Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

I've already commented on creationism. And as relevant issues come up, particularly when I'm genuinely interested, I'll ask questions and solicit thoughts from others.

AG pointed out that another user (from the Christian POV) was flirting with presuppositional apologetics. I find this area of apologetics fascinating in that it attacks reasoning against God by pointing to the underlying assumptions that pearlists make--at the most basic level that there even IS such a thing as rational thinking. Much of the basis for any kind of rational thought, even in empiricism, is dependent on a number of items that cannot be proven. Without making some basic (unproven) assumptions, science cannot work.

Some of the ideas that come out of this line of thinking (from the empiricist side) are that, for example, miracles cannot happen despite eyewitness/personal experience to the contrary. The experiences are explained away in various ways--physically impossible, therefore hallucination, drug use, temporary insanity, or just plain old minds playing tricks on us. Scientific methods essentially assume things not to have happen or to exist if they cannot be repeated in a lab setting or in the natural environment. Miracles, then, are ad hoc since they are unrepeatable and uncontrollable--or "unfalsifiable." Even if a large number of people report witnessing a certain event, they might as well all be liars. This assumes that miracles CANNOT happen and/or no mechanism for their happening (God) exists, despite the fact that God being as yet physically unknowable science is ill-equipped to "measure" an unmeasurable God.

Science, then, remains insufficient to give an answer for or against the existence of God if science is based on assumptions that there is no God and the physically impossible cannot under any circumstances occur.

But science doesn't explain a LOT of things. It is not science's job to.

However, if you start with a different set of assumptions, it is not unfathomable to find that God does exist despite science's inability to explain the existence of God.

Some assumptions might be:
1. God exists
2. God created the physical universe
3. God can act through nature or above nature to effect His will.

Other assumptions might also explain the nature of God:
1. God is perfectly good.
2. God is loving.
3. God is just.
4. God is merciful.
5. God is all powerful
6. God is all-present.
7. God is all-knowing.

Now, that would be a very general and universal description and by no means is restricted to Yahweh. Arriving at the conclusion that Yahweh IS God is a whole other line of reasoning. But by at least assuming that there IS a God, one takes at least a positive step in the right direction since at least the existence of a supreme being makes more sense than the non-existence. There BEING a God explains how the universe came into being ex nihilo--and most scientists will even agree that the universe at the very least DID begin at some point (it's impossible for the universe to be "infinitely old," for example). Scientists have repeatedly failed to show that abiogenesis can/does happen in the laboratory--and even if they DID succeed, it would be an artificial, man-made construct that plainly happened by design (at human hands) and thus evidence that favors special creation! So--that the universe exists, that a planet with optimal conditions for the arrival of life exists, and that human beings are endowed with thinking minds and creative power suggests to me that creation is a deliberate, planned event. This makes sense if one assumes a Creator God. And if one can assume a Creator, one can move forward to draw other conclusions about who God is and His intentions. I find the existence of Yahweh as presented in the Bible to be the best explanation for the observed world.

The Scientific Method

1) Develop a new hypothesis. A hypothesis is merely an idea that is usually based on passive observations of natural events. An idea does not have to be supported, but if it is not supportable, then it remains only an idea.

2) Search for related data, which may be found in the results of previous research, whether or not the results of the previous research actually support the previous research. If existing data does not support the hypothesis, then return to step 1.

3) Create a new supporting theory. A theory attempts to explain the hypothesis in a cause-and-effect manner. Never propose a theory that is not supported by available evidence.

4) Perform experiments to test the theory. Experiments must be appropriate to the proposed theory, and must be both repeatable and verifiable.

5) If the experimental results do not support the theory, then return to step 4.

6) Record findings and submit to peer-review process. A peer group is composed of professional researchers in the field of study that the theory addresses. The peer group will first examine the initial data for factual errors, then the theory for errors of reasoning, and then perform the same experiments under the same conditions to validate or invalidate the theory. If the peer-review process produces conflicting evidence, then return to step 4.

7) Publish the results.

