Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 129 of 129

Thread: Why YEC can seem plausible

  1. Top | #121
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,046
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Lacking logical-sense can eroneously produce all sorts of theoretical science beliefs.
    True, but that is how theoretical science advances. In the long run bad ideas fall away. Logic alone, IOW the syllogism, does not guarantee truth in reality. A logically consistent argument, no contradictions, can be made about god. However there is no objective supporting evidence.

    It took a long time for Einstein's theories to be experimentally demonstrated. In the early 20th century there were many competing theories to explain electric current. Experimentally only one worked. The electron or quantization of charge.

    In all of science no one claims any absolute truth. The last 300 years has been a c0ntinuous change in science.

    In contrast in the middle of a pandemic the religious claim god is in control and pray. When you are on a jet on the takepff roll do you belive the jet will fly because

    a god wills it
    b angels carry it.
    or
    c aerodynamics based on proven scince

    There really is no conflict between science and religion unless you create on to cover your own beliefs which are challenged by science. The Catholics always tried to make since conform to theology. Even something as simple as the Earth going around the Sun...Galileo.

    Believe what you will. Let me know when you choose to ignore science and go by faith.

  2. Top | #122
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,046
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Lacking logical-sense can eroneously produce all sorts of theoretical science beliefs.
    can you name three examples? Where a hypothesis made it all the way to theory, and you can show the LOGIC errors that indicate it's in error?

    Because i do not think you can. Rather, i suspect that you know of later scientific discoveries that disprove earlier scientific understanding, making some of those beliefs look foolish now, from our perspective, from our understanding.
    I doubt you can show how a contemporary could have used logic at the time, rather than future science.
    I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.
    God can not be proven or disproven. That is why it is faith not science. Theists try to shore up faith by rejecting uncomfortable science or attacking science.

    Science can and is used to evaluate specific claims of the supernatural. Like telepathy or telekinesis. Or miracles.

    When in Europe Ben Franklin developed a reputation for debunking pseudo science.

  3. Top | #123
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,707
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    43,207
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.
    I asked for examples. You're kind pf alluding to the idea examples could be found... but not really showing an illogical person using science to engender a false belief. Try again?

  4. Top | #124
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,665
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,641
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Lacking logical-sense can eroneously produce all sorts of theoretical science beliefs.
    can you name three examples? Where a hypothesis made it all the way to theory, and you can show the LOGIC errors that indicate it's in error?

    Because i do not think you can. Rather, i suspect that you know of later scientific discoveries that disprove earlier scientific understanding, making some of those beliefs look foolish now, from our perspective, from our understanding.
    I doubt you can show how a contemporary could have used logic at the time, rather than future science.
    I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.
    You are tilting at a straw man. There is nothing in science that "disproves" a god. There is much in science that demonstrates that the claims about their god's abilities and actions made by 'true believers' are little more than wishful thinking.

  5. Top | #125
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,500
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,556
    Rep Power
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.
    I asked for examples. You're kind pf alluding to the idea examples could be found... but not really showing an illogical person using science to engender a false belief. Try again?
    I am alluding to your fellow atheists on this forum (not the scientists themselves) who used a theory to say God couldn't exist.

    ( We could have a little wager for the fun of it. If it can be found - then you and anyone else that wants to join in the fun will have to sign-off with... I LOVE JESUS! at the end of your next 5 posts. )
    Last edited by Learner; 07-04-2020 at 01:43 PM.

  6. Top | #126
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    18,707
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    43,207
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.
    I asked for examples. You're kind pf alluding to the idea examples could be found... but not really showing an illogical person using science to engender a false belief. Try again?
    I am alluding to your fellow atheists on this forum (not the scientists themselves) who used a theory to say God couldn't exist.

    ( We could have a little wager for the fun of it. If it can be found - then you and anyone else that wants to join in the fun will have to sign-off with... I LOVE JESUS! at the end of your next 5 posts. )
    And again, you haven't come up with three examples.

    Note, by now you should expect that your examples, if they ever appear, need to withstand scrutiny. They need to actually display what you think they display, not just highlight your failure to read for content.

    (As to the wager, you're actually asking me to take your god's name in vain? Did you forget that's supposed to be a no-no? Or are you trying to get me in trouble with your skyguy?)

  7. Top | #127
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    10,222
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    28,128
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Lacking logical-sense can eroneously produce all sorts of theoretical science beliefs.
    What sort of beliefs do you mean?

  8. Top | #128
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    6,046
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    I was talking about people who take the mere theory ...a current one (among 10 similar alternative variations) for example, and pretend that it disproves the possibility of there being God. The discussions regarding this ...exists on the forum.
    I asked for examples. You're kind pf alluding to the idea examples could be found... but not really showing an illogical person using science to engender a false belief. Try again?
    I am alluding to your fellow atheists on this forum (not the scientists themselves) who used a theory to say God couldn't exist.

    ( We could have a little wager for the fun of it. If it can be found - then you and anyone else that wants to join in the fun will have to sign-off with... I LOVE JESUS! at the end of your next 5 posts. )
    Exactly what theory is that and who said it?

    Scientists are not uber logical unfeeling Vulcans. Having science credentials in no ways infers validity or speaking in the name of 'science'. There is no Pope of science or ruling body. There is no 'science' that works collectively. There is no holy scriptura of science.

    Hawking made some strange conclusions at times. He wrote he could prove the universe 'creates itself'.

    The process begins with a paper. Next step is an informal peer review. Then one attempts to get it up the review chain ending in review and publication by a major journal. It is a long non linear process.

    Contrast with Christianity where anyone can preach an interpretation of the bible and gather a following. Some get rich by it. The 'god wants you to be rich' success gospel that arose in the 90s.

    Einstein's relativity was initially rejected. He gained fame initially for something else.

    When you poke at science there is really nothing to poke at, at least as you imagine it. 'Science' does not get together and collectively decide let's disprove god. They have better more productive things to do.

  9. Top | #129
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,665
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,641
    Rep Power
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    ... snip ....

    When you poke at science there is really nothing to poke at, at least as you imagine it. 'Science' does not get together and collectively decide let's disprove god. They have better more productive things to do.
    True. The only sciences I am aware of that even address the question of gods would be the 'soft sciences' of phycology and sociology. Even then, they wouldn't be addressing the existence of the maxi-critter but the people who believe, why people believe in it, and how the belief effects them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •