Science and Religion: Creationism/Evolution Thread

#476
#476
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Where's the evidence that Lincoln was shot in a theatre? Or do you also choose not to believe that since you weren't there to witness it yourself?
Click to expand...

Not the same. Aside from the fact that there are first hand accounts and confessed perpetrator, documeted proof that is what was intended and planned as well as medical records...there are no supernatural claims being made that go against reality, and no one is saying faith is enough to believe it.
 
#477
#477
volinbham said:
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?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I am not understanding the nature of your argument. If you are saying that there could be an unknown force that we presently do not understand and cannot observe...that is one thing. The way I understand it you are taking it a step further and saying it is an actual intelligent entity. That is completely different and where we disagree. I don't accept that premise any more than I do the FSM.

I don't see a difference between that claim and saying your creator is God, Thor, Allah, or anything else. Qualitatively, you just aren't being as specific. But you are still making a tacit claim and creating the rules for his existence so it is possible. And before you say it, science isn't creating rules that say it is impossible, but some pretty extraordinary evidence would have to present itself.

Whatever the chances are that there is an exotic force(s) we can't comprehend right now, the chances that it is an intelligent creator is less likely, and said creator can be described by any specific religion is even less likely to that. All due respect to the believers on the board, religious faith is nothing more than believing in a creator plus some ridiculous specifics.

So, to answer your question, if there is a force(s) out there that could explain how the universe came into being, saying it is an intelligent creator completely leaves open the door for me to say it is the FSM, given I make the rules for his existence such that it can't be disproven with our feeble minds. I could even say the FSM made the creator, making the FSM the ultimate creator. Given the requisite rules, I could make it a legitimate possibility, just like you are doing with the creator you claim.

We all got here somehow, because we are in fact here. That fact is pretty much indisputable. Something is responsible. But to claim an intelligent creator is behind it is a whole other ballgame.
 
#478
#478
rjd970 said:
Not the same. Aside from the fact that there are first hand accounts and confessed perpetrator, documeted proof that is what was intended and planned as well as medical records...there are no supernatural claims being made that go against reality, and no one is saying faith is enough to believe it.
Click to expand...

Really???

- first hand accounts: check
- confessions: check
- documentation that Jesus' crucifixion was planned: check

Your only hang-up with Christ seems to be the "supernatural claims", even though these were also witnessed.
 
#479
#479
rjd970 said:
Not the same. Aside from the fact that there are first hand accounts and confessed perpetrator, documeted proof that is what was intended and planned as well as medical records...there are no supernatural claims being made that go against reality, and no one is saying faith is enough to believe it.
Click to expand...

Let's disect this. There were first hand accounts that Jesus existed and that he performed miracles. There is documented proof that old testament writings existed before the birth of Christ. And those 1st hand witnesses documented the prophecies they saw fulfilled. And, as far as we know, the Bible has historical relevance.

You, however, refuse to believe because of the supernatural, but have put all of your "faith" in exploding atoms creating all that you see around you. Hard to fathom for me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#482
#482
utvolpj said:
the church was fully behind the 'round earth circles around the sun' thing? And I don't remember any specific future predictions.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse the church with the Bible. Over the years churches have and still teach things that are contrary to the Bible.

The Bible named the man who would defeat the city of Babylon and how he would do it hundreds of years before he was born.
I do find it interesting that if I tried to argue that Neyland Stadium appeared on its own I would be locked in a looney bin. Even if someone couldn't tell me who built or designed it. But if someone claims that the earth and all life on it was designed and created they are the ones who are crazy. Even though the universe is slightly more complex than a stadium.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#483
#483
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Really???

- first hand accounts: check
- confessions: check
- documentation that Jesus' crucifixion was planned: check

Your only hang-up with Christ seems to be the "supernatural claims", even though these were also witnessed.
Click to expand...

...let's put your "first hand accounts" claim aside for a second. Given what is written in the bible, that is certainly debatable.

First off, there is no Gospel of Jesus...at least not written by his own hand. Second, the the accounts we do have in the 4 gospels aren't even all the same. John and Mark don't even mention a virgin birth, Matthew goes into ridiculous detail about the resurrection with 3 hours of darkness at midday and earthquakes that broke rocks...things the other writers evidently didn't notice or bother to write down, despite how odd it would have seemed or validation it would have given to the story. And not a single one of them mention a thing that happened between childhood and adulthood. Not only that, evidently Jesus wasn't even special in his resurrection because according to Matthew 27:

“many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised … [and] came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many.”
Click to expand...

...combined with John the Baptists exploits and what Jesus supposedly did, writing down stories of miracles was a common occurence....

...to say nothing of the fact that people were mistaken all the time about identities even if this resurrection fiction were true:

“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’” Matt 16: 13-14
Click to expand...
 