The Fantasy Method

1) Form an Opinion. This opinion does not have to be founded on anything other than assumptions, dreams, fantasies, fears, hallucinations, ignorance, imagination, legends, myths, prejudices, speculation, superstitions, suspicions, or wishful thinking.

2) Search for Supporting Opinions. If any opinion conflicts with the original opinion then discredit, distort, or ignore the conflicting opinion. If the conflicting facts or opinions can not be adequately discredited, then the person(s) presenting the conflicting facts or opinions (the “critic” or “skeptic”) must be discredited.

3) Publish the opinion. Use popular media, the greater the popularity, the better.

4) Attack or Ignore Conflicting Claims. If any critic or skeptic comes forward with facts or opinions that conflict with the original opinion then discredit, distort, or ignore the conflicting facts, while simultaneously discrediting the person(s) presenting the conflicting facts or opinions.

5) Expand the original opinion into unrelated fields of interest.

6) Repeat from Step 2.

...

Assumptions may be okay as far as they go, but until the assumption can be tested and verified, it is no better than any other opinion - that is, not better at all.

Science is self-correcting.

"Hmm ... thunder ... just a few seconds after each lightning flash ... how can I test for a causal connection?"

Religion is still stuck with Stone Age thinking ...

"Sky make thunder. Sky god angry. Og scared. Og hide in cave with family. All beg sky god for mercy."

"God brought the recession as judgment in His wrath against humanity. Come to church, repent and pray that God lifts this scourge from our lives."

Scientific laws are not like social legal regulations. They are not created, they are observed and fitted into a consistent conceptual pattern. If something occurs that seems to be not possible under these observed laws religious people accept these observations as "miracles" and attribute them to a presumed power that is capable of causing effects not possible under the regular interactions accepted in science and normal human activity. They do not question these recorded observations, they welcome them as confirming that their presumed extra-natural powers exist and are capable of violating any recorded regulatory inter-reactions in nature. In effect, they are somehow delighted that nature can be demoted to total chaos at the will of unknown forces. Science does not presume that all observed actions conform to the laws of nature recorded. It observes that they do. And when something occurs that seems not to conform to these natural laws it is verified and repeated and the laws of nature as science acknowledges them are changed to accommodate the new phenomena. This is how science advances and obtains new powers of effecting nature. Religion, on the other hand, in accepting "miracles", relegates these novel occurrences to overwhelming unknown powers that are basically unknowable and thereby thrives on ignorance. It refuses to try to understand previously unknown phenomena and relegates them to a permanent set of unobtainable knowledge and thereby perpetrates a placid state of ignorance.

But you DO agree that abstractions exist? See, I'm not claiming that they DON'T exist. I'm only exploring the nature of the existence itself. Is the nature of that existence physical or is it something else? If it is a physical nature, then you should be able to observe or test it in physical terms. You can't dissolve a number in acid, for example. But you CAN accurately predict the results of mixing given quantities (expressed in numerical amounts according to an established standard of measurement) of various chemicals. Once again, it is a chemical reaction we are testing, not a number divorced from the amount of chemicals measured.

I also admit that numbers MIGHT not be the best example, but rather something I find the most accessible at the moment. In the past I've made the same observation over "emotions" among other things. Do people have things called "ideas"? Surely we do. But people don't run around drawing "ideas." Those only exist in the mind. However, when I compose a piece of music, the end result is some representation--whether in digitally recorded sound or symbolic notation instructing trained musicians how to realize my intentions. It might be more or less successful a reflection of the original "idea," but it can't possibly be the idea itself--I'd be bigger than Beethoven if I had that capacity.

"Ideas" are intangible. In terms of physical existence, they might as well not even exist at all. In translating a music idea into score form, I create something tangible that hopefully will accurately communicate the original idea that inspired the written music.

