Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#451
#451
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Considering the Bible as fiction is the equivalent of considering Horton Hears a Who as non-fiction... neither could be further from the truth whether you believe in God or not. As previously posted in this thread, numerous archaeology finds and other studies have proven the Bible to be a valid historical document... again, whether you believe in God or not.
Click to expand...

I would consider it something like the Da Vinci Code. It's much easier to make your audience believe if you wrap your story around time/events they already know as true. Kinda like making events like Easter or Xmas at the same time as other festivals
 
#452
#452
utvolpj said:
I would consider it something like the Da Vinci Code. It's much easier to make your audience believe if you wrap your story around time/events they already know as true. Kinda like making events like Easter or Xmas at the same time as other festivals
Click to expand...

The difference is that the Bible serves as a significant historical document whereas the DVC does not.

One doesn't have to believe everything in the Bible to use it as a valid source of history; of understanding a time where other historical documents are lacking. The same is not true for something like the DVC or other "fictions".
 
#453
#453
utvolpj said:
I would consider it something like the Da Vinci Code. It's much easier to make your audience believe if you wrap your story around time/events they already know as true. Kinda like making events like Easter or Xmas at the same time as other festivals
Click to expand...

And the things written hundreds of years earlier that were fulfilled and witnessed by thousands of people, they were all crazy?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#454
#454
the history part I can agree with but how does it in any way prove the existence of a god? Just because some parts are accurate doesn't mean the whole book must be accepted as truth
 
#455
#455
utvolpj said:
the history part I can agree with but how does it in any way prove the existence of a god? Just because some parts are accurate doesn't mean the whole book must be accepted as truth
Click to expand...

I don't claim it proves the existence. Just saying why calling it fiction is a misnomer.
 
#458
#458
utvolpj said:
the history part I can agree with but how does it in any way prove the existence of a god? Just because some parts are accurate doesn't mean the whole book must be accepted as truth
Click to expand...

Predicting the future, explaining that the earth was round, and how winds blow, and rain water evaporates from the earth and collects in the clouds.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#459
#459
ridethelightening said:
Predicting the future, explaining that the earth was round, and how winds blow, and rain water evaporates from the earth and collects in the clouds.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

the church was fully behind the 'round earth circles around the sun' thing? And I don't remember any specific future predictions.
 
#461
#461
volinbham said:
How about this:

Life exists
Man is the highest form of life


Spaghetti is not life

It's absurd to suggest that the likelihood of an FSM is equal to that of a creator that is a higher form of life than man.

There is no record anywhere of those feeling they've been touched by a creator describing anything approach an FSM

It's a pure device to argue against a creator rather than to attempt to understand what one might be.

You may find science based arguments explaining why people believe the creator is a particular form (e.g. shared culture, common hallucinations, etc) but they still point to a greater likelihood one would be different than an FSM.

Honestly - using your "best available explanation" rule, if there is a creator do you believe an FSM is as likely as anything else? If so how would you support that (again assuming there is a creator)?
Click to expand...

Devils advocate here.....

Science can't prove/disprove a FSM, and will never have the capacity to prove/disprove. It is outside the bounds of human understanding, so all reasoning and evidence you suggest in the above post doesn't mean squat. After all, the FSM could be a higher form of life and we humans would never be able to explain it with our reasoning, despite the fact we eat pasta. By definition, it is outside our reasoning capabilities. Afterall, couldn't this possibly be the case? All this talk about spaghetti not being life is immaterial, because you are using human reasoning to explain something that by definition is outside of human understanding. This is why your liklihood argument of the creator being the FSM doesn't count. There are other methods of knowing truth, and I have felt the touch of the FSM. Despite what you call God or somebody else calls basic human emotions. I know what I felt, and it was the divine noodle with marinara sauce, this is why I must believe there is a FSM and it will never make sense with the reasoning you are using. .

.....You call this suggestion absurd, I call it faith. Philosophically, it makes sense given the rules I have laid out for understanding him.

