Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[firedragon]

And I further have no recollection of your presenting a reasoned argument at such a time or any other, showing that supernatural things with objective existence could be found in reality

Yep. I never made that claim. That is why your request for me to present my evidence was a strawman.

Brahman is a proposition of an atheist. Not me.

 

[blü 2]

Yep. I never made that claim. That is why your request for me to present my evidence was a strawman.

Let me try to understand that.

Are you saying that you agree that the supernatural only exists as concepts / things imagined in individual brains?

Or are you saying that the supernatural can be found in reality, the world external to the self, and thus has objective existence?

Or are you saying something else about the manner in which the supernatural exists, in which case what, exactly?

 

[firedragon]

Are you saying that you agree that the supernatural only exists as concepts / things imagined in individual brains?

Irrelevant.

Or are you saying that the supernatural can be found in reality, the world external to the self, and thus has objective existence?

Or are you saying something else about the manner in which the supernatural exists, in which case what, exactly?

I think you are trying your best to create some kind of tu quoque so that your unsubstantiated claim that science has proven that all supernatural things are just imaginary.

Fallacious attempt in all respects.

 

[firedragon]

Let me try to understand that.

Are you saying that you agree that the supernatural only exists as concepts / things imagined in individual brains?

Or are you saying that the supernatural can be found in reality, the world external to the self, and thus has objective existence?

Or are you saying something else about the manner in which the supernatural exists, in which case what, exactly?

Actually this reminded me of Jordan Peterson - Cathey Newman interview.

 

[blü 2]

Irrelevant.

On the exact contrary, the question that precedes all others in the supernatural sphere ─ is the supernatural real, or wholly conceptual / imaginary?

I think you are trying your best to create some kind of tu quoque so that your unsubstantiated claim that science has proven that all supernatural things are just imaginary.

And I think your repeated cries of "irrelevant" are merely a tactic whereby you seek to avoid having to state, and thus defend, whatever it is that you actually think.

But that's you. Good luck and go well.

 

[Sheldon]

So far though, regardless of being godly or not, the first verses describes the big bang quite well.

What?!
Genesis does not remotely accurately describe the Big Bang! Moreover, some of the description is categorically wrong.
What you are experiencing is called "confirmation bias".

Genesis 1 is not a science handbook. It is a creation myth. There is no need to say taht it describes the Big Bang.

If you'd read the post he was responding to, which he quoted verbatim for clarity, you'd have seen the context was that someone claimed it did in fact "describe the big bang quite well". Which of course is errant nonsense, as is most of the Genesis creation myth.

 

[firedragon]

On the exact contrary, the question that precedes all others in the supernatural sphere ─ is the supernatural real, or wholly conceptual / imaginary?

Irrelevant to your claim. You are trying your best to create a caricature.

And I think your repeated cries of "irrelevant" are merely a tactic whereby you seek to avoid having to state, and thus defend, whatever it is that you actually think.

Not really. It was irrelevant from the beginning.

So where is the scientific evidence that anything supernatural is "imaginary" as you claimed? Provide a scientific paper please. Or make some other irrelevant "Are you saying" bogus question to avoid answering your own claim.

Go ahead.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If people lose all clarity of thought because they can’t hear a simple word without loading it with their own baggage, then I despair for the future of human discourse.

But that is exactly what happens when words loaded with baggage are used where the baggage doesn't apply, and it is precisely why those words are used. Creation and design are two, and they are chosen because for many, they imply a conscious creator and designer. First, the apologist pretends that these words imply no such thing if called on it, but then continue to argue as if there is conscious creator and designer. That's the plan. If we can get the skeptic to admit that there are designs in nature, by which I mean patterns, such as the form of a solar system, or the structure of a crystal, then you've got one God-foot in the door.

Look at the mess Einstein created when he used the word God to mean the unconscious principles of nature, as when he said that God doesn't play dice, he meant that the laws of physiocs were deterministic, and nothing about all of the other things that word implies.

We've got an active poster on RF who does that deliberately. He used the word God, and then later says he means the source of reality. If he can just get that word to be accepted by making it an place taker for whatever that is, conscious or otherwise, then the skeptic might be lulled into the bait-and-switch.

Science is simply mans understanding of his environment there is no conflict except for Genesis

Much of Exodus is in conflict with archaeology. There is insufficient evidence of an Egyptian captivity, a forty year trek through the desert, or the invasion and conquest of Canaan.

I see people are ready to throw it all out the door and call it evil because of Genesis.

