A Creationists View of Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution

[Tweak155]

They aren't absolute truth's even if there aren't aliens. The sun is hot for us, it's not hot compared to many other stars....

It is the question that is flawed.

 

[Retro Rob]

They aren't absolute truth's even if there aren't aliens. The sun is hot for us, it's not hot compared to many other stars....

The Sun is hot period. Sure, there are hotter stars, but I never said ours is the hottest.

Just because 10,000 degrees is much hotter than 5,000 doesn't mean 5,000 isn't hot.

 

[Paul98]

The Sun is hot period. Sure, there are hotter stars, but I never said ours is the hottest.

Just because 10,000 degrees is much hotter than 5,000 doesn't mean 5,000 isn't hot.

Why is 5000 degrees "hot"?

What is "hot" "normal" "cold"?

 

[Tweak155]

The Sun is hot period. Sure, there are hotter stars, but I never said ours is the hottest.

Just because 10,000 degrees is much hotter than 5,000 doesn't mean 5,000 isn't hot.

You're missing the point. Let's look at the other end of the scale...

For something that lives in sub zero or freezing temperatures, our nice 68 degree day would be hot to them. To us it wouldn't be.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I do think there is an absolute truth to be had...primarily becasue there are absolute truths -- we do have evidence for this. For instance, the Sun is hot, water is wet, exposure to space radation will kill you, you can't survive in the vaccum of space outside of a space suit and helmet, and so on.

We need to create a different science. Our current science doesn't deal with absolute truths, IMO....that doesn't mean there aren't any to be had.

They are absolute insofar as we trust the tools and methods we use to observe them, and true insofar as we trust our own ability to process that observation. Which is to say, not absolute. What they are, however, is repeatable and the simplest explanation of what we observe that is also predictive.

It is possible, for example, that a divine being just makes the sun seem hot to us by every method that we attempt to observe it. Such a being, with its omnipotent power, could make a perfect disguise that I will never penetrate, forever concealing the "true" cold nature of the sun. I cannot entirely discount that possibility.

What I can say, though, is that our current understanding of the sun being hot is useful in that it allows for further predictions that we also verify by further observation. The supernatural explanation does not provide this. I therefore limit my conception to that simpler one, as it is the most sophisticated functional model.

 

[Exophase]

You're missing the point. Let's look at the other end of the scale...

For something that lives in sub zero or freezing temperatures, our nice 68 degree day would be hot to them. To us it wouldn't be.

Let's look at the farthest end of the scale - is there any context where it'd be suitable to call absolute zero hot?

 

[Tweak155]

Let's look at the farthest end of the scale - is there any context where it'd be suitable to call absolute zero hot?

Or alternatively, there is no such thing as cold. Only less heat

 

[SlitheryDee]

Well worded, but does disproving the bible mean there is no god?

It means that the basis most people have used to first postulate the existence of a god was false. It doesn't disprove the existence of God, but it disproves the reason most people came to believe in this specific christian God.

Think of it this way. If you were operating on the assumption that any proposition was true, and then you found out that the information that lead you to believe that was false, then wouldn't you doubt that proposition? If I told you to invest in the stock market in a certain way, but later you found out that I was making up everything I told you, would you still expect a return on your investment? If I told you how to change the transmission in your car, but you found out later that I was a chronic liar who always fabricates stories when asked about something I don't know anything about, would you expect your car to run after following my advice? Why then, would you expect the christian God to exist when the book detailing his activities turned out to be a falsification?

 

[sourceninja]

Just so we're clear, I find that many of these arguments stem from people not specifying what type of evolution is being discussed. Evolution certainly has been proven true as far as minor changes over a <usually long> period of time. Generally when arguing with a christian, the problem they are focused on is how life came to be.

Evolution does not discuss, postulate, or theorize on the origins of life. Christians should be debating abiogenesis!!!!

 

[Tweak155]

<snip>
What I can say, though, is that our current understanding of the sun being hot is useful in that it allows for further predictions that we also verify by further observation. The supernatural explanation does not provide this. I therefore limit my conception to that simpler one, as it is the most sophisticated functional model.

I don't see how this fits in. Can you expand what you mean by "this"? It doesn't seem you are applying it to the previous sentence, or if you are, it doesn't seem like an appropriate application.

 

[Tweak155]

Evolution does not discuss, postulate, or theorize on the origins of life. Christians should be debating abiogenesis!!!!

You don't have to tell me this

It isn't unreasonable that they draw this conclusion, though. The basic failed assumptions on both sides is that proving god is real will disprove evolution, and proving evolution will prove god doesn't exist. Flawed arguments to begin with.

 

[Aikouka]

The Sun is hot period. Sure, there are hotter stars, but I never said ours is the hottest.

Just because 10,000 degrees is much hotter than 5,000 doesn't mean 5,000 isn't hot.

Sorry, but you are wrong here. "Hot" has no absolute definition because it is a relative term, which is what that person was saying. What you are trying to say is

x (P(x) ^ H(x)) where P(x) means x is a Person and H(x) means x Thinks the Sun Is Hot.

