The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

postcynical wrote: »

This is correct that they are two distinct branches of science. Each branch has its reasonable limit and the methodology as a whole has its limits. The Human person is not restricted to scientific methodology to discern truth.

Yes it is. If you use philosophy or religion to formulate ideas what you've got is a hypothesis but if you want to find out if it's true you need science, ie you need to test your hypothesis

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Evening.

Did J C ever answer those 13 Awkward Questions in the end? Or address our rebuttals of his rather weak replies to them? Or address the answers to his own 21 Dumb Questions? I've had a quick scan through the last few months of stuff I've missed and it seems like he's continued his odd habit of claiming that the evidence is on his side whilst choosing exclusively to quote scripture instead...

Nope. But he has gone back to his several-posts-a-day during your absence.

Morbert

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Evening.

Did J C ever answer those 13 Awkward Questions in the end? Or address our rebuttals of his rather weak replies to them? Or address the answers to his own 21 Dumb Questions? I've had a quick scan through the last few months of stuff I've missed and it seems like he's continued his odd habit of claiming that the evidence is on his side whilst choosing exclusively to quote scripture instead...

It has become evident that JC is not an entirely genuine poster, as he has repeatedly posted assertions he has been corrected on.

AtomicHorror

postcynical wrote: »

This is correct that they are two distinct branches of science. Each branch has its reasonable limit and the methodology as a whole has its limits. The Human person is not restricted to scientific methodology to discern truth.

The scientific method is only limited to what humans may observe (via any means direct or indirect) with the sole and rather necessary caveat that the observation needs to be verifiable to allow us to distinguish between observation and mistake. How can we call a thing "truth" with any confidence if it cannot be verified?

If we can't observe a phenomenon then how do we know it exists and what is its relevance to us if we assume it does exist unobservable?

AtomicHorror

Morbert wrote: »

It has become evident that JC is not an entirely genuine poster, as he has repeatedly posted assertions he has been corrected on.

That's J C. Determined troll or something more depressing? It has always been a tough call.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Nope. But he has gone back to his several-posts-a-day during your absence.

I'm rather flattered that he could suddenly find more time to spare us whilst I was busy. When things have calmed down a bit for me I hope to have more time to spend acting as a repellent to his mosquito bite arguments.

Zombrex

postcynical wrote: »

The Human person is not restricted to scientific methodology to discern truth.

No one has come up with a way other than science to accurately determine truth about the universe.

Everything else is basically just guessing and opinion, which can often be deeply flawed and who's conclusions are unverifiable.

Just look at religion. Why are there still thousands of religions in the world if it is possible to discern the truth about which one is correct?

You will notice there are not thousands of theories of electricity or gravity or soil erosion.

marco_polo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's J C. Determined troll or something more depressing? It has always been a tough call.



I'm rather flattered that he could suddenly find more time to spare us whilst I was busy. When things have calmed down a bit for me I hope to have more time to spend acting as a repellent to his mosquito bite arguments.

Coincidently it seems his 'hot streak' of posting for 11 days in a row from the 2nd to the 12th has abruptly come to an end.

DigiGal

http://www.stupidshiz.com/media/C874F2D1-1372-527D-08850EFF7C4530A7.JPG

Sam Vimes

DigiGal wrote: »

http://www.stupidshiz.com/media/C874F2D1-1372-527D-08850EFF7C4530A7.JPG

Now that's an awful lot of pointless waste for a universe that's apparently deliberately designed for us by a perfect designer. That picture, and this one:


Which shows earth as taken by the voyager space probe, would almost make you think that we're an insignificant speck in an infinitely large universe and that it's not designed for us at all

philologos

I don't see how the size of the Earth is an argument against God, but rather shows us the wonder of his extended creation. It's just a bad argument in general. I don't think the universe is designed just for us anyway.

DigiGal

All that to contemplate and observe and people are wasting their time arguing about religion...

DigiGal

If you are so sure of your faith you shouldn't have to argue about it to strangers on the internet

philologos

DigiGal wrote: »

All that to contemplate and observe and people are wasting their time arguing about religion...

Yeah, if there is no God I wonder how you guys justify bothering

DigiGal

Jakkass wrote: »

Yeah, if there is no God I wonder how you guys justify bothering

Lets hope there is an afterlife cause they sure wasted a good chunk of this life on here

philologos

DigiGal wrote: »

If you are so sure of your faith you shouldn't have to argue about it to strangers on the internet

What?

I don't have to discuss religion at all. I want to discuss religion

DigiGal

Jakkass wrote: »

What?

