Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[pgardn]

There's quite a big difference between believing something to be true and believing that it's the best explanation given the current information. I actually find it to be a severe logical problem to assert something as true while also allowing that it may be false. In the very least, I don't think it has much power. What it amounts to is a convention (the method by which scientific findings are converted into belief) co-opting of the power of the truth and using it to quash out other ideas. That's exactly what religion has done.

How has science squashed beliefs in other things?


Oh the method by which people convert scientific findings into belief. Late alteration.

So you don't find the method by which scientific findings are converted into belief any different than the method of converting religious ideas into belief?

[Chinook]

?

You and I agree on this. This is why I say you are not theist. You just think it's a decent argument, and that doesn't mean you believe it. It would be like saying you are Christian, because it makes more sense that Christ died for our sins, but you don't necessarily see it as fact. You're toying around with belief.

theist

the·ism [thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).

Would you say 2 best describes you? Do you believe the prime mover exists today?

Probably the first one. I don't believe the prime mover exists in this universe.

I'm not sure you and I agree. If you believe evolution is a fact, but simultaneously acknowledge that it might not be a fact, then you have a logical quandary on your hands. So you have to weaken one of those two statements. You can either abandon the qualifier of potentially being wrong (essentially what you're saying I have to do to be like "real" theists) or you have to accept that you only believe that you are following the path of best guesses. If you take the former path, then you can never have any mental flexibility, and you thusly cannot be a scientist. If I do not accept the existence of god the prime mover as undeniable truth, it's because I am not illogical. It's not because I have a shaky grasp on what belief means.

However heliocentricism is falsifiable, is it not?

Indeed, but not through the scientific method.

Which is why gods are not used as answers in science. What caused the god? (note: you cannot conveniently escape the causal chain by jumping from the physical to the metaphysical).

Of course you can hop off the chain once it reaches the end. As I said, we'll all get to eternity eventually. It's just that strong atheists have no idea what to do once they get there. Essentially, it's going to end up being a statement like, "There has always been _____ ." eventually. That's the only way to get off the chain. The difference is that some folks will finish the phrase by saying, "something", while others will finish by saying, "nothing." There's no way around that unless you want to propose that your favorite turtle is legitimate starting place with no justification whatsoever.

Science doesn't deal with god because god is never the answer to a scientific question. The initial cause is a scientific question because it tries to solve the "how" in the causal chain. It doesn't solve the "why", and that's where theism comes into play. Science will never conclude that a god was the prime mover. It however might conclude that there was a prime mover.

We pretty much agree here, save for one thing: If you think my argument has a problem with "time without time," you can't possibly think that that doesn't destroy any empirical pursuit toward a prime mover. We're talking about our whole universe being the effect here. No matter how far we go, we're still going to be in that effect shadow.

1st event or second event, or 100th event. The beginning of time is it's beginning. To go back from that using time is nonsensical.

It only adds another step in the regression. You don't know what caused the Big Bang, so you put another event before it that you also don't know the cause of. Eventually you apply God and call it done. You could have done that without the need for the extra regression. In fact, the god could have simply created the universe as it is today, but our experimentation tells us it's changing. Couldn't the god be causing the change?

On one hand, the answer to that may very well be that there isn't a change from any perspective but our own. If the universe was inevitably going to change (which one has to believe to accept the causal chain), then it hasn't really changed at all

Anyway, from a certain standpoint, you're correct that the argument is just pushed back another step. But from a physical standpoint, it's not a clear. Essentially, everything we know about the universe is based on concepts which most physicists agree didn't really exist until some time after the Bang occurred. That's why no one has any idea how it started, or what exactly was going on before. So I wouldn't be as keen as you seem to be to bring up paradoxes when we don't even know if it was a paradox at all.

Odd because 3000 years ago the notion was that an eternal being started the whole thing. You're saying that Hawking does less work than just accepting god as an answer?

Hawking's assertion that existence is cyclical by itself does absolutely no work. It instead relies on the unstated assumption that such a cycle has always been around. But that only does marginal work. It's just another turtle. It's just where he's willing to plant his flag and call it a day, where he can leave it so he can die with a clear conscience.

It's easy mentally but not in science. It's easier to think aliens abducted a missing child than to do the legwork to find clues and catch the abductor. I disagree with the "undisputed" claim. You allow god didn't need to be made.

As a stand alone theory, the god concept falls flat on its face simply because regardless of future discoveries, it remains unfalsifiable. Even if it was discovered that the universe expands and contracts in a cyclical nature, god would still be right there making it expand and contract. Would it answer the question? Sure, it would answer any question in fact if it was allowed to be used.