 

[crashtestdummy]

This is ultimately where the debate has its issues. The level of evidence it takes for one person to believe may be well above or below the other persons own requirement of evidence. Are you suggesting there is a complete lack of verifiable evidence for an intelligent designer, or simply that you do not feel there is adequate evidence? Subtle difference, but I suspect you see what specifically I am asking.

There is not a single verifiable prediction created by a supernatural model that cannot be equally accounted for by a simpler naturalistic model. I therefore posit that there is no repeatably observable evidence that God exists (or that it doesn't).

My wife (who believes in some sort of divine presence) would counter that my construct makes it impossible to describe any sort of supernatural being. In other words, even if God presented itself in some sort of verifiable way, it would then become a natural being by its very definition, and thus cease to be divine in the way that she sees it.

Douglas Adams sort of touches on this in the Hitchhiker's Guide, on the topic of the "Babel fish", which, when placed in your ear, translates the language of any other speech into yours:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen it to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I don't see how this fits in. Can you expand what you mean by "this"? It doesn't seem you are applying it to the previous sentence, or if you are, it doesn't seem like an appropriate application.

Sorry, by "this", I mean further prediction. What I mean is that positing that God is just making me think the Sun is hot but does it in such a way that I'll never know the difference doesn't really give me a new and useful prediction in further observations. I can't use that "fact" to do anything new.

 

[IronWing]

It was left in Latin specifically because the church does not think the peasants should be reading it themselves, rather, just believe what the church is telling them. Plus at the time books were super expensive.

You are half right. Books were super expensive plus the peasants were mostly illiterate. Your first point is just Protestant propaganda.

 

[Exophase]

My wife (who believes in some sort of divine presence) would counter that my construct makes it impossible to describe any sort of supernatural being. In other words, even if God presented itself in some sort of verifiable way, it would then become a natural being by its very definition, and thus cease to be divine in the way that she sees it.

I don't think I agree with your wife, or at least not totally. If prayer "worked" to any extent it can be shown in a verifiable way, but still be supernatural in nature. At a high level, the part that prescribes "you pray, thing happens" would fit a natural model. But the how could be completely inaccessible to natural explanation. Unless you're willing to elevate such a complex and arbitrary mechanism to the status of fundamental law of nature.

And I'll be honest, I don't know how that HGttG quote actually relates to this

 

[Paul98]

How well do these books sell? Can I make one that has to do with some religion that can make tons of money without having any real substance?

 

[sdifox]

You are half right. Books were super expensive plus the peasants were mostly illiterate. Your first point is just Protestant propaganda.

Sins of the clergy is well documented. Nothing to do with protestant propaganda.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I don't think I agree with your wife, or at least not totally. If prayer "worked" to any extent it can be shown in a verifiable way, but still be supernatural in nature. At a high level, the part that prescribes "you pray, thing happens" would fit a natural model. But the how could be completely inaccessible to natural explanation. Unless you're willing to elevate such a complex and arbitrary mechanism to the status of fundamental law of nature.

The thing is that any model you create is inherently naturalistic. If every time you pray, something happens, than there is a physical process that is happening, even if that physical thing is some kind of immensely powerful being. In other words, from her point of view, once you've reduced God to an explanation of natural events, you've lost the nature of God.

And I'll be honest, I don't know how that HGttG quote actually relates to this

It goes to my last sentence above, and to the absurdity of ontological arguments. If God is inherently supernatural and defined by our faith in it, then "proof" of God's existence would destroy God's very divine nature, and thus there would be no God. What that really means, though, is that there is no such thing as proof of a truly supernatural God, since such a definition implies its very unproveability.

 

[Paul98]

The thing is that any model you create is inherently naturalistic. If every time you pray, something happens, than there is a physical process that is happening, even if that physical thing is some kind of immensely powerful being. In other words, from her point of view, once you've reduced God to an explanation of natural events, you've lost the nature of God.



It goes to my last sentence above, and to the absurdity of ontological arguments. If God is inherently supernatural and defined by our faith in it, then "proof" of God's existence would destroy God's very divine nature, and thus there would be no God. What that really means, though, is that there is no such thing as proof of a truly supernatural God, since such a definition implies its very unproveability.

How is this God if it is unable to do anything?

 

[crashtestdummy]

How is this God if it is unable to do anything?

That is a question that depends very heavily on your particular definition of God. My wife, despite being Jewish, sees God both as watchmaker and divine fabric of all creation.

Very few religions, though, view God as a predictable interventionist. The Bible, in particular, depicts a jealous, capricious, and erratic God that alternates wildly between angry retribution and incredible compassion. Furthermore, it depicts a God that becomes decreasingly involved in the lives of humans, at first directly speaking to people, then only distantly rewarding and punishing, then appearing briefly (by the Christian account) in the form of Jesus before disappearing again.* There's no sense anywhere in there that this sort of God does things in a way that could be accounted for in repeated experimentation.