This is all very tedious of course, but this is a lot of the same arguments I have seen in this thread. Replace all FSM references with "God" or "Creator" and most on here would absolutely agree this is a valid argument.

What is wrong with this:

Science can't prove/disprove a Creator, and will never have the capacity to prove/disprove. It is outside the bounds of human understanding, so all reasoning and evidence you suggest in the above post doesn't mean squat. After all, the Creator could be a higher form of life and we humans would never be able to explain it with our reasoning, despite the fact we exist. By definition, it is outside our reasoning capabilities. Afterall, couldn't this possibly be the case? All this talk about evidence and falsifiability is immaterial, because you are using human reasoning to explain something that by definition is outside of human understanding. This is why your liklihood argument of the God being the Creator doesn't count. There are other methods of knowing truth, and I have felt the touch of the Creator. Despite what you call God or somebody else calls basic human emotions. I know what I felt, and it was the divine touch of a creator, this is why I must believe there is a Creator and it will never make sense with the reasoning you are using.

.....You call this suggestion absurd, I call it faith. Philosophically, it makes sense given what we are told about God.
 
#462
#462
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Considering the Bible as fiction is the equivalent of considering Horton Hears a Who as non-fiction... neither could be further from the truth whether you believe in God or not. As previously posted in this thread, numerous archaeology finds and other studies have proven the Bible to be a valid historical document... again, whether you believe in God or not.
Click to expand...

Show me historical proof that the resurrection happened and we can start to talk. I'm not talking about what the Bible says happened, I'm talking about all the historical evidence you are touting here...archeological proof, real places, real events, real people..etc that can be independently verified.

Otherwise, the meat of the Bible and its message is absolutely fiction.
 
#463
#463
volinbham said:
How about this:

Life exists
Man is the highest form of life


Spaghetti is not life

It's absurd to suggest that the likelihood of an FSM is equal to that of a creator that is a higher form of life than man.

There is no record anywhere of those feeling they've been touched by a creator describing anything approach an FSM

It's a pure device to argue against a creator rather than to attempt to understand what one might be.

You may find science based arguments explaining why people believe the creator is a particular form (e.g. shared culture, common hallucinations, etc) but they still point to a greater likelihood one would be different than an FSM.

Honestly - using your "best available explanation" rule, if there is a creator do you believe an FSM is as likely as anything else? If so how would you support that (again assuming there is a creator)?
Click to expand...

See bolded. I would argue you playing the same game I am with regard to explaining liklihoods of there being a creator. The same game you claim isn't valid for understanding the creator concept. You even say science points to a greater liklihood that the creator isn't the FSM.

Whether it is the FSM or Zeus is immaterial. I'm sure somebody somewhere in time has felt touched by Zeus, but that says absolutely nothing regarding the chances it really was Zeus, God, the FSM, or a creator of any sort.
 
Last edited:
#466
#466
rjd970 said:
Devils advocate here.....

Science can't prove/disprove a FSM, and will never have the capacity to prove/disprove. It is outside the bounds of human understanding, so all reasoning and evidence you suggest in the above post doesn't mean squat. After all, the FSM could be a higher form of life and we humans would never be able to explain it with our reasoning, despite the fact we eat pasta. By definition, it is outside our reasoning capabilities. Afterall, couldn't this possibly be the case? All this talk about spaghetti not being life is immaterial, because you are using human reasoning to explain something that by definition is outside of human understanding. This is why your liklihood argument of the creator being the FSM doesn't count. There are other methods of knowing truth, and I have felt the touch of the FSM. Despite what you call God or somebody else calls basic human emotions. I know what I felt, and it was the divine noodle with marinara sauce, this is why I must believe there is a FSM and it will never make sense with the reasoning you are using. .

.....You call this suggestion absurd, I call it faith. Philosophically, it makes sense given the rules I have laid out for understanding him.