How is the claim of god falsifiable now or ever? Yes it needs to be in order to be legitimate.

It's not easy. It's reasonable. It makes sense, and despite what you say, it doesn't prevent one from trying to understand how any of it works. I never got that extension that some people make. It's not like finding out someone built a computer all the sudden means you don't try to figure out how it works. The fact that you believe something was created can only improve the possibility of being able to find out how it works.

The claim that something has thusofar been undisputed is not the same as the claim that something is indisputable. If it's wrong, it's wrong. There's just never been a reason to doubt such a claim.

The god theory doesn't fail because it's unfalsifiable. That just means that science should ignore it. I've never claimed that science shouldn't do so, which is why I believe that it's not a big deal whether people believe in the existence of god or not. It's one of those things that's either true or false, and the answer has no effect on people. We're discussing it because we want to, not because our intellectual salvation depends on it.

The Universe is all of spacetime and everything that exists therein, including all planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic particles, and all matter and energy. Similar terms include the cosmos, the world, reality, and nature.

Do you have a different definition for universe? It seems you're arguing from a position of amazing familiarity, or science fiction.

We've both accepted the logic that led me to my statement. We know the universe is expanding, and the definition you quoted clearly as a universe contains its own spacetime and matter. So the only thing to conclude is that a new universe would create its own space and that we would keep ours; otherwise, they'd be just one big universe.

[Chinook]

How has science squashed beliefs in other things?

This thread is a perfect example. Some posters who feel that science carries with it the power of the truth are making the extension that god must be supported scientifically in order to be believed in. That's not true. Beliefs come from a ton of different avenues. There are some who argue evolution is the truth, and so they dismiss counter evidence without even bother to really understand either position.

So you don't find the method by which scientific findings are converted into belief any different than the method of converting religious ideas into belief?

Of course I do. That's not the issue. The issue is that agreeing with a convention still doesn't give it the power of truth. It's like with morality. We all implicitly agree that certain things are right and wrong, but it's not like there's a big cosmic judgement out there for us to compare with our view.

[xmas1997]

Not really. There's also the weight of the outcome. There's no weight to whether or not a stop light in France is working, so if someone says it's not, we don't need faith to believe it. We just need apathy. Where god and eternal life are concerned (face it, without eternal life the god concept is pointless), there is weight so we need more evidence in order to cross over that line, not all of us possess the credulity that others do.

By your use of "weight of the outcome" as your justification for your contention, you are giving equal support to "indirect" proof (that which is not in hand or directly verifiable), to that of "direct" proof (that which is jn hand and verifiable). But by their very definitions they are not equal and the same.
While it may be we are apathetic or lazy in your French stop light analogy as far as being able to believe, it only defines a degree of belief and not total belief, thus it has nothing to do with faith. Faith is simply knowing something (anything) to be true without "direct" evidence that it is.
For someone to completely believe in something that they are not "directly" involved with, this requires faith, that the thing or person believed in is trustworthy and beyond reproach.
Weight of outcome implies degrees and totality.

You don't need faith to accept what science says because science polices itself. I don't need to believe what a scientist says is true. People are out there every day trying to disprove the theory of evolution, and I mean scientists. You don't see theists out trying to disprove the Bible. Faith is only required when the story is not otherwise believable, and don't equate faith in the supernatural to faith in a process like science.

Of course science polices itself, so does medicine, art, literacy, physical education, etc. to some degree, and even religion does this, so no one disputes that. Faith is not solely the domain of theology. Although a sub definition of faith can be used to denote and differentiate between religions, that is not the definition we are using here.
Faith in this case defines the vehicle we use everyday to be able to justify our beliefs in anything we totally believe in without direct evidence within our grasp or experience.

Really? You aren't typing on a computer that uses the electronics that were invented and manufactured using the basic tenets of science? Or is God writing this stuff for you?

Of course I am, but my computer is direct (first hand) evidence and as such requires no faith to believe it is true because the proof of it is being directly used by me.
However, you have to take my word "on faith" that I am indeed using my computer, instead of lets say my cell phone since you are not with me, nor observing me.

According to you there is proof for nothing. That makes me nervous about going to bed since it might not exist.

I never said that, you inferred that. There most definitely is proof for me, my computer is my irrefutable proof, so is my cell phone. But it is not your irrefutable proof because you are not here in my presence experiencing it. Your proof of me using my computer is second hand knowledge and only if I tell you I am using it, and only if you trust I will not lie to you. The degree to which you believe what I say is true, establishes the strength of your faith that I am doing as I say I am.