I don't have to discuss religion at all. I want to discuss religion

That statement wasn't personally directed at you, just general is all, sorry i quoted your post was a mistake

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how the size of the Earth is an argument against God, but rather shows us the wonder of his extended creation. It's just a bad argument in general. I don't think the universe is designed just for us anyway.

It's an argument against the teleological argument, that the universe is designed for us. If you don't think that then the argument is irrelevant to you but many people, such as Soul Winner, do put forward the argument from design

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's an argument against the teleological argument, that the universe is designed for us. If you don't think that then the argument is irrelevant to you but many people, such as Soul Winner, do put forward the argument from design

I don't think that the teleological argument argues that. Rather it argues that the Universe is designed. Modern teleological arguments go into the fine tuning of the universe so that it could sustain life. It has nothing to do with the universe being designed just for us. I don't even think William Paley argued that with the Watchmaker argument.

In modern philosophy the teleological argument and the cosmological argument become rather blurred. It's hard to separate them in arguing while taking into account modern science.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think that the teleological argument argues that. Rather it argues that the Universe is designed. Modern teleological arguments go into the fine tuning of the universe so that it could sustain life. It has nothing to do with the universe being designed just for us. I don't even think William Paley argued that with the Watchmaker argument.

The point I made works equally well against the universe being fined tuned for life. If it was fine tuned there would be trillions upon trillions of galaxies of pointless, lifeless planets and stars

The argument also fails because it assumes that this is the only kind of life that can exist. The laws of the universe are such that they support this kind of life. If the universe had been created with different laws it's entirely possible that a completely different and incompatible kind of life would have evolved. If such a thing had happened the glaxions with 17 eyes and mercury in their veins (assuming they had eyes and veins and assuming that mercury could exist) would be sitting on their 6 dimensional planet under their purple cuboidal sun and remarking how the universe seems so precisely designed for them. The universe did not adapt for life, life adapted for the universe.

DigiGal

There are 3 types of Intelligent Civilisation which can evolve from a scientific standpoint.....
Type 1
Type 2 and
Type 3

We are ....type 0

Essentially we are nothing.
Who are we to decide what created a body as large as the universe, to say its this God or that God.
If everyone just kept their mouth shut and were secure in their own faith and beliefs then there would be alot less war and petty arguements alot less of the horrible crimes commited in Gods name.....
Do you honestly think that something so powerful that it could create endless time and space would care if this text is right or if you sleep with men or women
Can't we all just be nice and live well for the sake of making this short time pleasent for ourselves and everyone else rather than a fear of some powerful higher being.

A type 3 civilisation has no need for war or fighting. Until we are that intelligent we will most likely never know the face of God or whatever is out there and we will most likely have destroyed ourselves by then being to absorbed by petty arguements about race, religion, creed, sexual habits.....It is a sad world one that needs a fear of Hell to stop anarchy

In the end it all stems from a fear of the unknown, a fear of death a search for higher meaning, a feeling of insignifigance.
But to be signifigant just treat others well, make a difference and then ytehre will be a lasting impression on those you leave behind, thats how you live on..
and either way death is a release from suffering of life no matter where you go.

DigiGal

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point I made works equally well against the universe being fined tuned for life. If it was fine tuned there would be trillions upon trillions of galaxies of pointless, lifeless planets and stars

The argument also fails because it assumes that this is the only kind of life that can exist. The laws of the universe are such that they support this kind of life. If the universe had been created with different laws it's entirely possible that a completely different and incompatible kind of life would have evolved. If such a thing had happened the glaxions with 17 eyes and mercury in their veins (assuming they had eyes and veins and assuming that mercury could exist) would be sitting on their 6 dimensional planet under their purple cuboidal sun and remarking how the universe seems so precisely designed for them. The universe did not adapt for life, life adapted for the universe.

You are a very intelligent man

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point I made works equally well against the universe being fined tuned for life. If it was fine tuned there would be trillions upon trillions of galaxies of pointless, lifeless planets and stars

Not everything has to have a functional point. Besides, I would argue we don't know what point everything has. We are only human, we have limited intellects amongst other things. I would argue there is only so much we can know. I don't think this is an argument against God having designed the universe in any way, just that we sometimes cannot see a purpose in His creation.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The argument also fails because it assumes that this is the only kind of life that can exist.

Does it? I think we are reading into the actual argument rather than assessing what it actually says.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The laws of the universe are such that they support this kind of life. If the universe had been created with different laws it's entirely possible that a completely different and incompatible kind of life would have evolved.

Interesting. Who authored those laws?