#484
#484
rjd970 said:
...let's put your "first hand accounts" claim aside for a second. Given what is written in the bible, that is certainly debatable.

First off, there is no Gospel of Jesus...at least not written by his own hand. Second, the the accounts we do have in the 4 gospels aren't even all the same. John and Mark don't even mention a virgin birth, Matthew goes into ridiculous detail about the resurrection with 3 hours of darkness at midday and earthquakes that broke rocks...things the other writers evidently didn't notice or bother to write down, despite how odd it would have seemed or validation it would have given to the story. And not a single one of them mention a thing that happened between childhood and adulthood. Not only that, evidently Jesus wasn't even special in his resurrection because according to Matthew 27:



...combined with John the Baptists exploits and what Jesus supposedly did, writing down stories of miracles was a common occurence....

...to say nothing of the fact that people were mistaken all the time about identities even if this resurrection fiction were true:
Click to expand...

Right! So you believe the Bible when it proves your theory?

15 He said to them, But who do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#485
#485
rjd970 said:
Perhaps I am not understanding the nature of your argument. If you are saying that there could be an unknown force that we presently do not understand and cannot observe...that is one thing. The way I understand it you are taking it a step further and saying it is an actual intelligent entity. That is completely different and where we disagree. I don't accept that premise any more than I do the FSM.

I don't see a difference between that claim and saying your creator is God, Thor, Allah, or anything else. Qualitatively, you just aren't being as specific. But you are still making a tacit claim and creating the rules for his existence so it is possible. And before you say it, science isn't creating rules that say it is impossible, but some pretty extraordinary evidence would have to present itself.

Whatever the chances are that there is an exotic force(s) we can't comprehend right now, the chances that it is an intelligent creator is less likely, and said creator can be described by any specific religion is even less likely to that. All due respect to the believers on the board, religious faith is nothing more than believing in a creator plus some ridiculous specifics.

So, to answer your question, if there is a force(s) out there that could explain how the universe came into being, saying it is an intelligent creator completely leaves open the door for me to say it is the FSM, given I make the rules for his existence such that it can't be disproven with our feeble minds. I could even say the FSM made the creator, making the FSM the ultimate creator. Given the requisite rules, I could make it a legitimate possibility, just like you are doing with the creator you claim.

We all got here somehow, because we are in fact here. That fact is pretty much indisputable. Something is responsible. But to claim an intelligent creator is behind it is a whole other ballgame.
Click to expand...

The issues are distinct:

1. on the issue of creator or not (was/is a sentient force behind it); I lean yes - you lean no. The nature of what that force might be is a separate issue just as evolution is a separate issue from creation (as the OP has argued in this thread). Why I believe it is more likely than not is due to the ongoing spirituality needs and intuitive feelings of some greater power experienced throughout the history of man and across cultures. To me, these serve as evidence. You may discount that evidence or explain it away with "natural" forces but it is an underlying reason for believing.

2. saying the FSM is as likely as some other form of sentient creator has no support and is a distinct issue that does not materially impact the first question (sentient force or not). My argument on the form is that the best available evidence suggests it is not the FSM - it's an absurd notion; spaghetti is a product created by man from grains and formed into a specific shape. No argument for a creative force would suggest that man created what the creator is made of. It's an argumentive device rather than a serious hypothesis. On the other hand, we have a considerable history of thought suggesting a God-like force MIGHT be a better explanation and thus working hypothesis for what a sentient creative force might look like.

Not being able to prove a specific form of sentient force is not evidence that such a force does not exist.

Perhaps it is best to claim faith applies to #1 (existence) but I would argue that presuming either side (existence or non-existence) is a leap of faith. However, if you are in the existence camp a God-like form is much more of a workable and reasonable hypothesis than the FSM.
 
#486
#486
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...

Sorry if this has been responded to already, but fiction can have truths in it. It is about the main structure of the narrative. Every work of fiction has some level of truth contained within it. It doesn't mean anything if the Bible got a couple facts right.
 
#488
#488
volinbham said:
The issues are distinct:

1. on the issue of creator or not (was/is a sentient force behind it); I lean yes - you lean no. The nature of what that force might be is a separate issue just as evolution is a separate issue from creation (as the OP has argued in this thread). Why I believe it is more likely than not is due to the ongoing spirituality needs and intuitive feelings of some greater power experienced throughout the history of man and across cultures. To me, these serve as evidence. You may discount that evidence or explain it away with "natural" forces but it is an underlying reason for believing.

2. saying the FSM is as likely as some other form of sentient creator has no support and is a distinct issue that does not materially impact the first question (sentient force or not). My argument on the form is that the best available evidence suggests it is not the FSM - it's an absurd notion; spaghetti is a product created by man from grains and formed into a specific shape. No argument for a creative force would suggest that man created what the creator is made of. It's an argumentive device rather than a serious hypothesis. On the other hand, we have a considerable history of thought suggesting a God-like force MIGHT be a better explanation and thus working hypothesis for what a sentient creative force might look like.

