An Open Challenge To Creationists

[ecco]

Reason is a process in a given brain. You can test if reason has a limit just like human mobility is limited.
It has been done and rationalism doesn't work. The universe doesn't have to be logic and reasonable, just because you believe in that.

The universe isn't anything because I or someone else believes it. The universe is what it is and, to the extent that we can, we accept that.

Is it part of your philosophical beliefs to arbitrarily exchange cause and effect?

The same way with evidence. That is a human behavior and just like mobility in has a limit.

Evidence is not a human behavior. Evidence is evidence. The evidence for the universe existed in the absence of humans for billions of years. If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, it does make a sound.

My God is nature. I am a naturalist, yet I know that is a belief. You just don't accept limits to science, reason and logic. In effect you believe as it seems that it is true, that the world is natural. It is not.

That is the most confusing statement in a long list of confusing statements. You stated you believe in Creationism. Creationism, by definition, requires an entity that created everything - The Creator.

The assertion "My God is nature" is senseless coming from someone who professes to be a Creationist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why would you ask me to explain "how is it philosophy and not science"? You're the one who believes it's philosophy.
...

And a scientist. The quote is from a scientist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The universe isn't anything because I or someone else believes it. The universe is what it is and, to the extent that we can, we accept that.
...

One part at a time. So people believing in witches and burning humans for being witches, is not a part of the universe?

 

[ecco]

One part at a time. So people believing in witches and burning humans for being witches, is not a part of the universe?

You have a bad habit of not addressing questions directed to you. Answer mine and, maybe I'll consider answering yours.

Mine: What evidence do you have for your Creator?

I've asked multiple times. Each time you've ducked and dodged.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have a bad habit of not addressing questions directed to you. Answer mine and, maybe I'll consider answering yours.

Mine: What evidence do you have for your Creator?

I've asked multiple times. Each time you've ducked and dodged.

I am questioning that your notion of that evidence works. In effect, I will show you that evidence are nothing but beliefs.
So I have beliefs and you have beliefs and none of us has evidence.

Do you understand? You don't decide what I do or if I accept that you have evidence. I don't. So of course, I don't accept that you ask for evidence, because I reject evidence being relevant for both of us.

Do you understand what I have wrote? I reject the notion of evidence being relevant in both cases. Both for evolution and creation.
If you understand, what I intent to do please state so, do otherwise or explain how evidence works.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ecco]

I am questioning that your notion of that evidence works. In effect, I will show you that evidence are nothing but beliefs.
So I have beliefs and you have beliefs and none of us has evidence.

Do you understand? You don't decide what I do or if I accept that you have evidence. I don't. So of course, I don't accept that you ask for evidence, because I reject evidence being relevant for both of us.

Do you understand what I have wrote? I reject the notion of evidence being relevant in both cases. Both for evolution and creation.
If you understand, what I intent to do please state so, do otherwise or explain how evidence works.

Regards
Mikkel

So, bottom line: You are a Creationist but can't support your belief with any evidence. OK. That puts you squarely into the group of All Creationists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, bottom line: You are a Creationist but can't support your belief with any evidence. OK. That puts you squarely into the group of All Creationists.

Neither can you for what reality really is. So we are equal in that neither of us can give evidence for what reality really is. That is the point.
It is not a special problem for religion. There is no evidence for the fact that the universe is natural and thus also for evolution. It is a general problem of the limit of evidence.

 

[ecco]

Neither can you for what reality really is. So we are equal in that neither of us can give evidence for what reality really is. That is the point.
It is not a special problem for religion. There is no evidence for the fact that the universe is natural and thus also for evolution. It is a general problem of the limit of evidence.

There's tons of evidence for the age of the earth and the universe unless you want to take the LastThursday scenario into account. You're not that silly.
There's tons of evidence for evolution unless you want to take the LastThursday scenario into account. You're not that silly.
But you can't even clearly describe what you mean by Creationism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There's tons of evidence for the age of the earth and the universe unless you want to take the LastThursday scenario into account. You're not that silly.
But you can't even clearly describe what you mean by Creationism.

"You're not that silly." You wait and see, I will start with.
The Simulation Argument
"This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed."

Don't take it as true. I am not saying it is true. I am going to ask you how do you know you are not inside a simulation?

Skepticism and Content Externalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"On Putnam’s version of the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis, the contents of the universe now and always have been relatively few. There have existed and now exist only brains in vats of nutrients and the supercomputers that send and receive messages to and from each brain. Putnam’s hypothesis assumes that each human (and each sentient creature) that exists or has ever existed is one of the brains in the vats. The supercomputers are so clever that their electronic interactions with the brains result in exact duplications of the mental lives and histories of each person whose brain is in a vat. Thus I, you, indeed we (all human beings) are brains in a vat on this hypothesis. Let us call a brain in a vat of this sort a ‘BIV’."

Are you a Boltzmann Brain? Why nothing in the Universe may be real

• Boltzmann Brains are hypothetical disembodied entities with self-awareness.
• It may be more likely for a Boltzmann Brain to come into existence than the whole Universe.
• The idea highlights a paradox in thermodynamics.

Now I am going to combine elements of these 3 into on one.
Imagine that you are in a Boltzmann Brain universe. Not as a Boltzmann Brain as such, but rather this universe consists of a supercomputer and power source and you are as you a program running on the computer and the rest of the universe as it appears to you is a simulation run by the computer.
So there is no screen on which you are reading this and the rest of the universe is not real as it appears to you.