I don't mean to stray so far off-topic. But consider that in light of what we're talking about here. I don't have to go to a psychologist, psychiatrist, or neurologist to explore the validity of my musical ideas and mental processes involved in realizing ideas. I can safely ASSUME the validity of my own thoughts or ideas and jump straight into the creative process. Science depends on the same thing, and no one has even really mentioned the analytical and interpretive skill of the one conducting a scientific effort. We are all under the ASSUMPTION that our senses are reliable and giving us correct information (until we have good reason to distrust those senses. My eyesight, for example, is unreliable without corrective lenses). We're constantly acting on "ideas" well before those ideas are manifest in some creative result.

So, once again, why is it necessary to merely assume there is no God responsible in the act of creation? We are allowed to make other assumptions in order for science to work. I have no problem with that at all, since many of those assumptions seem to me just common sense. I do find it difficult on those same grounds to assume God NOT to exist. It seems to me that, for all the good science does (and I'm NOT opposed to it), there are those who insist that we just have to wait until science catches up with God. That is quite simply NOT something I feel comfortable waiting on.

It is most important you cease using the word "exist" in a totally sloppy way. The word is useful when it is very tightly defined for a specific situation. You might just as well say that the word "the" does not exist since you cannot dissolve it in acid. Nobody has ever seen or handled a "the" and perhaps it is a miracle created by God to confuse people. Although it is very useful in English, a counterpart does not exist in Finnish and Finns are reasonably competent in communication. It is not even an abstract since one cannot decide what it is abstracted from. Does it exist?

OK... But I think a greater question is whether there is such a thing as communication. You CAN say that communication does physically exist because it is an observable phenomenon. Words are symbolic of ideas and are useful in conveying an approximation of the original idea. "Ideas" and "emotions" are often described as being wordless; that is, there are no words to adequately express certain kinds of ideas and emotions. Art and music are forms of wordless communication that often succeed when words fail.

Digital communication reduces textual data and other information to a series of on/off switches that a machine can process. Some people understand binary language; I'm not one of those people! I understand that as I type, the computer's understanding of what I'm doing is completely different from what I'm doing. Nevertheless, communication is a process of encoding, transmitting/receiving, and decoding the message. Written and spoken language is a bit more tangible than the abstract ideas it stands in for. "1" DOES exist as a symbol of what it represents and is useful in communicating one idea, just like "the" exists as a mechanism for communicating something else. I just think it is important not to confuse symbolic language with what that language represents.

That we develop symbolic written and oral communication is evidence that ideas exist--after all, there'd be no communication if there was nothing to communicate. But communication does not equal the actual ideas expressed. Those only exist in the mind, yet they DO exist! For example, let's say I have a hallucination. My experience is false and deceives me. Perhaps someone can explain that to me and help me understand that nothing actually happened and which, coming to my senses, I might understand. But even a trick of the mind is still a trick. No one will dispute that SOMETHING unusual happened, that the false ideas and lasting memories of those ideas were still ideas and memories! What that "something" is may be up for debate, but it is still "something." My ability to communicate a false perception, idea, or memory is evidence that I had a hallucination, and one may proceed to examine various causes for why it happened, if one even cares (or if I regularly hallucinate, there may BE something physiological going on, which is more tangible than the mental images it causes me to have).

So I think we agree that communication is tangible, that written/spoken words and numbers adequately represent the unseen ideas they describe. But I don't think I'm being sloppy about the word "exist." Either something IS or it IS NOT. Generally speaking something is said to exist if it is objective. Thoughts most certainly objectively occur, even if the content of thought is subjective. Thoughts are not physical, however. You never see thoughts just randomly floating around on your way to work. But we KNOW they exist because we all have them (I hope).

An interesting example of a scientific field that seems to specialize in the unseen is psychology. Without "cognitive behavior," psychology doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on. We assume that physical behavior is a manifestation of thought process, but how do we know? We could just ask, but how do we know a subject is telling the truth? Psychology is still sometimes criticized for not being a legit science. Nevertheless I was still required to take general psych, child psych, and educational psych for my undergraduate music degree; my wife actually does have a degree in psychology. So there is an entire academic study in liberal arts education that deals with the unseen? Without the underlying assumption that there is such a thing as cognitive behavior, psychology as a serious discipline does not make any sense.