Not evil, but wrong, which is significant in a document said to be of divine origin.

.Scripture does not answer science questions

Not today, except for literalists. But the Genesis creation story was a first pass at natural science. Unfortunately, because it was not empirical, it was just guessing, and science has shown that much of it is a wrong guess, and most of what actually happened was omitted. There is no reason to believe that those stories were taught as anything but literal. They were believed because they believed they came form a god, and there was nothing to contradict them but other creation stories from other cultures.

But now we know better, and here's one thing a believer never does in my experience - say that the scripture is wrong. That possibility is excluded a priori, and another answer must be given, one often using words like metaphor and allegory. No creation story is either of those (if you want to know why, all you need do is look at the definitions of those words to see why they don't apply here). They're all just wrong guesses.

I have no problem in believing things that can be proven, shown to be true. For example, we can test that things fall certain way, therefore it is ok to me. I have difficulties to believe claims that can't be proven, that are just opinions of people who are speaking in the name of science.

But you have be skilled in critical thinking to be able to tell when an argument is compelling. You have to be willing and able to evaluate evidence dispassionately, going to the sound conclusions that fallacy-free reasoning takes one, to decide if something has been adequately demonstrated to be correct. "Shown to be true" is a cooperative effort, and if the student can't do his part, he can't be shown much. This is why I often say that there is no burden of proof when making a claim to such a person, since he can't do his part, and therefore, "proof" is impossible.

If you could breed mouse to a mini whale, that would be good evidence for evolution theory.

No, it wouldn't. Evolution theory requires natural selection, not artificial selection.

It's probably the case that nothing would be evidence of evolution for you, so you can safely offer an impossible example and claim that that would be good evidence. We see this with the apologists challenging abiogenesis, who imply with their argument that since the program is incomplete, it's not very convincing, therefore God (ignorantium fallacy) that completing the program would serve as evidence for them for a naturalistic process. If only you had evidence. Of course it wouldn't. Nothing would. That's the nature of faith. It's impervious to evidence, and many of it's adherents, including two very prominent ones, are proud of that fact. They brag about their closed-mindedness as a point of pride:

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

• "The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, 'Nothing. I'm a Christian.' Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Try "proving" anything at all to either of these two. With what? Are you different from them?

We have only wishful thinking, no real scientific evidence.

You could have scientific evidence too. Others do.

Still irrelevant.

What's irrelevant (to the critical thinker) is a simple, unevidenced claim like yours. As Hitchen's noted, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it.

You should definitely tell that to your self rather than being so dogmatic you cannot see anything beyond your cultish type indoctrination.

Irrelevant. And unlike you, I'll explain why I say that. You've misused three words in that sentence. He is neither dogmatic (he's willing to make his case for you and to modify his position if you can give him a sound reason to), nor cultic (he demonstrates none of the characteristic features such as opposing critical thinking, demanding loyalty under threat of penalty, isolation, authoritarianism, etc..), nor indoctrination. Indoctrination is what happens in Sunday school (repetition until acceptance), not one's university evolution course (evidence and argument offered and evaluated).

That's what makes your comment irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the person you applied it to.

Do you see how different your drive-by style is from that? You make an unsupported claim, and then spend the rest of the thread making one or two word exclamations like "irrelevant" with no further substance, or "Not what I said" without bothering to repeat what you think you said, and similar substance-free posting. You are neither learning nor teaching.

 

[firedragon]

What's irrelevant (to the critical thinker) is a simple, unevidenced claim like yours. As Hitchen's noted, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it.

What claim?

 

[firedragon]

He is neither dogmatic (he's willing to make his case for you and to modify his position if you can give him a sound reason to), nor cultic (he demonstrates none of the

Okay. So can you prove with evidence that Nirguna Brahman exists?

 

[RestlessSoul]

But that is exactly what happens when words loaded with baggage are used where the baggage doesn't apply, and it is precisely why those words are used. Creation and design are two, and they are chosen because for many, they imply a conscious creator and designer. First, the apologist pretends that these words imply no such thing if called on it, but then continue to argue as if there is conscious creator and designer. That's the plan. If we can get the skeptic to admit that there are designs in nature, by which I mean patterns, such as the form of a solar system, or the structure of a crystal, then you've got one God-foot in the door.

Look at the mess Einstein created when he used the word God to mean the unconscious principles of nature, as when he said that God doesn't play dice, he meant that the laws of physiocs were deterministic, and nothing about all of the other things that word implies.

