Page 15 of 34 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 334

Thread: Creation "science" and a Bible-based morality

  1. Top | #141
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Speaking only for myself, if someone claims divine intervention then I should be able to design an experiment and make observations based on their definitions and claims. In other words what they are claiming to be divine intervention is nothing more than a claim that can be empirically documented....
    That seems to involve skeptics and like I've said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations". Then there is the Bible saying "Don't put God to the test". I think the purpose of this is to make the simulation more immersive. It is also a case of playing "hide and seek" with God....

  2. Top | #142
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    32,633
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    75,106
    Rep Power
    100
    So everything points to a simulation. Concurrence, contradiction, simplicity, complexity, symmetry, incongruence... it all points to simulation.

  3. Top | #143
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    17,532
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    18,239
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
    Speaking only for myself, if someone claims divine intervention then I should be able to design an experiment and make observations based on their definitions and claims. In other words what they are claiming to be divine intervention is nothing more than a claim that can be empirically documented....
    That seems to involve skeptics and like I've said, "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations".
    There is reason to think that, given the history of things things that have been attributed to gods and then found to have earthly causes. The defining characteristic of this "god of the gaps" is that it gets smaller, and smaller and smaller.

    Then there is the Bible saying "Don't put God to the test". I think the purpose of this is to make the simulation more immersive. It is also a case of playing "hide and seek" with God....
    Nah. I think "Don't put God to the test" is sage advice to explain things in a useful manner if you can, instead of incuriously invoking "divine" explanations that are not falsifiable. IOW, do your testing without using gods.
    Even Behe had to admit that his IC example of the flagellum was wrong, in that credible evolutionary pathways exist.

  4. Top | #144
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    17,532
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    18,239
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    So everything points to a simulation. Concurrence, contradiction, simplicity, complexity, symmetry, incongruence... it all points to simulation.
    A simulation that points to itself. Hmmm.

  5. Top | #145
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    32,633
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    75,106
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post

    There is reason to think that, given the history of things things that have been attributed to gods and then found to have earthly causes. The defining characteristic of this "god of the gaps" is that it gets smaller, and smaller and smaller.

    Then there is the Bible saying "Don't put God to the test". I think the purpose of this is to make the simulation more immersive. It is also a case of playing "hide and seek" with God....
    Nah. I think "Don't put God to the test" is sage advice to explain things in a useful manner if you can, instead of incuriously invoking "divine" explanations that are not falsifiable. IOW, do your testing without using gods.
    Even Behe had to admit that his IC example of the flagellum was wrong, in that credible evolutionary pathways exist.
    But the Wizard said not to pay attention to the guy behind the curtain.

  6. Top | #146
    Veteran Member excreationist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,455
    Archived
    4,886
    Total Posts
    6,341
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    So everything points to a simulation. Concurrence, contradiction, simplicity, complexity, symmetry, incongruence... it all points to simulation.
    Like I've said, I think "I think ALL evidence of God and the paranormal can be explained by skeptics as coincidence, delusion, or hallucinations". I think that theory also covers non-naturalistic things like a simulation. That way the simulation is as immersive as possible. Like that Futurama God quote says, "when you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all".
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    There is reason to think that, given the history of things things that have been attributed to gods and then found to have earthly causes. The defining characteristic of this "god of the gaps" is that it gets smaller, and smaller and smaller.
    I'm saying there is no evidence that can convince skeptics of the existence of God so there is no compelling evidence for them for ANY "god of the gaps". So if God is playing "hide and seek", when he is "hiding" it is completely from view....

  7. Top | #147
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,808
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,554
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    So "theistic evolution" is roughly "evolutionary theory that depends on divine action, in some or all parts".... what about evolutionary theory that explicitly involves no divine action?
    Once more, science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA.
    It states 'This is what happened.' It cannot state whether or not a deity was involved in making it happen.

    An ATHEIST theory would specifically exclude divine action. Science doesn't do that.
    Laplace is the one who said it the best I think. He was a Christian. He simply removed any mention from his scientific work because he didn't think it aided understanding of what is going on in his scientific model.

    The point of science is to add clarity to how the world works. Theology, is by it's very nature, mystical and nebulous. Ie "God works in mysterious ways". If God is mysterious keeping God in your theory makes your theory harder to understand, no matter if God really is involved. By removing any mention of God Laplace made his scientific theories much more clear.

    It's the same deal with the theory of evolution. The idea that God guides evolution, nudging it in various direction, adds nothing to the theory. No matter if God really is doing it or not.

    As Laplace pointed out, we're always better off removing God from any scientific theory.

    This brings us to why Creationists or "creation science" stubbornly feels the need to insert God into every scientific theory. It's not to add an clarity. Nor is it an attempt to understand the world. It's not about science at all.

    We live in a world where science and scientific language is the highest authority. If we want authority we need to coach our ideas in scientific language. It's not harder than that. Creation Science are religious people trying to sneak in on a free ride to get authority. It's transparent what they're doing. It's dumb.

  8. Top | #148
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,808
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,554
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by atrib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    ....But it does not make sense to split off 'atheistic evolution' from creationism unless you refer to every science as atheistic.
    I'm saying there is atheistic evolution and theistic evolution - not that evolution is always atheistic - but I rejected Christian theistic evolution and went straight to atheistic evolution.
    You are wrong, and unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you. There is biological evolution, which is a natural process that has been observed and tested. Biological evolution is neither theistic or atheistic, just as gravity and star formation and weather are neither theistic or atheistic. They are all natural processes that can be observed and tested by humans. You would be foolish to call gravity "atheistic", yet you have no problem referring to evolution as such. This is because your judgement is clouded by your bias.
    Our evidence for gravity is actually quite weak, as scientific theories go. It's based on science on one celestial body. We have no idea what kind of gravitational weirdness we might find out there. We do hope that our science here has nailed it. But it's still just a hope.

    We just think it's a strong theory because anyone can test it by themselves. But they're all on the same celestial body. It's the same data point.

    While the theory of evolution is supported by billions of independent individually verifiable data points. The theory of evolution is an incredibly strong scientific theory.

  9. Top | #149
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    21,143
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,643
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    ....Please identify the contradiction.
    "....What do you call it if it is evolution that isn't theistic?" "Science"

    "....Once more, science is neutral on divine action"

    I asked you what to call evolution that isn't theistic and you said "science".

    And please identify any area of actual scientific investigation that is not naturalistic.
    You said "science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" i.e. you seem to be saying that science does not specifically exclude divine action....
    Um, yeah?
    I do not see a contradiction.

    What do you think 'atheist' means when you say 'atheist evolution?'

  10. Top | #150
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    21,143
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    45,643
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by excreationist View Post
    But many theists believe in biological evolution that is not completely naturalistic....
    ....such as...?
    In the second, you add an intelligence baselessly.
    You said ".....science is neutral on divine action. It does not require DA, nor does it specifically exclude DA" - are you saying that according to science (including biological evolution), divine action could be possible?
    Yeah. Could be. Still, no scientific evidence for the supernatural influence.

Posting Permissions

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