We can't physically qualify thoughts--just what we do based on those things. We don't second-guess them. As far as science is concerned, they are "assumed." Again, I'm ok with assuming ideas and thoughts to exist since that just seems common sense to me. All I'm saying is that it is inequitable to make certain unprovable assumptions and absolutely not allow certain others.

It's also worth noting that not all scientists assume God NOT to exist. Assuming that God DOES exist actually does solve some problems and is useful in its own right. Good science does not rule out the possibility. Weak atheism of the "I do not believe God exists" variety will even have to acknowledge that out of everything that we do not yet know there has to be at least the possibility that God might exist, no matter how minuscule one thinks that possibility is. Accepting that there IS a God leads to an understanding that God is responsible for creation--the universe and everything in it--not the mechanism by which God brought it all about. Mutation and limited speciation are demonstrated facts; you'll get no argument from me in that area. Yet the evolution we can actually observe in real-time does not refute a 6-day creation scheme, especially if the days are read as initial starting points for the emergence of life rather than consecutive 24-hour periods (though if God is all-powerful, this is not impossible, either). Assuming God to exist is at least as safe as assuming the thoughts in your head are thoughts.

Just because the belief that something supernaturally magnificent out there might have triggered the Big Bang to occur might be logically justified doesn't mean the Bible is automatically correct about all things science.

The most reasonable scientific approach is to heed what the current scientific evidence points to (regardless of the fact some scientists believe in the existence of the Creator).

Mutation is real and natural selection is real and the passing of time is real. Therefore, it is most reasonable that evolution (the way you think of it) must be real, especially if we keep in mind all the evidence consistently and progressively verifying it to be so.

Where would you even begin?

"The most reasonable scientific approach is to heed what the current scientific evidence points to "

Words of one syllable [sorry I cannot find a one syllable synomnym for "syllable"]:

DIG MORE DEEP

I found this completely unpersuasive and absolutely full of assumptions and wishes.

Your incomprehension still stands. "whether something is or is not" clear indicates you do not understand what "is" ir "is not" implies. A chair is something to sit on. If you sit in a beach ball, is it or is it not a chair? If you sit on your foot is it a chair? If the entire universe contains everything possible, is it God? Are we playing with words or does anybody ever experience anything else but symbols which are interpreted to be reality?

Assumptions, Beliefs, Delusions, Opinions, Prejudices, and Suspicions are not evidence or proof. Any claim based on these is like a house built on sand - when the rains come and the rivers rise, the house is washed away.

Eyewitnesses accounts and anecdotal experiences are unreliable, people are generally dumb enough to fail to comprehend enough of how reality actually works, thus they tend to distort reality according to their own preconceptions, ideals, wishes and ignorance, so scientific method is a whole lot better at that than lay people comming up with crap because they can't explain it any other way.


Yes, pretty much, miracle claims are crap.


The problem is that you put too much faith on witnesses accounts, people easilly make up BS out of anything, because most of them, practically, don't know what they are talking about and don't understand what is behind something when it happens. A rigurous methology is needed to explain a phenomena and prove something.

Last edited by blunnet on 15 Jun 2011, 11:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

But every scientific claim IS based on one assumption or another at some level. Are you saying that scientific reasoning is invalidated based on the fact that certain assumptions lie at its core?

This argument is about words. Religion argues that a miracle is something that can't happen happens. Science merely says that if it happens it can happen. It's that simple. And if it can happen it must fit into the understanding of the universe. And science merely tries to discover how it can happen and to see how to make it happen again. Religion declare it can happen only by the intervention of supernatural forces. Since supernatural forces have never been either been observed under scientific conditions nor certainly evoked by known processes science cannot acknowledge them. Miracles simply do not exist by definition.

Og is smart to stay indoors. Lightning can kill, and Og doesn't have health insurance.

Sorry for quoting all of this, but what a great example of a lack of evidence being overcompensated for with screeds of vapid word play. Evidence or STFU.