How would you check? How would you test that? How do you know, that the universe beyond your experience of it is independently of your experience, as it appears to you?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ecco]

On further reflection, after reading your last post, it seems you really are that silly.


I guess that explains why you are a Creationist who cannot define his version of Creationism.

 

[ratiocinator]

How would you check? How would you test that? How do you know, that the universe beyond your experience of it is independently of your experience, as it appears to you?

You still banging on about this nonsense?

Who cares? We can only deal with "reality" (that which we can't escape) as it appears and if it isn't real, it might as well be. In that part of our experience that we cannot escape ("reality"), there is endless evidence for evolution and no evidence for any of the alternatives, or for any god(s).

Unless you can walk out of a tenth storey window unaided and float gracefully to the ground just because you have a different view about gravity to me, your "scepticism" and, any claim that scientific and religious views are similar, is utterly meaningless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You still banging on about this nonsense?

Who cares? We can only deal with "reality" (that which we can't escape) as it appears and if it isn't real, it might as well be. In that part of our experience that we cannot escape ("reality"), there is endless evidence for evolution and no evidence for any of the alternatives, or for any god(s).

Unless you can walk out of a tenth storey window unaided and float gracefully to the ground just because you have a different view about gravity to me, your "scepticism" and, any claim that scientific and religious views are similar, is utterly meaningless.

So you don't know what reality is and if someone believes differently, you pull the card of "real". The word "real" is no different that the word "god", it has no objective referent. You believe in real, I believe in God, yet we are different because of reasons, which are subjective. Yet there are not, because real is really real, because that is what you subjectively believe.
Could you be honest for once? You believe, just as I do.

We can agree on a reality, but that will be neutral and neither natural nor supernatural. You are not an objective authoritative source of a "we" and neither am I.

So you with "who cares" decide? Well, you are subjective, because because who cares, is subjective. So am I, I am just honest. I believe in God and apparently you won't admit that your post is your first personal subjective rationalization. You hide behind a "we" without objective authority. I admit I have none.

BTW I am dead. I have been so for 25+ years plus, since I doubted your example involving gravity. I know now that gravity is all of reality and all I do is standing on the edge of a cliff and I can't decide to jump or not.
I am tied of that example. Reality is not gravity. I don't fall for that trick, Reality is a part of reality. So do you spent all your time standing at the edge deciding to jump or not? It is a stupid argument.
You don't win anything with that argument, unless you can show that all of reality is nothing but science! You can't.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ratiocinator]

The word "real" is no different that the word "god", it has no objective referent.

Float out of a window for me, then...

You don't win anything with that argument, unless you can show that all of reality is nothing but science!

Non-sequitur. The argument stands regardless of whether "reality is nothing but science" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Float out of a window for me, then...
...

No, I can't. Now you show me an objective referent for real.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, I can't. Now you show me an objective referent for real.

The fact that we both agree that you can't float out of a window, and all similar claims, is what might as well be real (even if it isn't).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The fact that we both agree that you can't float out of a window, and all similar claims, is what might as well be real (even if it isn't).

Okay, now if you do, then stop claiming that reality is really natural or what ever for a "we". What we agree on is intersubjective and don't no only include the objectively real.
It is unknown whether there is a creator god or if reality is natural. All we know for what reality really is, is that people can believe what they want to believe and that includes both gods and that reality is natural. Agree?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ratiocinator]

Okay, now if you do, then stop claiming that reality is really natural or what ever for a "we".

I don't think I've ever claimed any absolute knowledge but the fact remains that what might as well be reality contains evidence for evolution and no evidence for any god(s).

It is unknown whether there is a creator god or if reality is natural.

Of course it's ultimately unknown, but there are thousands or notions of a "creator god" and literally no reason at all to take any of them seriously. Anybody can make up any fantasy version they want of what (if anything) actually is behind or beyond what might as well be reality but you can't put those fantasies in the same category as science and evidence based beliefs in things like evolution.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think I've ever claimed any absolute knowledge but the fact remains that what might as well be reality contains evidence for evolution and no evidence for any god(s).

Yes, conditional knowledge.

Of course it's ultimately unknown, but there are thousands or notions of a "creator god" and literally no reason at all to take any of them seriously. Anybody can make up any fantasy version they want of what (if anything) actually is behind or beyond what might as well be reality but you can't put those fantasies in the same category as science and evidence based beliefs in things like evolution.

That is the fun part - you don't use evidence. You use subjectivity; i.e. you can't put...
See, we always end as for the subjective understanding of what is real.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ratiocinator]

That is the fun part - you don't use evidence.

Nonsense. I - and everybody else, yourself included, otherwise you'd try to float out of windows - use evidence from what might as well be real to draw conclusions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nonsense. I - and everybody else, yourself included, otherwise you'd try to float out of windows - use evidence from what might as well be real to draw conclusions.

Yes, I know with evidence, that I can believe in God. Indeed it is real. The difference that your example is objective and mine is subjective, yet both are real. I can also use the word "real", it means that it works for me to believe so. It works for me to believe in the objective and the subjective. They are both real.
BTW any rule for what evidence is, is subjective. So don't claim that you own the word with a "we". Your "we" is not objective like e.g. gravity.

BTW I am a post-modern relativist or limited cognitive relativist. I know the difference between objective and subjective. And your world view is as subjective as mine. We are playing how to evaluate reality and the real.

Regards
Mikkel