I never claimed they were both wrong. I deny that anyone can tell whether one or the other is correct in the absence, of course, of seeing a burning bush and hearing someone say "Moses, Moses..."
Upvote
0
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.
Zosimus: Sorry to pester you but would you mind answering my question - if Darwinian evolution and creationism are both wrong, then how do you personally think life began and developed?
You are wrong. I apply decision theory to my every day life. When I get to an intersection late at night and the light is red, I do not say "Well, I've never seen cross traffic here this late at night so I might as well just run the red light." Rather I wait for the green light even when I can't see cross traffic or a police officer waiting for me. The gain if I'm right is outweighed by the potential loss if I'm wrong.Parsimony and probability is the way you function every single day. It's how you consciously make decisions and how your brain makes interpretations about the world. I agree that probability does not provide a "theory of confirmation". But it does give us a shot at getting the real answer. It's also strange, as has been pointed out before, that you cite scientific studies while simultaneously denying their efficacy. I'm not claiming that probabilistic reasoning produces certainty or even that it is completely reliable (our brains often get fooled when making probabilistic judgments). But it is certainly sufficient to delineate between creationist and evolution arguments. You have posted sources that indicate that such reasoning should not be considered infallible or absolute in its conclusions; I have claimed neither of these things.
Your personal doubt as to whether I truly apply probabilistic reasoning is irrelevant.
I never claimed they were both wrong. I deny that anyone can tell whether one or the other is correct in the absence, of course, of seeing a burning bush and hearing someone say "Moses, Moses..."
One is supported by masses of evidence and 150 years of failed attempts to disprove it.
The other is purported in a book written by goat herders 2000 years ago.
One can be accepted on balance based on evidence. The other can only be accepted on faith
One is supported by masses of evidence and 150 years of failed attempts to disprove it.
The other is purported in a book written by goat herders 2000 years ago.
One can be accepted on balance based on evidence. The other can only be accepted on faith
I never claimed they were both wrong. I deny that anyone can tell whether one or the other is correct in the absence, of course, of seeing a burning bush and hearing someone say "Moses, Moses..."
I mean, why would you trust a burning bush that is speaking to you and not the vast amounts of scientific data for evolutionary theory and common descent? If a burning bush started speaking to me, I would immediately think I was hallucinating or delusional.
Why? Because of inductive reasoning. No bush has ever spoken to me before, so it is reasonable to be skeptical of talking bushes.
What is the masses of evidence supporting?
You know that there are a little over 1/3 of the world that label themselves Christian? Large numbers of that 1/3 of the world many claim evidence of God in their lives. So while the Bible is very important to Christian faith, it is the evidence in our lives that is so compelling.
That's not really how delusions work though...leftrightleftrightleft said:I mean, why would you trust a burning bush that is speaking to you and not the vast amounts of scientific data for evolutionary theory and common descent? If a burning bush started speaking to me, I would immediately think I was hallucinating or delusional.
Why? Because of inductive reasoning. No bush has ever spoken to me before, so it is reasonable to be skeptical of talking bushes.
That's not really how delusions work though...
How many of those 2 billion people simply use the term Christian as a label only and don't practise it as a belief.
But more to the point, how many of those deny the efforts of science and favour creationism, seeing as that's the matter in hand. Even the head the catholic church accepts evolution as the more overwhelmingly probable.
And simply asserting that lots of people believe it is quite frankly ridiculous. It doesn't make it true.
Finally, what is this evidence of god in their lives?
Isn't it also delusional to view objects and believe they have all the attributes of design but aren't designed?
What evidence do you have that they are not designed?
I would assume that they practice it in some regard or they wouldn't label themselves as such.
That is not what you were saying. You were claiming that evolution has masses of evidence to support it and all the Christian had was a book written by goat herders 2000 years ago. I take that to mean next to zero which was misrepresenting the Christian's view.
When there is almost a 1/3 of the world in the Christian faith, there might just be something to it.
Many things. You do have to experience to understand however.
Isn't it also delusional to view objects and believe they have all the attributes of design but aren't designed?
Sofaman said:One is supported by masses of evidence and 150 years of failed attempts to disprove it.
The other is purported in a book written by goat herders 2000 years ago.
One can be accepted on balance based on evidence. The other can only be accepted on faith
I was comparing the evidence between creationism and evolution. What evidence is there for creationism other than "the good book says it"
Why must there be something to Christianity just because so many people believe it. The entire population believed the earth was flat at one point and we know how that turned out.
So what evidence, what do I have to experience in order to understand.
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?