correlation with observed fact, consistent objective documentation from uninterested parties, a complete video record of their creation, the ability to time travel back and observe their creation, and so on. Hey, if you get to make up stuff about this hypothetical, why can't we?Finally, with respect to the paper trail, why should they believe that?
I thought this ability was a given in your hypothetical. Are you changing your mind?Show me the evidence. Demonstrate that you can actually generate a new species.
Your statement was, "Creationists define their conclusions with respect to their wishes of how they want the world to be." Is this an honest attempt to represent creationist philosophy?
Maybe so, but what I asked for was an honest representation of their philosophical position.
And put yourself in the creationists' shoes. If I called your approach "wishful thinking" how would take that?
Would you take it as an honest assessment? As a fair representation of your position?
Did you read my reply where I spelled it out? I even cited a creationist organization that does exactly what I am describing.
The philosophy of science is to remove as much human bias as possible by relying on empirical evidence instead of human wishes. That is exactly the opposite of creationist philosophy where empirical evidence is thrown out if it contradicts the worldview of the creationist:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis
If a scientist came out and said, "I will reject any evidence that contradicts my conclusion," would you say that they are following the philosophy of science?
So here is my scenario: The consensus of science is that we evolved. At some point in the future we discover the science of abiogenesis and use it to create a new intelligent species with an average lifespan of 100 years. It takes 1 year for the abiogenesis process to complete, and the chances of success are 0.1%.
We tell this new species we are its creator.
How will this species believe our claim given it is possible the species could have evolved?
The philosophical difference sure looks epistemological.
I hope it is not too snarky and dismissive to say that.
Live, and in our physical sciences forum, a creationist said:
"If you counter an argument against a global flood by requiring I jettison [even] one jot or one tittle of the story as documented in the Bible, then I don't feel obligated to rebut your counter." link
You would need to show how, in this context, it is a fallacy.
Not at all. I do not consider the falsification of a claim to prove the veracity of another.
That would be the job for the one positing that a given process is guided, and they would need to do so in a manner that was falsifiable.
So what does it stand or fall on?
Were you to self-assess the theory you support, it would be you proposing the falsification test, and therefore you would define the alternative.
But OK. You're not going to define what "guided" means.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?