Horse . That's an argument from ignorance. The proof is there, all you have to do is stop being lazy and learn how to interpret it.

Not true. I never said the evidence was not there as you are trying to imply. I said the evidence was not in our possession, and thus it is only direct proof for those who possess it. You possess only a hypothetical, whereas they (scientists, researchers, etc.) possess the actual evidence. I can interpret what they say and write about it, and thus believe them to whatever extent I trust them to imparting the truth, but until I actually do the experiments myself to experience it as truth, I am merely accepting their word for things. And if I accept it completely without any doubt, it is through the vehicle called faith.

They... lol

"They" are explained above. Why you find them (scientists, researchers, etc.) to be funny escapes me.

You're trying to give your faith credibility using tu quoque fallacy.

I know exactly what tu quoque fallacy is and in no way was I implying any sort of ad hominen. In fact I never drew any sort of conclusion from having faith in God and having faith in science, or history, or the price of tea in China whatsoever.
The closest you can say I did was draw a parallel, but even that is not accurate because I never equated the two, rather it was an independent statement unto itself except for the commonality of "faith".

[xmas1997]

About the only thing you can use the "weight of the outcome' argument on is; no one ever wins or loses message board debates, and especially here.

[xmas1997]

Xmas if I have a degree in science can you include me as part of "they"

It is all a matter of degrees, not necessarily a science degree per say.
For example, DMC pointed out my computer as being evidence and as such proof.
It is, for me.
And it is direct evidence, for me and anyone else who is here observing me. For you and everyone else on this site it is indirect evidence (second hand knowledge) and you have to take my word for whether I am telling you the truth for you to believe without a shadow of doubt.
You could be "they" if you are actively performing the experiments, or have performed, or even experienced the experiments being performed by others, etc. as the basis for your belief.
But even said, you need to be careful in drawing extensions from there when it comes to all of science in general.

[pgardn]

This thread is a perfect example. Some posters who feel that science carries with it the power of the truth are making the extension that god must be supported scientifically in order to be believed in. That's not true. Beliefs come from a ton of different avenues. There are some who argue evolution is the truth, and so they dismiss counter evidence without even bother to really understand either position.



Of course I do. That's not the issue. The issue is that agreeing with a convention still doesn't give it the power of truth. It's like with morality. We all implicitly agree that certain things are right and wrong, but it's not like there's a big cosmic judgement out there for us to compare with our view.

I approach your first paragraph from a completely different starting point. I ask why people see evidence for a God knowing full well (me knowing full well) science itself has no say in the matter. So I ask why people believe in a god and one clear reason is a need for some purposeful existence. For many, a fear of mortality. They need for a purpose, a reason for their own existence. So they invent a system in which they lower their basic standards of reasoning for THIS need. And if evolution interferes... Well they use standards of reason they think are of the same standard as used in science. But it's not. Science does not invent complex models when they are not needed. Because there is no ability to refute models that use untestable components.

Have you not observed this?

Morality and Philosophy (not all of it) are human endeavors to answer questions that require judgements of completely different phenomena. Human behavior examined from an older easier to use method. Easier in that these can cover many diff human situations, provide answers to very different types of questions and most importantly can be used for a wider range of questions. Science is a very restricted practice, there is so much it can't answer. But when it comes to explaining physical phenomena, it's the best we have at present. And the predictive quality gives it a high level of validity.

If you or anyone else comes up with a better explanation of the diversity of life without using the supernatural, I'm all ears. Because this means you have used testable ideas. Ideas that can be investigated without magic. No poof necessary.
Implying there has to be a watchmaker is using magic. You see a complex organism and give up on science and invent a watchmaker. When you don't have to...

[Chinook]

I approach your first paragraph from a completely different starting point. I ask why people see evidence for a God knowing full well (me knowing full well) science itself has no say in the matter. So I ask why people believe in a god and one clear reason is a need for some purposeful existence. For many, a fear of mortality. They need for a purpose, a reason for their own existence. So they invent a system in which they lower their basic standards of reasoning for THIS need. And if evolution interferes... Well they use standards of reason they think are of the same standard as used in science. But it's not. Science does not invent complex models when they are not needed. Because there is no ability to refute models that use untestable components.

Have you not observed this?

Of course I've observed this. I've known atheists who push for god's non-existence in order to feel like they control their own fate. , look at Freud and Marx for examples of that. That's why you can't cling to anything too tightly.

I agree on the virtues of science. I majored in multiple sciences in college, one of them being evolutionary biology. You're preaching to the choir about that. But I still feel you're dramatically overstating the power science has. It has the power of best fit and the power of agreement. That's why it's important. But it's still just one philosophical expression, only one way by which we go about generating belief. It's also incompletely in what it can find, not just because of our current technology, but also because of its nature. There are things that science logically can't explore. These things are obvious and don't actually need to be tested to realize. This isn't like the rain or the rotation of the planets.

As far as the consistent mentions of "magic" and "poof" go, that's not a fantasy brought up by theists. It's just a way to describe the existence/non-existence barrier. There was nothing, and then there was something. The only way to get around that is to appeal to eternity, like Hawking does. But eternity without a prime mover is no stronger than non-eternity. It still supposes the same ex-nihlo "magic". Why would one of the greatest scientists ever hold a theory that has no scientific backing (and can't ever have it)? Because he knows it's not a scientific question.

[DMC]

I believe in science too, but I personally have no evidence to prove that science is true, so it is faith.

Of course science polices itself, so does medicine...



Of course I am, but my computer is direct (first hand) evidence and as such requires no faith to believe it is true because the proof of it is being directly used by me.
However, you have to take my word "on faith" that I am indeed using my computer, instead of lets say my cell phone since you are not with me, nor observing me.


I never said that, you inferred that. There most definitely is proof for me, my computer is my irrefutable proof, so is my cell phone.

Just shut up already.

[DMC]

It is all a matter of degrees, not necessarily a science degree per say.
For example, DMC pointed out my computer as being evidence and as such proof.
It is, for me.
And it is direct evidence, for me and anyone else who is here observing me. For you and everyone else on this site it is indirect evidence (second hand knowledge) and you have to take my word for whether I am telling you the truth for you to believe without a shadow of doubt.
You could be "they" if you are actively performing the experiments, or have performed, or even experienced the experiments being performed by others, etc. as the basis for your belief.
But even said, you need to be careful in drawing extensions from there when it comes to all of science in general.

Standard argument from ignorance. You don't know so then you suppose no one really does.

[phyzik]

this whole thread pretty much boils down to this, because we cant prove something yet " God" did it.

How lame on the "Goders" part. Is it REALLY so hard to just say "We don't know" other than "it must be God"?

I Still don't get how these faith believers reconcile with reality these days.... It can only be categorized as a mental disorder akin to the likes of Charles Manson. We have Sports figures and claiming "god" helped them win.... well, what about the other guy? Did God think he was unworthy? Let's take it a step further... "god" helped the Spurs win, but thousands of children starved to death in South Africa....

Yeah... That is not someone I would follow as my "Lord".

[2pac > Kobe]

God is real

[pgardn]

Of course I've observed this. I've known atheists who push for god's non-existence in order to feel like they control their own fate. , look at Freud and Marx for examples of that. That's why you can't cling to anything too tightly.

I agree on the virtues of science. I majored in multiple sciences in college, one of them being evolutionary biology. You're preaching to the choir about that. But I still feel you're dramatically overstating the power science has. It has the power of best fit and the power of agreement. That's why it's important. But it's still just one philosophical expression, only one way by which we go about generating belief. It's also incompletely in what it can find, not just because of our current technology, but also because of its nature. There are things that science logically can't explore. These things are obvious and don't actually need to be tested to realize. This isn't like the rain or the rotation of the planets.

As far as the consistent mentions of "magic" and "poof" go, that's not a fantasy brought up by theists. It's just a way to describe the existence/non-existence barrier. There was nothing, and then there was something. The only way to get around that is to appeal to eternity, like Hawking does. But eternity without a prime mover is no stronger than non-eternity. It still supposes the same ex-nihlo "magic". Why would one of the greatest scientists ever hold a theory that has no scientific backing (and can't ever have it)? Because he knows it's not a scientific question.

So on the subject of evolutionary biology, you have no problem using the existence/non existence barrier you describe, and then extending that further as a watchmaker to explain evolution?

Do you know what watchmaker implies and how it was first used as an argument against the science way of explaining evolution? Perfection of design. The idea that something so perfect could not arise from a known process. And yet again, Poof and Humans existed with perfection of design explanation, another existence/non existence barrier crossed perfectly...

This is like 3 different leaps. And a number of major religions realize this and have paired down their leaps.

[xmas1997]

Just shut up already.

No, you should, if you are not going to do this in a logical manner and resort to an emotional response.
By resorting to your emotions then you obviously do not know what you are doing.
What you are replacing logic with (emotion) is maybe not the epitome of ignorance, but it sure is akin to it.
Next you will probably throw out some insults, that will probably be your last ditch resort method.

[xmas1997]

Standard argument from ignorance. You don't know so then you suppose no one really does.