Not being able to prove a specific form of sentient force is not evidence that such a force does not exist.

Perhaps it is best to claim faith applies to #1 (existence) but I would argue that presuming either side (existence or non-existence) is a leap of faith. However, if you are in the existence camp a God-like form is much more of a workable and reasonable hypothesis than the FSM.
Click to expand...

As to the bolded, I still want to point out that you are in fact using what you consider evidence to draw a conclusion...while at the same time saying it is largely a philosophical issue outside the bounds of reason. You are taking that "cool drink of data" and running with it, using "faith" to explain everything else.

I don't know, maybe not. But that is what I am reading.

And I still argue that claiming a creator is a bigger leap of faith than not claiming one, because acknowledging a sentinent being is being far more specific about the unknown than anything the non-existence crowd is claiming.

I would say the same thing to a scientist saying there is a singular overarching force we don't understand. There is simply too many unknowns to make that claim right now, and the evidence he would have to put forth would be largely of the philosophical nature. Same thing goes for a claim of multiple forces, or anything of that nature, etc. For now, theories like the big bang have to suffice given what we don't know about how time works and the universe grows. The specifics of a "beginning" and "end" or what was around before the big bang is irrelevant at this point. I disagree that gives us the latitude to say an intelligent creator is responsible. Maybe one is, because we don't know a lot, but it is doubtful.

It's aiken to telling a 5 year old to explain how a light bulb works, and because it is so advanced and foreign, he says a creator makes the light. But in reality there is a very good and complete explanation as to how it is working, but there is no way he could possibly understand it at that point. The "light creator" theory may work for him, but it is hollow in reality.
 
Last edited:
#490
#490
rjd970 said:
As to the bolded, I still want to point out that you are in fact using what you consider evidence to draw a conclusion...while at the same time saying it is largely a philosophical issue outside the bounds of reason. You are taking that "cool drink of data" and running with it, using "faith" to explain everything else.

I don't know, maybe not. But that is what I am reading.

And I still argue that claiming a creator is a bigger leap of faith than not claiming one, because acknowledging a sentinent being is being far more specific about the unknown than anything the non-existence crowd is claiming.

I would say the same thing to a scientist saying there is a singular overarching force we don't understand. There is simply too many unknowns to make that claim right now, and the evidence he would have to put forth would be largely of the philosophical nature.
Click to expand...

This is awesome stuff, here.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#491
#491
ridethelightening said:
Right! So you believe the Bible when it proves your theory?

15 He said to them, But who do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No...I am simply pointing out that your "first hand accounts" have a lot of differences and suspect references.
 
#493
#493
rjd970 said:
As to the bolded, I still want to point out that you are in fact using what you consider evidence to draw a conclusion...while at the same time saying it is largely a philosophical issue outside the bounds of reason. You are taking that "cool drink of data" and running with it, using "faith" to explain everything else.

You are exaggerating (or not understanding) my point about what science can do or may not be able to do. In answering the question of a creator, the evidence I presented is consistent with the notion of a creator. If there is not a creator, that evidence would require an alternate explanation. Where faith comes in is the assurance one lends to their attribution of the source of the evidence. I simply do not think questions of the creator are or should be constrained to scientific inquiry so would not put forth the notion as scientific - thus do not support teaching it as science. It does not mean that we can not look for evidence to point us towards understanding.

Further, I'm not trying to prove existence. I am indicating why existence belief has been so persistent and why that belief may be correct.

I don't know, maybe not. But that is what I am reading.

And I still argue that claiming a creator is a bigger leap of faith than not claiming one, because acknowledging a sentinent being is being far more specific about the unknown than anything the non-existence crowd is claiming.

I don't necessarily disagree but ruling one out completely (or 95%) is also making the leap.

I would say the same thing to a scientist saying there is a singular overarching force we don't understand. There is simply too many unknowns to make that claim right now, and the evidence he would have to put forth would be largely of the philosophical nature. Same thing goes for a claim of multiple forces, or anything of that nature, etc. For now, theories like the big bang have to suffice given what we don't know about how time works and the universe grows. The specifics of a "beginning" and "end" or what was around before the big bang is irrelevant at this point. I disagree that gives us the latitude to say an intelligent creator is responsible. Maybe one is, because we don't know a lot, but it is doubtful.


It's aiken to telling a 5 year old to explain how a light bulb works, and because it is so advanced and foreign, he says a creator makes the light. But in reality there is a very good and complete explanation as to how it is working, but there is no way he could possibly understand it at that point. The "light creator" theory may work for him, but it is hollow in reality.
Click to expand...