We've got an active poster on RF who does that deliberately. He used the word God, and then later says he means the source of reality. If he can just get that word to be accepted by making it an place taker for whatever that is, conscious or otherwise, then the skeptic might be lulled into the bait-and-switch.



.

So, it seems that creation, design, and , erm…, God, are three words you would like struck from the English language? Not going to happen imo.

What exactly is it you find so unacceptable about the suggestion that the universe may be the work of an underlying creative intelligence? Just venturing such a possibility, on a site called “religious forums” btw, draws an awful lot of ire from certain quarters, real vitriol in many cases. I’m genuinely trying to understand why this might be.

If I say that I believe our universe is far too miraculous a phenomenon to be the product of unguided happenstance, I’m not saying you should believe it; I’m happy to expand on why I believe it, and I’m happy to listen to the reasons why you don’t, but there is a subset of die hard atheists on this forum who will not extend that courtesy to anyone who deviates from their absolutist stance. Is this an American phenomenon, do you think? I know the USA is very divided (so is the U.K. right now, but on different lines), but the whole world needs more bridges and less walls between people imo, and that has to include people of diverse faiths, opinions and outlooks.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, it seems that creation, design, and , erm…, God, are three words you would like struck from the English language?

Really? That's what you got from my comment? I used all three words in my last post.

What exactly is it you find so unacceptable about the suggestion that the universe may be the work of an underlying creative intelligence?

Nothing. It may even be true. I just have no reason to believe it.

Just venturing such a possibility, on a site called “religious forums” btw, draws an awful lot of ire from certain quarters, real vitriol in many cases. I’m genuinely trying to understand why this might be.

I think you're seeing what you want to see. You're interpreting dissent as vitriol.

If I say that I believe our universe is far too miraculous a phenomenon to be the product of unguided happenstance, I’m not saying you should believe it; I’m happy to expand on why I believe it, and I’m happy to listen to the reasons why you don’t, but there is a subset of die hard atheists on this forum who will not extend that courtesy to anyone who deviates from their absolutist stance.

So what? I don't care. Why do you? Why do you think that's relevant? Why did you want to tell the thread that? (Rhetorical question).

 

[RestlessSoul]

Really? That's what you got from my comment? I used all three words in my last post.



Nothing. It may even be true. I just have no reason to believe it.



I think you're seeing what you want to see. You're interpreting dissent as vitriol.



So what? I don't care. Why do you? Why do you think that's relevant? Why did you want to tell the thread that? (Rhetorical question).

Okay. So you’re just here to proselytise then? To refute and repeat, endlessly, and you aren’t interested in communication? Is that it, or did I miss something?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Okay. So you’re just here to proselytise then? To refute and repeat, endlessly, and you aren’t interested in communication? Is that it, or did I miss something?

Are you just looking to fight? Try somewhere else.

Yes, you missed something. Refuting is communicating, and not proselytizing. What did you think I was trying to sell you?

 

[blü 2]

So where is the scientific evidence that anything supernatural is "imaginary" as you claimed?

I weary of your dishonest games.

As we established earlier, you don't even know what you mean when you say 'science'.

Let alone 'god', 'supernatural', and so on.

Happy trails.

 

[firedragon]

I weary of your dishonest games.

The usual ad hominem which you think is a super duper argument.

As we established earlier, you don't even know what you mean when you say 'science'.

You can repeat this same lie a hundred time. Maybe it might work on TV. Maybe that's the kind of propaganda tactic you are used to, but its not true and will never become true. I never said that. So you can repeat the same untruth. Go ahead.

 

[blü 2]

The usual ad hominem which you think is a super duper argument.

Goodness! Although you've been told twice, you still don't know what an ad hominem is.

No wonder you don't know the meaning of 'science'.

Come to think of it, you seem to have a general aversion to clear definitions ─ part of your dislike of thinking clearly?

Anyway, live long and prosper and (if the net doesn't suffice) why not buy a dictionary?

 

[blü 2]

The usual ad hominem which you think is a super duper argument.



You can repeat this same lie a hundred time. Maybe it might work on TV. Maybe that's the kind of propaganda tactic you are used to, but its not true and will never become true. I never said that. So you can repeat the same untruth. Go ahead.

Have a lovely day.

 

[firedragon]

Goodness! Although you've been told twice, you still don't know what an ad hominem is.

Again, that's a wish. You just wish others are stupid so you keep saying "you dont know" hoping that comes true.

 

[firedragon]

Have a lovely day.

You too.