This is your logic?
There is no logic there, just a worthless statement of opinion, and from your post preceding it, one based in emotion.
It is becoming more and more obvious with each one of your posts that you really have no idea of what you are talking about.
And then you have the gall to criticize others for their beliefs, when you cannot even carry on a coherent logical debate?
Your emotion will never trump logic, and to try to use it to do so shows the real ignorance going on here.
Good luck with that tactic.

[mouse]

this whole thread pretty much boils down to this,.
I hate God and I don't respect the Bible.

Dude we get it already, open another beer and explain to us all how your here because two apes were ing.

[xmas1997]

I don't see how DMC gets along with people in the outside world if this is an example of how closed his mind is on this forum.
He even gives respectable atheists a bad name.

[RD2191]

Dude we get it already, open another beer and explain to us all how your here because two apes were ing.

[Avante]

Obviously I or nobody else is going to read all this, but.....I gurantee we did see..."ya know something, I've changed my mind, you are right and I was wrong"

[Chinook]

Do you know what watchmaker implies and how it was first used as an argument against the science way of explaining evolution? Perfection of design. The idea that something so perfect could not arise from a known process. And yet again, Poof and Humans existed with perfection of design explanation, another existence/non existence barrier crossed perfectly...

This is like 3 different leaps. And a number of major religions realize this and have paired down their leaps.

I think you have mistaken the theory I'm proposing with the classic watch analogy for intelligent design. I originally used the term "clock-maker" rather than "watch-maker", since the former is the term deists use. Some folks, notably Blake, don't care about being precise with their diction, and so they continued to refer to it as the latter even after my objections. Because those of us engaging in the debate knew what I meant, I let it go. But it seems you were confused.

Essentially, I hold the view that the thing we know as existence is a complex machine created and then set free. The clock-maker is the classic analogy because a clock once set up ideally needs no more instruction. It just goes along as designed.

Don't confuse me with an intelligent-designist. I studied evolution, philosophy and psychology well enough to discuss each at a high level. Although I do believe their stance was reasonable, I also believe they had no idea of scope. They didn't understand proximate mechanisms the way we do now. They didn't realize that conditions can create things just as direct intervention can.

I don't believe the same thing at the barrier, however.

[Blake]

About the only thing you can use the "weight of the outcome' argument on is; no one ever wins or loses message board debates, and especially here.

False.

Problem here is that the losers don't know they're losing

[spurraider21]

I think you have mistaken the theory I'm proposing with the classic watch analogy for intelligent design. I originally used the term "clock-maker" rather than "watch-maker", since the former is the term deists use. Some folks, notably Blake, don't care about being precise with their diction, and so they continued to refer to it as the latter even after my objections. Because those of us engaging in the debate knew what I meant, I let it go. But it seems you were confused.

Essentially, I hold the view that the thing we know as existence is a complex machine created and then set free. The clock-maker is the classic analogy because a clock once set up ideally needs no more instruction. It just goes along as designed.

Don't confuse me with an intelligent-designist. I studied evolution, philosophy and psychology well enough to discuss each at a high level. Although I do believe their stance was reasonable, I also believe they had no idea of scope. They didn't understand proximate mechanisms the way we do now. They didn't realize that conditions can create things just as direct intervention can.

I don't believe the same thing at the barrier, however.

Just out of curiosity, what has been your main area of study?

[Chinook]

Just out of curiosity, what has been your main area of study?

Biology is the short answer.

The longer answer is that I wanted to study animal communication, but they didn't have that major. So I had to major in ecological/evolutionary biology to get the animal part (the main part), cog-sci to get the linguistics and logic part, and philosophy to get a lot of the formal reasoning.

[spurraider21]

Biology is the short answer.

The longer answer is that I wanted to study animal communication, but they didn't have that major. So I had to major in ecological/evolutionary biology to get the animal part (the main part), cog-sci to get the linguistics and logic part, and philosophy to get a lot of the formal reasoning.

Triple major? good grief that must've been fun...

[Chinook]

Triple major? good grief that must've been fun...

Honestly, I mismanaged my time. I could have fit another one in had I started my freshman year.

It actually was fun being a triple major, because one of the coolest things I've ever experienced is when concepts in one field start to apply to a completely separate field (like German economic philosophy to American race relations or forestry to linguistics). It really helps reinforce the idea that all disciplines of study are really just different paths toward trying to understand the same thing: how all this works. It's like those IBM commercials where they talk about the ways some random things are connected through the global economy.

If you still have time, I'd totally recommend trying to balance your schedule between humanities and science classes if you don't already. Not only does it make the workload easier/more diverse, but it also grants unique perspective.