*This is not a unique concept. The Greeks, in particular, set a much harder line for divine intervention at the Trojan War, after which the gods decided that it was best that they have nothing further to do with the affairs of humans. Yet it's interesting that they still sought the influence and wisdom of the gods through sacrifice and oracles.

 

[IEC]

That is a question that depends very heavily on your particular definition of God. My wife, despite being Jewish, sees God both as watchmaker and divine fabric of all creation.

Very few religions, though, view God as a predictable interventionist. The Bible, in particular, depicts a jealous, capricious, and erratic God that alternates wildly between angry retribution and incredible compassion. Furthermore, it depicts a God that becomes decreasingly involved in the lives of humans, at first directly speaking to people, then only distantly rewarding and punishing, then appearing briefly (by the Christian account) in the form of Jesus before disappearing again.* There's no sense anywhere in there that this sort of God does things in a way that could be accounted for in repeated experimentation.

*This is not a unique concept. The Greeks, in particular, set a much harder line for divine intervention at the Trojan War, after which the gods decided that it was best that they have nothing further to do with the affairs of humans. Yet it's interesting that they still sought the influence and wisdom of the gods through sacrifice and oracles.

The Jewish understanding of the Torah disagrees with you. The Torah depicts a God who is faithful to mankind despite the repeated failures of humans to be faithful to God.

Compare and contrast:
Genesis story of creation vs Enuma Elish
Genesis story of the Flood vs other ANE texts

Humans are specifically created in the image of God in Jewish/Christian texts. They are an afterthought/designed to be slaves of the gods in ANE myth.

 

[Tweak155]

There is not a single verifiable prediction created by a supernatural model that cannot be equally accounted for by a simpler naturalistic model. I therefore posit that there is no repeatably observable evidence that God exists (or that it doesn't).

My wife (who believes in some sort of divine presence) would counter that my construct makes it impossible to describe any sort of supernatural being. In other words, even if God presented itself in some sort of verifiable way, it would then become a natural being by its very definition, and thus cease to be divine in the way that she sees it.

Douglas Adams sort of touches on this in the Hitchhiker's Guide, on the topic of the "Babel fish", which, when placed in your ear, translates the language of any other speech into yours:

Very interesting view. Perhaps applying the term "supernatural" is the pain point here, as we set our own definitions to natural and supernatural. I'd argue that if a god exists, he or she would not be outside of what is natural. Rather our view or knowledge would be forced to expand as to what is included in natural. I suppose I lean towards your wife's point of view.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do agree that by your very own definition, you can never prove a god or gods exist (possibly reasonably concluding there isn't one). I would have to think more as to whether you have constructed a reasonable framework to test or prove the existence of a god, though. I'm leaning towards not since I think we both agree it is impossible to prove there is no god.

 

[Exophase]

The thing is that any model you create is inherently naturalistic. If every time you pray, something happens, than there is a physical process that is happening, even if that physical thing is some kind of immensely powerful being. In other words, from her point of view, once you've reduced God to an explanation of natural events, you've lost the nature of God.

This is drifting into semantics, but supernatural should refer to a phenomenon that can't be explained by more fundamental laws of nature. Unless you want to consider "pray to god and something happens" to be a law, but that kind of eschews the whole part about god being there and acting on it in some way. We could extend this to include some more feedback and interaction with this entity. Just because this god participates in some kind of reliable interaction with people wouldn't mean that people could really describe or explain the process behind it.

I do agree that any model is inherently naturalistic though, I actually started my previous post with "what is a supernatural model supposed to mean exactly?" But something doesn't have to be modeled to constitute as evidence.

It goes to my last sentence above, and to the absurdity of ontological arguments. If God is inherently supernatural and defined by our faith in it, then "proof" of God's existence would destroy God's very divine nature, and thus there would be no God. What that really means, though, is that there is no such thing as proof of a truly supernatural God, since such a definition implies its very unproveability.

Okay, I think I'm seeing my disconnect now. I think this is considering proof in the mathematical sense, ie something you can construct from fundamental axioms. In that case yes, you wouldn't be able to prove something supernatural exists. But I don't think the word "proof" is usually used that way, even in science (where I guess it shouldn't be used at all)

But to counter that, in the quote you gave, the paradoxical "proof" for god's existence by virtue of the Babelfish's existence surely lacked mathematical rigor.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

When truth was born, it was visited by a magical fairy, which bestowed upon it three gifts: the quality of absoluteness, the quality of objectivity, and the quality of pertaining to reality.

The condition the fairy placed upon these gifts was one limitation: it was only possible for truth to be any two at the same time.

Thus, truth could be absolute and objective, but not pertain to reality -- this is mathematical/logical truth.

Alternatively, truth could be absolute and pertain to reality, but not objective -- this is religious truth.

Lastly, truth could be objective and pertain to reality, but not absolute -- this is scientific truth.

(Credit for this allegory belongs to HRG, a brilliant man, and an online mentor of mine, but not a member of this forum)