If you have seen the clip with Richard Dawkins discussing with the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, you would see that he regards the laws of the universe as having been created by God, and that God set the ball rolling in regards to evolution and other things. I.E God designed the processes to operate as He desired them to operate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DcySbAt-l4

I'm not sure if I personally am in entire agreement with the Archbishop, but I think he offers something of interest to the discussion.

I don't think positions based on design preclude the possibility of other life existing. The universe being so vast would only cause many to wonder more about God's creation rather than less.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If such a thing had happened the glaxions with 17 eyes and mercury in their veins (assuming they had eyes and veins and assuming that mercury could exist) would be sitting on their 6 dimensional planet under their purple cuboidal sun and remarking how the universe seems so precisely designed for them. The universe did not adapt for life, life adapted for the universe.

I think this is a bit of a cop out Sam. There had to be certain conditions in place for live to start evolving. This is a fair and reasonable position. Yes, through evolution life adapted to it's environment but without these conditions life would not have existed at all. I would have thought that was straight forward enough.

Sam Vimes

We'll have to agree to disagree

Mark Hamill

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how the size of the Earth is an argument against God, but rather shows us the wonder of his extended creation. It's just a bad argument in general. I don't think the universe is designed just for us anyway.

Then what else is the universe designed for anyway? Why is all that space needed?

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then what else is the universe designed for anyway? Why is all that space needed?

Many people could give many different answers to that. I'm quite willing to say that I don't know what the universe is designed for exactly. I don't think I will ever know for sure.

I do think it is a bit of an assumption for Sam to say that the teleological argument is based on the universe being designed for us when no such claim is necessary in order to make an argument from design.

I think the further we contemplate this argument out, the more we realise that there are things we cannot answer, not even the most intelligent or the most wise.

DigiGal

Jakkass wrote: »

Many people could give many different answers to that. I'm quite willing to say that I don't know what the universe is designed for exactly. I don't think I will ever know for sure.

I do think it is a bit of an assumption for Sam to say that the teleological argument is based on the universe being designed for us when no such claim is necessary in order to make an argument from design.

I think the further we contemplate this argument out, the more we realise that there are things we cannot answer, not even the most intelligent or the most wise.

i said something about that above
post 17152

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then what else is the universe designed for anyway? Why is all that space needed?

Philosophically speaking, questions such as this (and its partner about why would God take so long to get round to creating man) are nonsensical (in the true sense of the word as being devoid of any sense or meaning). They would only have meaning if God's lifespan or abilities were finite.

Why does all that space have to be 'needed' at all? An infinite God can make a space as big as He likes if He feels like it. An omnipotent God expends no more energy or bother creating a universe that is billions of light years wide than in making one the size of a postage stamp. It makes no difference to Him whether He decides to create something in the twinkling of an eye or over a period of 40 million years.

If we assume that God were pushed for time, or limited in how much space He could actually create, then economy becomes relevant and we may ask why take so long or why make something so big. But such assumptions presume that God is not omnipotent or infinite, and so, if used to argue against the Christian concept of God, produce arguments that are entirely circular.

DigiGal

Scientifically, all that space actually contains something, dark matter, various gases, radiation, asteroids. Its all very logical really, nothing in space is actually empty per say. We just cn't see it, its beyond our abilities

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

I do think it is a bit of an assumption for Sam to say that the teleological argument is based on the universe being designed for us when no such claim is necessary in order to make an argument from design.

Good point. If I were hacking my way through a jungle and suddenly stumbled across a stone obelisk covered in mysterious writing - then I would be justified in inferring that it had not occurred naturally but that someone or something had designed and created it.

The fact that it was not designed for me personally, or even that I hadn't a clue why it was there, would not be an argument against the conclusion that it was designed by someone or something.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Not everything has to have a functional point. Besides, I would argue we don't know what point everything has. We are only human, we have limited intellects amongst other things.

Without wanting to get into a debate, I'd like to point out that you've just done the same thing that I objected to Dr. Collins doing. You point to the things that appear to have order or be designed as evidence of God but when I point out that there are far more things that appear to have no order, design or purpose you say that humans are limited and we may never understand these things. It's called confirmation bias where you only see the evidence you want to see, the evidence that confirms your preconception, and ignore the rest. Anything that appears to support your case is evidence and anything that doesn't is "a mystery"


Compare this to Dr. Collins contradictory statements:

On the one hand we have this:
Dr. Collins has written that science makes belief in God “intensely plausible”

And on the other we have this:
Collins will say that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of his existence at all.

So no, I was not discriminating against Dr. Collins, I was pointing out that he is guilty of confirmation bias because of his beliefs.