Why YEC can seem plausible

[Nihilist Virus]

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/bra...-responsible-for-the-creationist-menace/48081
"[The New Atheists] started proselytizing, ridiculing the faithful, and talking as if religion was an inherently pernicious thing"

Right. No agenda there. An agenda would be to actually advocate something, such as, "Churches are eligible to receive emergency aid and they occupy property; therefore, they should pay taxes."

I'm saying individual atheists who were YECs are trying to fight Christianity. I know a guy on Facebook who does that - ridiculing Christians.


Ok

Critique of ideas is essential to human progress.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Right. No agenda there. An agenda would be to actually advocate something, such as, "Churches are eligible to receive emergency aid and they occupy property; therefore, they should pay taxes."

Like this?

Tax Exemption of Churches - Freedom From Religion Foundation

We have religious freedom. Now churches should pay tax

 

[JohnClay]

Ok, so, we are in a simulation to test something about our primary purpose, and that is our relationship with God. Where does opinion on origins come in? If unguided evolution, theistic evolution, and (presumably most variations) on Creationism all have intelligent adherents because all were designed to look plausible, are we all passing the test?

The "test" could be like how in Dungeons and Dragons, you have a choice of many classes (with advantages and disadvantages - not necessarily better or worse). I haven't put much thought into this.

The opinion of origins is related to "stages" of moral development:
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development - Wikipedia
And the worldview (based on origins) is related to "stages" of faith:
James W. Fowler - Wikipedia
Though YECs might reject the higher stages since it involves liberalism (like MLK and Gandhi)

These stages are like how people can become rich, popular, intelligent, etc, and they could be considered a "success" (in a test), but that doesn't mean people who are far less successful are a failure. (Well perhaps sociopaths in the lowest stage of morality could be)

The question of whether we pass or fail the test is a very important one. Maybe we can't know until we die.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Like this?

Tax Exemption of Churches - Freedom From Religion Foundation

We have religious freedom. Now churches should pay tax

Didn't click the links, but based on what they say, yes those would be agendas.

Like I said, I've never observed those on college campuses. I never said that atheist agendas don't exist. I never even said that they don't exist on college campuses. I said I've never seen it. And I live in a liberal state.

 

[JohnClay]

BTW I saw this on an anti-flat earth video:

BTW I found this in a video: Dunning-Kruger Effect (cognitive bias)

 

[Tolworth John]

I believe in guided evolution. When I didn't believe in the supernatural I thought the multiverse ("MWI") was a satisfactory explanation.... this was a good version of it:
When parallel worlds collide … quantum mechanics is born
If there are a near-infinite number of parallel universes, even incredibly unlikely things become inevitable.
Apparently string theory (which I've never been a fan of) can involve 10 to the power of 500 universes.

Your problem is the Bible does not allow for evolution guided or unguided.
It say God created.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Your problem is the Bible does not allow for evolution guided or unguided.
It say God created.

If your god designs a universe with properties of physics such that life would arise with the complete fore-knowledge and intention that humans would exist, he didn't create?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

BTW I saw this on an anti-flat earth video:

BTW I found this in a video: Dunning-Kruger Effect (cognitive bias)

Thanks for sharing this little diagram, John. Like I've said to folks all along: It's complicated, but don't just take my word for it.

I know this thread has to do with trying to understand the mind-set of 'Flat-earthers,' but I think the Dunning-Kruger theory applies to a whole lot of other things these days, as well.

 

[Tolworth John]

If your god designs a universe with properties of physics such that life would arise with the complete fore-knowledge and intention that humans would exist, he didn't create?

Or as the Bible says he spoke and it came into being.

You believe that nothing caused everything.
I prefer to believe that something caused everything to exist.
I find this a reasonable thing to believe.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Or as the Bible says he spoke and it came into being.

You believe that nothing caused everything.
I prefer to believe that something caused everything to exist.
I find this a reasonable thing to believe.

DON'T tell me what I believe.

Ask for your money back on your mind-reading helmet. You got ripped off.

AND, you didn't answer the question.

 

[MrsFoundit]

The "test" could be like how in Dungeons and Dragons, you have a choice of many classes (with advantages and disadvantages - not necessarily better or worse). I haven't put much thought into this.

Perhaps the designer of the simulation is not testing for understanding of technicalities.

 

[JohnClay]

Or as the Bible says he spoke and it came into being.

Christianity and Computer Simulations?
".....In a Christian simulation, the world could be created using AI that can understand voice commands..."

You believe that nothing caused everything.
I prefer to believe that something caused everything to exist.
I find this a reasonable thing to believe.

In that case our universe would be a simulation that runs within the world it is a part of. According to Elon Musk:
Christianity and Computer Simulations? (post #8)
"...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality (NOT a simulation) is one in billions"

 

[muichimotsu]

Or as the Bible says he spoke and it came into being.

You believe that nothing caused everything.
I prefer to believe that something caused everything to exist.
I find this a reasonable thing to believe.

Big Bang is not claiming that prior to it there was nothing, that's a gross misunderstanding of what the singularity entails.

Also, "nothing" is a nonsensical claim to apply to metaphysics, because we don't really think of anything in terms of it being actual nothing, just that it's like nothing, a vacuum, a void, but still extant in space and time in some sense, while nothingness would negate space and time itself by a precise use of the term.

 

[JohnClay]

Big Bang is not claiming that prior to it there was nothing, that's a gross misunderstanding of what the singularity entails.

Also, "nothing" is a nonsensical claim to apply to metaphysics, because we don't really think of anything in terms of it being actual nothing, just that it's like nothing, a vacuum, a void, but still extant in space and time in some sense, while nothingness would negate space and time itself by a precise use of the term.

A Universe from Nothing - Wikipedia

"we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction."
​

Lawrence Krauss On 'A Universe From Nothing'

"....nothing is unstable. Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics...."
​

I think his "nothing" is a bit different to absolutely nothing....

 

[JohnClay]

BTW this is about the black and white view of the Bible that can go from YEC straight to atheism:

Why Does Creation Matter?

Is the Gospel All That Matters?
Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.​

 

[MrsFoundit]

Is the Gospel All That Matters?
Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.​

The problem here is the premise of the statement. The Bible is not "false" on account of millions of years happening, if it is interpreted in a non-literal or in any unscientific manner, nor is it false if the millions of years are created at some point after "the beginning" it cites, nor is it "false" if it is impossible to falsify on account of appeal to the supernatural, nor is it false if "the beginning" refers to an era rather than an absolute. These points are merely a start.

As for this already false claim leading to atheism, how does one incorrect claim, from one version, of one religious belief system, amount to a demonstration that all alternatives to atheism are wrong?

 

[JohnClay]

......As for this already false claim leading to atheism, how does one incorrect claim, from one version, of one religious belief system, amount to a demonstration that all alternatives to atheism are wrong?

Well for me, YEC taught me to reject theistic evolution (I believed it wasn't biblical) and other religions... so there was just atheism.
BTW here AiG is attacking a guy that promotes Old Earth Creationism, Hugh Ross:
Search | Answers in Genesis

 

[MrsFoundit]

Well for me, YEC taught me to reject theistic evolution (I believed it wasn't biblical) and other religions... so there was just atheism.
BTW here AiG is attacking a guy that promotes Old Earth Creationism, Hugh Ross:

There is a solution to this. Do not mistake AiG for the Bible, and do not mistake the Bible for God. Without those errors you can explore some better supported world view options, since you did not stay with atheism, and find YEC unconvincing.