This is all very tedious of course, but this is a lot of the same arguments I have seen in this thread. Replace all FSM references with "God" or "Creator" and most on here would absolutely agree this is a valid argument.
What is wrong with this:

Science can't prove/disprove a Creator, and will never have the capacity to prove/disprove. It is outside the bounds of human understanding, so all reasoning and evidence you suggest in the above post doesn't mean squat. After all, the Creator could be a higher form of life and we humans would never be able to explain it with our reasoning, despite the fact we exist. By definition, it is outside our reasoning capabilities. Afterall, couldn't this possibly be the case? All this talk about evidence and falsifiability is immaterial, because you are using human reasoning to explain something that by definition is outside of human understanding. This is why your liklihood argument of the God being the Creator doesn't count. There are other methods of knowing truth, and I have felt the touch of the Creator. Despite what you call God or somebody else calls basic human emotions. I know what I felt, and it was the divine touch of a creator, this is why I must believe there is a Creator and it will never make sense with the reasoning you are using.

.....You call this suggestion absurd, I call it faith. Philosophically, it makes sense given what we are told about God.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is way too much for me to digest. However, I respectfully disagree with your statement above that most would agree with your "valid" argument. Comparing a FSM to God may make you feel better, but nothing has been written or documented that a FSM is god whereas millions believe in Christ and/or a Heavenly Father. No one, that I am aware of, has claimed to witness seeing a FSM (or the FSM's son - ravioli... or for good measure throw in a little angel hair pasta to complete the trilogy) perform miracles whereas written documents claim that Jesus did perform miracles that were witnessed by masses. Whether you believe these stories to be true or not, to try and equate the two ( other than your scientific reference that neither can be proven/disproven) is not a valid comparison.
 
#468
#468
rjd970 said:
See bolded. I would argue you playing the same game I am with regard to explaining liklihoods of there being a creator. The same game you claim isn't valid for understanding the creator concept. You even say science points to a greater liklihood that the creator isn't the FSM.

Whether it is the FSM or Zeus is immaterial. I'm sure somebody somewhere in time has felt touched by Zeus, but that says absolutely nothing regarding the chances it really was Zeus, God, the FSM, or a creator of any sort.
Click to expand...

There are two issues at play:

1. is there/was there a creator? This is a binary option - yes/no

2. what is the form or nature of a creator - assuming yes to 1. what is a more likely form?

To add to this you are changing my argument to science cannot prove/disprove a creator from science may not be able to prove.

So where are we. Arguing that an FSM is as likely as God is a debate about #2 not about #1. You appear to be using it as an argument against a creator rather than form of creator.

So back to the question I asked you. Assuming the answer to #1 is yes (a creator) what arguments do you have that hypothesizing an FSM is an equally likely working hypothesis to a God-like (some human type traits) creator? I've suggested that the nature of spaghetti (ridiculous but so is the FSM) and the history of man's interactions (real or imagined) over time along with our understanding of life on this planet at least suggest the God-like creator is "best available explanation" for a creator (if there is one). As we know, it may turn out to be something different but given your rules for inquiry I would assume you lend additional credence to explanations that have some (even if little) evidence pointing their way.

Further, even if you argue that an FSM is equally likely to a God-like creator how does that lead to the conclusion that there is no creator? In other words how does your answer to #2 lead you to an answer for #1?
 
Last edited:
#469
#469
rjd970 said:
Show me historical proof that the resurrection happened and we can start to talk. I'm not talking about what the Bible says happened, I'm talking about all the historical evidence you are touting here...archeological proof, real places, real events, real people..etc that can be independently verified.

Otherwise, the meat of the Bible and its message is absolutely fiction.
Click to expand...

We have done this 100 times, there are over 40 sources outside of the bible that specifically deal with Christ's life and resurrection.
 
#470
#470
rjd970 said:
Really? Where's the evidence of this?
Click to expand...

So scientific evidence proves the Bible has historical validity, but I can't use it as a source. Several works refer to Christ, some as early as the 2nd century

What evidence would you like for me to provide?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#474
#474
OrangeEmpire said:
We have done this 100 times, there are over 40 sources outside of the bible that specifically deal with Christ's life and resurrection.
Click to expand...

hmm...repost those, and let's see which ones are legitimate historical references to the actual resurrection.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top