You are still arguing question 1 (existence). You've offered nothing to support the claim that the FSM is a equally good working hypothesis to a God-like creator. You can fall back on saying there is no creator so it is moot but that is not the question here. Form is a distinct issue. The FSM argument has nothing to suggest it has any merit - I've given you reasons why but see none in return other than the return to question 1.

If you deny existence, the FSM argument has no merit due to irrelevance. If you accept the possibility of existence it still has no merit. There are much better working theories if you accept the possibility of a creator.
 
Last edited:
#494
#494
rjd970 said:
No...I am simply pointing out that your "first hand accounts" have a lot of differences and suspect references.
Click to expand...

The reason for the differences is that each account approaches from a different angle, at different times and written for different people. For example Mark was written primarily for Gentiles. He would include details that a Gentile would need to know. Other writers wrote for the Jews. They would exclude certain things because it was common knowledge and be redundant to include.

The remarkable thing is that the last gospel (John) was written over 60 years after Jesus died. Yet none of them contradict each other. I would challenge anyone to find 4 biographies written about a single person at different times to have the harmony that the Gospels do.
Add to the fact that staticians have calculated that the odds of one man randomly fulfilling every prophecy foretold about Christ would be equal to covering the state of Texas with quarters 2 ft deep and then picking out the right one. You can choose not to believe but there is a lot of physical evidence to the contrary. Its not just blind faith.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#495
#495
tri_vol said:
The reason for the differences is that each account approaches from a different angle, at different times and written for different people. For example Mark was written primarily for Gentiles. He would include details that a Gentile would need to know. Other writers wrote for the Jews. They would exclude certain things because it was common knowledge and be redundant to include.

The remarkable thing is that the last gospel (John) was written over 60 years after Jesus died. Yet none of them contradict each other. I would challenge anyone to find 4 biographies written about a single person at different times to have the harmony that the Gospels do.
Add to the fact that staticians have calculated that the odds of one man randomly fulfilling every prophecy foretold about Christ would be equal to covering the state of Texas with quarters 2 ft deep and then picking out the right one. You can choose not to believe but there is a lot of physical evidence to the contrary. Its not just blind faith.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the Bible has no validity to him
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#496
#496
volinbham said:
You are still arguing question 1 (existence). You've offered nothing to support the claim that the FSM is a equally good working hypothesis to a God-like creator. You can fall back on saying there is no creator so it is moot but that is not the question here. Form is a distinct issue. The FSM argument has nothing to suggest it has any merit - I've given you reasons why but see none in return other than the return to question 1.

If you deny existence, the FSM argument has no merit due to irrelevance. If you accept the possibility of existence it still has no merit. There are much better working theories if you accept the possibility of a creator.
Click to expand...

First off, if all you have is a common thread over time of people believing in a higher power then the 95% is credible in my opinion. And if you claim that it can't be proven by science or reason based then my number goes higher because any evidence is a moot point anyway.

Needless to say, I don't believe the FSM to be credible in any way. So arguing it is less credible than Zeus, God or any other God-like creator is like saying unicorns are less likely to exist than the lochness monster. That is why it all starts with your first premise anyway. OK, sure, God is more credible than the FSM. I'm not exactly sure what that proves, but alright. My original point was that as long as the proof of existence is founded on faith and non-falsifiability then it doesn't matter what you insert, it can be claimed...no matter how ridiculous, and disproving it is impossible. Disprove the FSM, or the invisible dragon in your garage. It can't be done, so the whole point of disproving a creator is futile. But in no way is that strengthening the position that one does exist.
 
#497
#497
tri_vol said:
The reason for the differences is that each account approaches from a different angle, at different times and written for different people. For example Mark was written primarily for Gentiles. He would include details that a Gentile would need to know. Other writers wrote for the Jews. They would exclude certain things because it was common knowledge and be redundant to include.

The remarkable thing is that the last gospel (John) was written over 60 years after Jesus died. Yet none of them contradict each other. I would challenge anyone to find 4 biographies written about a single person at different times to have the harmony that the Gospels do.
Add to the fact that staticians have calculated that the odds of one man randomly fulfilling every prophecy foretold about Christ would be equal to covering the state of Texas with quarters 2 ft deep and then picking out the right one. You can choose not to believe but there is a lot of physical evidence to the contrary. Its not just blind faith.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
It's ridiculous to imply that Christianity isn't based on faith. There is not any physical evidence of the relevant question of the divine.
 
#498
#498
IPorange said:
It's ridiculous to imply that Christianity isn't based on faith. There is not any physical evidence of the relevant question of the divine.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about Christianity not being faith based? I believe tri_vol's point was that there is "more" than simply faith. And for the record, there is a plethora of physical evidence regarding the subject of divinity... it just may not be "relevant" to you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top